A Bogus ID in Keywords

[Ed Rooney]

Looking around in Alamy just now, I came across an image taken in Paris of a woman walking briskly with the Eiffel Tower in the background. The caption says, "Hispanic woman walking in front of the Eiffel Tower," something like that. She is also identified as being Hispanic in the keywords. 

 

I live in NYC and I see many Hispanic people everyday. Looking at this image, there is no way to identify the woman's ethnic background specifically . . . it's a wide-angle shot. I'm wondering if there is any good reason for identifying the woman as Hispanic -- that would seem to limit the search in a bad way.  Am I missing something here?  This image is just one example; I'm interested in this approach to key wording that I don't understand. 

 

Thanks, Ed

[Bryan]

Not sure why it should limit the search Ed. Anyone searching for Eiffel Tower and woman or person would presumably find it? 

 

I guess that the photographer knew that the woman was of Hispanic origin, so included that information. 

 

It might limit the take up of the image if the searcher was specifically looking for someone on non Hispanic origins, but they would, presumably, have specified the type of person required in their search.

 

Maybe I have misunderstood your question?

[Guest]

Looking around in Alamy just now, I came across an image taken in Paris of a woman walking briskly with the Eiffel Tower in the background. The caption says, "Hispanic woman walking in front of the Eiffel Tower," something like that. She is also identified as being Hispanic in the keywords. 

 

I live in NYC and I see many Hispanic people everyday. Looking at this image, there is no way to identify the woman's ethnic background specifically . . . it's a wide-angle shot. I'm wondering if there is any good reason for identifying the woman as Hispanic -- that would seem to limit the search in a bad way.  Am I missing something here?  This image is just one example; I'm interested in this approach to key wording that I don't understand. 

 

Thanks, Ed

 

Edo,

 

I assume you mean the Blend image, part of a series. Yes, you are missing that ethnicities are under-represented in stock and so keywording images with correct ethnicity (if we are talking about the same MR shots) greatly adds to the value of the image.

[Ed Rooney]

Yes, Geoff, that is the image I'm referring to. In many of the other images in that collection I can see how including "Hispanic" would be valid . . . but not with the shot I pointed out.  In my own keywording I try not to include all remotely related words. That is I take a minimalist approach.  In fact it was you who influenced me to do that.  Of course every subject must be evaluated on its own terms. 

[Guest]

Yes, Geoff, that is the image I'm referring to. In many of the other images in that collection I can see how including "Hispanic" would be valid . . . but not with the shot I pointed out.  In my own keywording I try not to include all remotely related words. That is I take a minimalist approach.  In fact it was you who influenced me to do that.  Of course every subject must be evaluated on its own terms. 

 

Edo,

 

Any MR shot would have the ethnicity and they would all be valid. Regardless of how distant and 'recognisable' the subject, a client will use an ethnicity as a filter, especially when looking for specific useage. In that example, a company that is aiming  a product at Hispanics, say a finance company, would want to feature ethnicity even when a small part of a gv.

 

You also have to remember that image was keyworded for the majors plus the other channels, I'm pretty sure Alamy gets the usual set of kws from Blend. However, even allowing for not having an Alamy specific set (AFAIK - I cannot see my own Blend images kws), the ethnicity would be an essential kw.

[Ed Rooney]

"Any MR shot would have the ethnicity and they would all be valid. Regardless of how distant and 'recognizable' the subject, a client will use an ethnicity as a filter, especially when looking for specific usage." -- Geoff

 

Nope, that's not valid. That's keyword spamming. Using that approach I could also put Asian, Negro, Irish, Polish, Ukrainian and every other ethnic ground in my keywords in order to have the image  come up in a search. Should I believe that the buyer will assume I have correct information that is not obvious to the naked eye? I don't think so. 

 

P.S.  Taking a closer look at this image, I see that it's RF with a model release and part of a shoot on the woman done that day: CEDG5R

 

Under those circumstances I too would have put Hispanic in the keywords. 

[MDM]

I am always amazed at the ethnic category "Hispanic". It's a very American thing as is "Caucasian". These terms are very uncommon this side of the Atlantic. The basic implication is brown skinned, black haired southern European as against pale skinned northern European, a classification which is often very far off the mark in terms of identifying ethnic origin on the basis of appearance alone.

