Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Do other members have issues, like me, with the Manage Images Interface? Specifically:

 

• Thumbnails that are tiny, square and therefore distorted. I find it difficult to choose an image to double click if I need to do so. Even 96 thumbs occupy a small fraction of my monitor area.

• The size of the keyword windows- disproportionate to the max number of characters allowed, thus I need to scroll though a set to see them all (in the Comprehensive window). Make Main smaller and Comprehensive larger.

• Add an 'Import suggestions from Previous' button. In addition to the batching option.

 

The current version certainly makes the keywording process more awkward and time consuming than it needs to be.

 

Member Services implies that if there are enough like-minded contributors, maybe something will get done on this file. 

 

Cheers, Don

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Manage Images function needs a significant overhaul, including:

  • HTML, not Flash based, so that it is available for use on the iPad;
  • text drag and drop;
  • ctrl-z undo
  • larger or (preferably) resizeable thumbnails;
  • thumbnails, if still square, to include the whole image;
  • ability to have two or more edit windows open at the same time, particularly to drag and drop keywords between them with the relevant windows remaining open;
  • ability to re-order thumbnails by dragging.  So often, I upload images with similar (but not necessarily identical) keywording requirements with similar names and consecutive numbering, in the hope that their thumbnails will be kept together in Manage images, making it easier to move from one to the next without having to jump across multiple intervening different images. More often than not my hoped-for order is not maintained and what should be contiguous batches of thumbnails end up separated, on what seems to me to be a fairly random basis (at least, if there is any logic to the order in which thumbnails appear compared to the uploaded filename order, I have not been able to discern it).  It is often not efficient to use the batch function, unless the requirements for each image are completely identical.
  • zoomable thumbnails (so that, in particular, it is possible to double-check the number of people from within Manage Images, rather than having to go back to the local version, open and zoom that one).

I would also like to be able to pre-populate the fields locally, in metadata before the image is uploaded, using whatever batch facilities my local software may have, to save time working in Manage Images.  It would save so much time if it was not necessary to cut keywords out of the Comprehensive keywords field and distribute them between Essential keywaods and main keywords.

 

Manage images feels very dated.  It is horrible to use.  Every time a batch of images passes QC, my pleasure at seing the pass is immediately replaced by the sinking feeling that I then have to deal with the keywording.  It is a waste of my time, and if (as so often happens) I lose the will to live and do not finish keywording an entire batch all at once so that this is spread over several days, both Alamy as the agent and I as the photographer are disadvantaged by the delay in the images becoming available to clients.

 

If Member Services is indicating that changes may be made if there is sufficient support, this certainly gets my vote - and I would encourage others, "vote early, vote often"!

 

Graham

Edited by Graham
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But shouldn't this be posted in the Alamy suggestions area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the feeling, the pleasure that it passed and the dread of having to rework the keywords again even though you already did most of it offline! Especially as Alamy is different from everybody else and is not using the IPTC standard. :(

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that if I keyword ahead of time and put the keywords that will go into the essential field at the end, it is pretty fast to cut and paste the keywords. It would be nice if everything could be keyworded into the proper field through IPTC.

 

Keywording is a chore no matter if you do it first or after uploading, but the one advantage of doing it first is I have the full image in PS to look at instead of the smaller one in Manage Images. 

 

It certainly could use an overhaul.. A larger image to me would be the biggest benefit, or at least a choice on how large you want the image to be while you are keywording. And the keywording to show up in the proper fields to save a little time on cut and paste..

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bigger, sizable edit panel for the current image with a bigger, zoomable preview would really help. I do mine on a 24in monitor, 1920 x 1200 pixels and the box is tiny and wastes 80% of my monitor.

 

But sticking to the industry standard IPTC fields would be the biggest improvement. We could then use our favourite offline tools to do our keywording.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you know why I continue to use the old Manage Images.  I just like it better, and because I continue to use it, it is still available to me.  Apparently, if one did not use it on a fairly regular basis, one lost it.

 

Pretty bad when the old version is better than the new.  Of course, the new has the batch feature, but since I keyword before uploading, that isn't useful for me.  I would imagine there are aspects of the batch that I could use, but I've been scared to death that if I tried to add something to several images through batch, I'd lose all the keywords I already had imputed.  I've just never understood batch very well.

 

Not understanding batch well, I suggest this...allow all keywords already assigned remain if one drags a bunch of images into it, yet you want to change or add a keyword or two, without having to start over.  For instance, if I only have my location in the location field, but decide it is more important to the image and want to add my location to the main body of keywords, I should be able to do that.  Maybe I have 10 images of different things that have whole sets of different keywords, but all were taken in a particular city.  I want to add that location to the main body of keywords.  I should be able to drag those 10 images into batch and add that location without losing all the previously assigned keywords.

