Working with strathglass on the old procedure interchanging photo metadata between Picasa and RM5 via the image file, I've confirmed that they still apply to RM 7.6.3. But with Picasa no longer marketed and supported, the question of interchange with other content manager software for photos is appropriate. And digging into the old procedures and online resources about photo metadata has reminded me how complex a rabbits' warren it is with multiple standards (IPTC, EXIF, XMP, ...) partially and inconsistently supported across multiple products. Given that RM7 has four properties it allows the user to define for each image file, to what photo metadata tags should these be mapped? And vice-versa?
- Reference No.
An approach is to choose one photo metadata standard that has a distinct field for each of these - I'm not sure there is one, and, if there is, is it the only one? Another is to choose one metadata tag and map each RM field to a section of a conactenated string separated by some code (similar to TMG's Memo field which had up to 10 sub-fields, separated by "||").
That decision is complicated by what metadata is visible and preserved by various systems. A report several years ago showed that Microsoft's SkyDrive and Windows Live Photo Gallery corrupted or lost chunks of metadata if a piece had previously been added by a specific software (Photo Supreme) whose output was perfectly compliant with the standards. Windows 10 File Explorer shows but a tiny chunk of a few metadata tags. You would not want to read a paragraph in its Title or any field, let alone edit it. IrfanView supports longer form text in its IPTC viewer/editor but its EXIF support is read-only. Perhaps it is the software chosen for viewing/managing embedded metadata that dictates the relationship between RM's Media Gallery media properties and the embedded metadata but consideration must also be given to the paths an image file may traverse.
There is probably a question about which software should be the master for metadata, given that it may be confusing and risky to have metadata being transferred in both directions (think TreeShare as an analogy).
If this sounds confusing, it is because embedded metadata is not unified having been developed in different branches for different camera manufacturers and other products or for different purposes and end-uses.
Any insights much appreciated.