 

Firstly, Many Spanish people are light skinned and don't have black hair (there is even the odd ginger one ) and many northern Europeans are dark-haired with sallow skin. Secondly, even taking the classic Hispanic look, it would be impossible to distinguish a Spaniard from many other southern Europeans  (e.g. Greeks, Portuguese and Italians), French and even many people of Arabic origin. 

 

Surely, unless the ethnic origin is very clear from other aspects of an image besides skin colour and complexion, then a purely descriptive approach would be better. In the case of the picure in question, the ethnic origin of the woman would appear to be entirely irrelevant or even misleading, as she doesn't appear to look anything like classic Hispanic. 

[John Mitchell]

I am always amazed at the ethnic category "Hispanic". It's a very American thing as is "Caucasian". These terms are very uncommon this side of the Atlantic. The basic implication is brown skinned, black haired southern European as against pale skinned northern European, a classification which is often very far off the mark in terms of identifying ethnic origin on the basis of appearance alone.

 

Firstly, Many Spanish people are light skinned and don't have black hair (there is even the odd ginger one ) and many northern Europeans are dark-haired with sallow skin. Secondly, even taking the classic Hispanic look, it would be impossible to distinguish a Spaniard from many other southern Europeans  (e.g. Greeks, Portuguese and Italians), French and even many people of Arabic origin. 

 

Surely, unless the ethnic origin is very clear from other aspects of an image besides skin colour and complexion, then a purely descriptive approach would be better. In the case of the picure in question, the ethnic origin of the woman would appear to be entirely irrelevant or even misleading, as she doesn't appear to look anything like classic Hispanic. 

"Hispanic" is rarely used in Canada as well. I always associate this term with the US, where -- along with "Latino" -- it usually refers to someone of Latin American origin who lives in the USA. Consequently, I seldom use "Hispanic" in my keywords, preferring "Latin American," "Mexican," "Guatemalan, etc. to describe people whom I photograph in Latin America.

[Ed Rooney]

". . . coming originally from an area where Spanish is spoken and especially from Latin America; also : of or relating to Hispanic people."

 

1 :  of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal

 

2 :  of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States; especially :  one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin

 

      -- Merriam-Webster

 

"Hispanic" has replaced "Latino" in the USA as the accepted term one hears, and we hear it a lot because immigration and undocumented persons are hot button issues. In NYC we have a large Hispanic population, mostly from the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Puerto Rico. I am aware of the difference of attitudes in Europe and the USA . . . I lived in Europe for 16 years. 

 

But here I am referring to terms used in keywording. This forum is not a place to solve the problems of the world's politics. 

[MDM]

But here I am referring to terms used in keywording. This forum is not a place to solve the problems of the world's politics. 

I agree Ed. Nothing political intended. I was just trying to point out that the term Hispanic is often fundamentally meaningless in terms of identifying ethnic origin or nationality based on face and hair alone. As is Caucasian. I know many southern Europeans who appear Caucasian and many northern Europeans who look Hispanic in the general meaning of those terms. So why use them for keywording? More specific terms such as black hair and brown eyes or blonde hair and blue eyes would make a lot more sense I think. But who am I to say? Hardly any of my pictures have people in them anyway?

[John Mitchell]

I don't do politics, just keywords.

[Ed Rooney]

No, MDM, I wasn't accusing you, of being . . . political.   You were trying to clarify the use of the term Hispanic and I was too.  And I'm sure that John was adding information about the Western Canadian view.  The term Hispanic attempts to be all-inclusive, but it falls short. Any one term falls short. I mean Spanish is one of the official languages of the Philippines and they're Asian. Or I think they're Asian. 

 

Anyway, as I said in Post #6, I now see the shooter's point in using Hispanic in the keywords. In NYC, the great melting pot that it is, I'm hesitant to assume I know the ethnic ID of strangers on the street. They say there are as many as 800 languages spoken in this city. The mind boggles. 

[MDM]

 I mean Spanish is one of the official languages of the Philippines and they're Asian. Or I think they're Asian. 