 

If that is possible, let me know?  I've been afraid to try it, for fear I would have to re-keyword each image again.

 

Betty

Edited by Betty LaRue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IPTC fields would be my vote. Splitting keywords into essential and non essential seems to be a redundancy. Better to let the customer decide and refine the search algorithm accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IPTC fields would be my vote. Splitting keywords into essential and non essential seems to be a redundancy. Better to let the customer decide and refine the search algorithm accordingly.

 

Yes, just use the order and proximity of keywords to determine search result priority order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of good suggestions, especially regarding better thumbnails. However, I'm happy to keep soldiering on with the current Manage Images if it means Alamy will keep the present 50/50 split. I'd rather a little inconvenience than having to give up more of the pie to fund expensive (I assume) software upgrades, which no doubt would have their own annoying little flaws.

 

I do most keywording in Photo Mechanic before uploading and order the keywords with Alamy in mind -- i.e. essential first, main second, comprehensive (if any) last. This makes cutting and pasting them into the appropriate boxes easier. While keywording, I keep PS Elements open in the background with my current submission visible so that I can flip and back and forth to check for number of people, logos, etc. It's a bit awkward but it works.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually John I don't think the software update would need to be that expensive especially when compared with maintaining one's own.

 

There are seriously good open source search engines available that are more spohisticated than Alamy's search appears to be. I believe there are free text search engines that will handle stemming, phrases, sound-like etc - pretty much on a par with Google's. Indeed Google even offers its search engine for inclusion on corporate systems and web sites. Next week when I am at a software house clients I will ask - I know they use open source search software on their clients' business systems. Managing the implementation of large scale (typically £250+million projects) business systems and technology was my business for many years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually John I don't think the software update would need to be that expensive especially when compared with maintaining one's own.

 

There are seriously good open source search engines available that are more spohisticated than Alamy's search appears to be. I believe there are free text search engines that will handle stemming, phrases, sound-like etc - pretty much on a par with Google's. Indeed Google even offers its search engine for inclusion on corporate systems and web sites. Next week when I am at a software house clients I will ask - I know they use open source search software on their clients' business systems. Managing the implementation of large scale (typically £250+million projects) business systems and technology was my business for many years

 

Sounds interesting. I know virtually nothing about this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually John I don't think the software update would need to be that expensive especially when compared with maintaining one's own.

 

There are seriously good open source search engines available that are more spohisticated than Alamy's search appears to be. I believe there are free text search engines that will handle stemming, phrases, sound-like etc - pretty much on a par with Google's. Indeed Google even offers its search engine for inclusion on corporate systems and web sites. Next week when I am at a software house clients I will ask - I know they use open source search software on their clients' business systems. Managing the implementation of large scale (typically £250+million projects) business systems and technology was my business for many years

 

Sounds interesting. I know virtually nothing about this stuff.

 

 

Martin, don't listen to him -- I know less than he does!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually John I don't think the software update would need to be that expensive especially when compared with maintaining one's own.

 

There are seriously good open source search engines available that are more spohisticated than Alamy's search appears to be. I believe there are free text search engines that will handle stemming, phrases, sound-like etc - pretty much on a par with Google's. Indeed Google even offers its search engine for inclusion on corporate systems and web sites. Next week when I am at a software house clients I will ask - I know they use open source search software on their clients' business systems. Managing the implementation of large scale (typically £250+million projects) business systems and technology was my business for many years

 

Sounds interesting. I know virtually nothing about this stuff.

 

 

Martin, don't listen to him -- I know less than he does!

 

 

It means I probably know more about that stuff than photography even though I was a full time sports shooter before I started my IT career - much more profitable. Mind I am very quickly getting left behind with the heavyweight technology. Do I care? Nah!

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Actually John I don't think the software update would need to be that expensive especially when compared with maintaining one's own.

 

There are seriously good open source search engines available that are more spohisticated than Alamy's search appears to be. I believe there are free text search engines that will handle stemming, phrases, sound-like etc - pretty much on a par with Google's. Indeed Google even offers its search engine for inclusion on corporate systems and web sites. Next week when I am at a software house clients I will ask - I know they use open source search software on their clients' business systems. Managing the implementation of large scale (typically £250+million projects) business systems and technology was my business for many years

 

Sounds interesting. I know virtually nothing about this stuff.

 

 

Martin, don't listen to him -- I know less than he does!

