Hi Mike,
The National Portrait Gallery embed half a dozen IPTC fields concerned with
title, caption, 'instructions', copyright etc into all the images for their
online collection (but not images published through the CMS), on top of
whatever data comes from the image production chain.
We implemented this six+ years ago, and I don't know whether there's ever been
evidence about how useful it is. But (once there's an automated pipeline
anyway) I don't think it adds much effort to the process, and I think it comes
into the category of why wouldn't you do this? (Obviously, I don't speak for
the NPG.)
(On a related topic - there's an excellent extension for Firefox, "FxIF",
which (in spite of the name) puts the IPTC data of any image a right-click
away. On Chrome I've only been able to find extensions which read the EXIF
data, nothing that reports IPTC data - does anyone have a recommendation?)
Ben
On 04/06/2015 10:33, Mike Ellis wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Does anyone bother embedding museumy IPTC / EXIF data into (collections)
> images as part of their digitisation workflow?
>
> If so, why? I'd suspect that a "so that people knew where the image came from"
> reason may be one - but in reality do people actually _know_ about this data
> in order to get back to the source organisation? Or are tools like Google
> "upload an image" search or TinEye actually more used?
>
> Also - given that there is evidence that almost all social media sites strip
> out some or all of this data, is it still worthwhile?
> (http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/socialmedia/)
>
> cheers!
>
> Mike
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|