 

An amazing place from what I see and hear and a place I hope to get to some day - amazing volcanic landscapes being the main attraction for me. I believe It used to be a Spanish colony until Spain had a war with the USA. Oh no I'm straying towards politics here - time to stop - have a good Christmas Ed.

[Russell Watkins]

As a point of related information, "Caucasian" isn't specific to "white-skinned" either.

 

Those peoples with darker, even brown skin from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Middle Asia and the Indian Sub-Continent are also anthropologically "Caucasian". 

 

(The other three "races" are Mongoloid, Negroid and Australioid although the latter is often categorised as being part of the Negroid group. The Mongo group includes Native Americans and Eskimos).

 

The upshot is that "Hispanics" are in fact, "Caucasians". As usual with the English Language though, common (mis-) usage means that "Caucasian" has mutated to almost become the de facto synonym for "white-skinned".

[MDM]

As a point of related information, "Caucasian" isn't specific to "white-skinned" either.

 

Those peoples with darker, even brown skin from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Middle Asia and the Indian Sub-Continent are also anthropologically "Caucasian". 

 

(The other three "races" are Mongoloid, Negroid and Australioid although the latter is often categorised as being part of the Negroid group. The Mongo group includes Native Americans and Eskimos).

 

The upshot is that "Hispanics" are in fact, "Caucasians". As usual with the English Language though, common (mis-) usage means that "Caucasian" has mutated to almost become the de facto synonym for "white-skinned".

 

Moreover, last time I looked ( a few years ago), the genetic evidence appears to indicate that Atlantic people (so-called Celts for want of a better description and various Iberians and Bretons as well) have never been anywhere near the Caucasus but ingressed into north-western Europe along the the Atlantic seaboard after the Ice Age. It was also considered doubtful that the Nordics and Germanics have spread westwards from central Asia although that may be more feasible. I think the geneticists regard the term Caucasian as quite meaningless but it does seem to have stuck in the US. 

[Ed Rooney]

"I think the geneticists regard the term Caucasian as quite meaningless but it does seem to have stuck in the US." -- MDM

 

Conversationally we do not say Caucasian in the States. We say "White." We also say Hispanic, Black or African American, Asian, Native American, etc. What people say in each and every other area of this country I know not. This doesn't come up often for me when shooting or key wording because any group of strangers on a New York street is likely to contain most or all ethnic groups. The image I originally posted about is from a model shoot with one young woman. I will be looking at my own images to see if I need to make some keyword changes . . . but I do this all the time. 

 

Ed

[Guest]

For all the debate about Hispanic, if you actually look at the Getty MR (it's the template for the Blend one Les would have used) - Hispanic is the general term (Hispanic/latin). You could add additional nationality/ethnicity but the prevailing client use will mirror the terms used in the commercial releases. So the term used is the one which most probably would be used in a filter on a major - Corbis for example only filter by half a dozen ethnicities.... keywording may sub-divide further but that's how the important agencies filter.

So we have a correctly annotated image, the reason it does matter is that it's a commercial image aimed at clients who want released imagery. I've yet to see briefs talking about skin colour as filters. If that was how clients worked then that would be how these images are keyworded - they don't guess on this, they have lots more information to hand than any of us. My mixed race shots with Blend don't mention skin tone but will mention hair colour/style. The latter is an obvious filter as is 'bald' in a man.

As for the original image and how much of the person's 'ethnicity' you can see.....that completely misses the point. If a client is targetting a certain ethnic market, they will need to be able to see all images suitable for that market. They can then further filter for the visuals. Commercial work is based much more around what businesses want than editorial, it's looking to serve clients that work with trending data, with target markets. It's not limiting their saleability but quite the opposite. You can do that with model released work, you might not be able to do that with 'guess the ethnicity' in a street shot.

[MDM]

I hear caucasian as a description in the New York cop shows  (e.g. Law and Order) to describe victims or suspects and yes it doesn't appear to crop up in general conversation. But it does seem to be frequently used in Alamy captions and keywords which is what I do find a little strange as it would not be normally used here. The term white as used in the US seems to preclude brown hispanic, whereas in the Europe, brown-skinned southern Europeans (Mediterranean appearance is an alternative) would be considered white, just a tanned variety with dark hair. This can be very confusing as many attempts at classifications of all sorts of things are. The purpose of classifications is to simplify description but they are often misleading.