 

 

It means I probably know more about that stuff than photography even though I was a full time sports shooter before I started my IT career - much more profitable. Mind I am very quickly getting left behind with the heavyweight technology. Do I care? Nah!

 

 

I've gotten so used to cobbling together my own way of doing things and working around flaws and omissions that I've stopped paying much (or enough) attention to software upgrades. Having said that, I just had to add a single keyword to a series of images that I recently uploaded to Alamy and ended up using the old version of Manage Images, where it's easier to make amendments. Now that (ability to batch amend keywords) would be a very useful and time-saving feature to include in the next version.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the party as usual, been key wording!

 

One change I would like to see would be the ability to batch edit  a section without deleting all that is already there, maybe to add or delete or edit one word etc.

 

Larger images would also be helpful, as, at present, I have to open the files in LR or Windows Libraries to see how many people are in there. I appreciate that there are concerns about image theft, but, as has been suggested, a zoom facility might get around that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the party as usual, been key wording!

 

One change I would like to see would be the ability to batch edit  a section without deleting all that is already there, maybe to add or delete or edit one word etc.

 

Larger images would also be helpful, as, at present, I have to open the files in LR or Windows Libraries to see how many people are in there. I appreciate that there are concerns about image theft, but, as has been suggested, a zoom facility might get around that.

 

Those are the two changes that I was referring to. More proof that great minds complain alike. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Graham

 

I also vote for a version that can be used on a tablet, ability to zoom images to verify the number of people, the ability to use the backspace key without changing tabs, plus all the other suggestions mentioned previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the party as usual, been key wording!

 

One change I would like to see would be the ability to batch edit  a section without deleting all that is already there, maybe to add or delete or edit one word etc.

 

Larger images would also be helpful, as, at present, I have to open the files in LR or Windows Libraries to see how many people are in there. I appreciate that there are concerns about image theft, but, as has been suggested, a zoom facility might get around that.

I agree with these points and others, the interface is a PITA, even Flickr is better for managing images. In fact it is very similar but a much improved version of the Alamy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+ color management (if you have set your browser up as color managed).

+ make it work with a pen.

(+ 20 or so other gripes)

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the party as usual, been key wording!

 

One change I would like to see would be the ability to batch edit  a section without deleting all that is already there, maybe to add or delete or edit one word etc.

 

Larger images would also be helpful, as, at present, I have to open the files in LR or Windows Libraries to see how many people are in there. I appreciate that there are concerns about image theft, but, as has been suggested, a zoom facility might get around that.

+1. Aperture let's you batch append fields without wiping out existing keywords, etc. How hard could this be to add to M.I.? Unfortunately, Aperture is going the way of the dodo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

+1. Aperture let's you batch append fields without wiping out existing keywords, etc. How hard could this be to add to M.I.? Unfortunately, Aperture is going the way of the dodo....

 

So does PhotoMechanic my (and most press photorgraphers') preferred metadata tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do most keywording in Photo Mechanic before uploading and order the keywords with Alamy in mind -- i.e. essential first, main second, comprehensive (if any) last. This makes cutting and pasting them into the appropriate boxes easier.

Yes, this would be a sensible way way to proceed, making cut and paste into the relevant Alamy fields reasonably straightforward (although still tedious, as it would still have to be done for every image individually).  Unfortunately, I use Lightroom to keyword and export my files for upload to Alamy.  A major failing of Lightroom keywording is that it exports keywords in alphabetical order - it is not possible to maintain a custom keyword order.  Maybe in the next version, who knows, but for the time being it is not possible in Lightroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When using Lightroom, if you put all your keywords in quotes it treats them as a single entity and doesnt alphabetically order them.  Havent tried it with Alamy uploads but should work for copy/paste purposes?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do most keywording in Photo Mechanic before uploading and order the keywords with Alamy in mind -- i.e. essential first, main second, comprehensive (if any) last. This makes cutting and pasting them into the appropriate boxes easier.

Yes, this would be a sensible way way to proceed, making cut and paste into the relevant Alamy fields reasonably straightforward (although still tedious, as it would still have to be done for every image individually).  Unfortunately, I use Lightroom to keyword and export my files for upload to Alamy.  A major failing of Lightroom keywording is that it exports keywords in alphabetical order - it is not possible to maintain a custom keyword order.  Maybe in the next version, who knows, but for the time being it is not possible in Lightroom.

 

 

The sorting of keywords is why I do not use LR. I used it up to version 4 as I had fallen out with Capture 1 Pro then C! version 7.2 came along so I went back. I am rather unhappy with C1 at the moment as it hangs after start up so I cannot get into it to use it. I can't even switch to sessions or split my catalogue (around 40+k images)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.