[MDM]

For all the debate about Hispanic, if you actually look at the Getty MR (it's the template for the Blend one Les would have used) - Hispanic is the general term (Hispanic/latin). You could add additional nationality/ethnicity but the prevailing client use will mirror the terms used in the commercial releases. So the term used is the one which most probably would be used in a filter on a major - Corbis for example only filter by half a dozen ethnicities.... keywording may sub-divide further but that's how the important agencies filter.

 

So we have a correctly annotated image, the reason it does matter is that it's a commercial image aimed at clients who want released imagery. I've yet to see briefs talking about skin colour as filters. If that was how clients worked then that would be how these images are keyworded - they don't guess on this, they have lots more information to hand than any of us. My mixed race shots with Blend don't mention skin tone but will mention hair colour/style. The latter is an obvious filter as is 'bald' in a man.

As for the original image and how much of the person's 'ethnicity' you can see.....that completely misses the point. If a client is targetting a certain ethnic market, they will need to be able to see all images suitable for that market. They can then further filter for the visuals. Commercial work is based much more around what businesses want than editorial, it's looking to serve clients that work with trending data, with target markets. It's not limiting their saleability but quite the opposite. You can do that with model released work, you might not be able to do that with 'guess the ethnicity' in a street shot.

Interesting and accepted. I was thinking purely from the point of view of what I could see in the picture and that did descriptor did not make a lot fo sense to me on the original image - I could see nothing that indicated Hispanic even in the loosest sense about the model. Purely academic from me in any case as almost all of my pictures are WOP (Alamese for without people) except for the occasional unidentifiable blob.

[Russell Watkins]

...almost all of my pictures are WOP...

 

 

Oh, the irony...

[MDM]

 

 

Oh, the irony...

Let's call it objectivity. Actually ethnic categorisations are quite a fascinating subject - unscientific and vague for the most part and almost impossible to agree on.  Good Christmas forum fodder.

[John Mitchell]

This is a bit of an aside, but it shows how strange and complicated this type of thing can get. In Canada, it is considered politically incorrect to call an indigenous person an "Indian," as is often done in the USA. The official term is "First Nations." Two other acceptable labels are "native" and "aboriginal."  Ironically, I've never met a First Nations person who doesn't call him or herself an "Indian." We also have a "Department of Indian Affairs." The phrase "Native American" is never used. After all, isn't everyone living in the Americas an "American"?

 

P.S. I tend to include all of the above adjectives in my politically ambiguous keywords.

[MDM]

After all, isn't everyone living in the Americas an "American"?

 

 

 

I thought that too and that I was safe using the generic term American to include Canadian - it means one doesn't have to try to distinguish a Canadian accent when guessing where a generic American might come from. But I was told by a Vancouver native a little while back that this was incorrect and that Canadians do not like to be called Americans. 

[John Mitchell]

 

After all, isn't everyone living in the Americas an "American"?

 

 

 

I thought that too and that I was safe using the generic term American to include Canadian - it means one doesn't have to try to distinguish a Canadian accent when guessing where a generic American might come from. But I was told by a Vancouver native a little while back that this was incorrect and that Canadians do not like to be called Americans. 

 

Yes, Canadians don't like being called Americans, even if we are joined at the hip. I have a feeling that Americans don't like being called Canadians either. However, in Latin American countries, it is quite different. Most people I've met in Latin America consider themselves to be "Americans" in the larger sense of the word -- i.e. citizens of the Americas.

[MDM]

This is a bit of an aside, but it shows how strange and complicated this type of thing can get. In Canada, it is considered politically incorrect to call an indigenous person an "Indian," as is often done in the USA.   Ironically, I've never met a First Nations person who doesn't call him or herself an "Indian." 

 

Most people I've met in Latin America consider themselves to be "Americans" in the larger sense of the word -- i.e. citizens of the Americas.

That's another thing. If you belong to an ethnic minority, you can use a term which is generally considered derogatory to describe yourself but it is taboo for others to use the term. There are many examples of this. 

 

On the second point,I have found that is true - Chileans consider themselves to be American in the broadest sense - gringos (I love that word) are often distinguished as Norte Americanos (even if they're European).