Yes, one can download images or whole (sets of) albums via S*E, but not the keywords.
I mean, I am getting them, but I simply don't know where to put them to make a good use of them
Yes, one can download images or whole (sets of) albums via S*E, but not the keywords.
I mean, I am getting them, but I simply don't know where to put them to make a good use of them
Sorry...
Acadiana Al
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
Yes, one can download images or whole (sets of) albums via S*E, but not the keywords.
I mean, I am getting them, but I simply don't know where to put them to make a good use of them
Well, you could put them in the IPTC data of each image, just like albumfetcher does...
I just tested again and can confirm that SM takes that IPTC data from uploaded photo's to fill the SM captions and keywords. When people like me edit that data on SM instead of on a local copy, it only makes sense to put the SM data back into the IPTC when you download the images again.
But then again, it might just be me who edits this at SM, I really don't know. But if you edit local, you must re-upload it all again before it becomes available on SM... makes no sense to me?
cheers,
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Well, you could put them in the IPTC data of each image, just like albumfetcher does...
I just tested again and can confirm that SM takes that IPTC data from uploaded photo's to fill the SM captions and keywords. When people like me edit that data on SM instead of on a local copy, it only makes sense to put the SM data back into the IPTC when you download the images again.
But then again, it might just be me who edits this at SM, I really don't know. But if you edit local, you must re-upload it all again before it becomes available on SM... makes no sense to me?
cheers,
Nick.
Well, to begin with, I actually bring SM generated keywords back when I get full image info. I simply put them into a database (and you can do a full text search against them in S*E, with wild cards, mind you, how cool is that:-). You can also see them when you look at the Images tab (you might need to get images info first).
As to your workflow: it's a valid one, but S*E is not a DAM tool. And it was built with "all processing done locally" in mind, be it Bridge, LR, ACDSee, PM or something else.
However, I'll see what I can do by re-populating keywords on the downloaded images. No promises and no ETA at this point, though ;-)
Well, to begin with, I actually bring SM generated keywords back when I get full image info. I simply put them into a database (and you can do a full text search against them in S*E, with wild cards, mind you, how cool is that:-). You can also see them when you look at the Images tab (you might need to get images info first).
As to your workflow: it's a valid one, but S*E is not a DAM tool. And it was built with "all processing done locally" in mind, be it Bridge, LR, ACDSee, PM or something else.
However, I'll see what I can do by re-populating keywords on the downloaded images. No promises and no ETA at this point, though ;-)
Nicolai,
I understand that. Local processing used to be the only thing not so long ago ;-) But now, with all the great Internet services, not storing keywords and captions inside the jpg's is like having mp3's without the artist,album,song-tags etc. I know of artists that don't care for that at all so I assume that there are many pro photographers that don't care about these tags inside jpg's either. But people using photo's on services like SM to also link to them from their blogs and websites love this because the keywords and captions are always there, inside the jpg.
The tags inside these media-files are standardized, while storing in external files/databases are not, severely limiting the choice of applications to work with these files without loosing tags or integrity of data.
Pls. take all this as positive comments; I was a programmer too, before I retired, so I know how it is. I also know that it is a good thing when another programmer shoots at your code because it'll often trigger something in the programmer's mind or at least stick there ;-)
cheers,
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
New version 1.0.0.251 uploaded
OK, your wish is granted: downloaded files are now feature SM-based keywords and caption in their EXIF/IPTC section
One gotcha: multiword keywords are not tranferred well and are split into separate keywords upon arrival.
To ensure caption/keywords will get into downloaded files EXIF section first check if you see this info in the Images section. If not - make sure to *not* use the cache while downloading (checkbox at the bottom of the download dialog).
How do I avoid uploading duplicates to album?
If I have partially uploaded files to an album and come back later to add the rest from same HDD folder, how do I prevent uploading duplicates? What does album "check online when adding more files" mean? What does queue "check & reject" mean? Is this info available from help file? Thanks.
Acadiana Al
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
If I have partially uploaded files to an album and come back later to add the rest from same HDD folder, how do I prevent uploading duplicates? What does album "check online when adding more files" mean? What does queue "check & reject" mean? Is this info available from help file? Thanks.
Set it to check and reject and add the whole folder. S*E will reject the dups.
Set it to check and reject and add the whole folder. S*E will reject the dups.
Thanks. Thought I had done that before without success. It worked fine this time.
Now another question: The last few times I have uploaded a large number of files, a single file is left in the queue window. When I restart S*E, I get the message saying one file is left in the queue, so I have to upload it separately. Why is one file always left?
Acadiana Al
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
Thanks. Thought I had done that before without success. It worked fine this time.
Cool, great to hear:-)
Now another question: The last few times I have uploaded a large number of files, a single file is left in the queue window. When I restart S*E, I get the message saying one file is left in the queue, so I have to upload it separately. Why is one file always left?
Sometimes files do not make it - for whatever reason. There is a setting in S*E to try to push as hard as it can, and repeat the upload if there are any files left, but to avoid some silly cases (like SM going into readonly mode, corrupted files, ISP going down, etc), multiple copies and dead loops the default is not zero. You can change it to whatever you want. Mine is 10, I think, which means, that if less than 10 files left, S*E would stop trying and let me look at it first before pressing Upload button again. You can set it to zero if it bothers you, but - see above, Internet is not a perfect world.
Sometimes files do not make it - for whatever reason. There is a setting in S*E to try to push as hard as it can, and repeat the upload if there are any files left, but to avoid some silly cases (like SM going into readonly mode, corrupted files, ISP going down, etc), multiple copies and dead loops the default is not zero. You can change it to whatever you want. Mine is 10, I think, which means, that if less than 10 files left, S*E would stop trying and let me look at it first before pressing Upload button again. You can set it to zero if it bothers you, but - see above, Internet is not a perfect world.
Okay. Thanks for great support!
In Album window, what does "check online when adding more files..." mean?
Thanks again.
Acadiana Al
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
In Album window, what does "check online when adding more files..." mean?
Thanks again.
Well, in you can specify only selected albums to check for duplicates. This menu allows you to select such special albums.
Originally the option that controls the dups check was (and still is:-) buried in the options dialog. After I moved the control to the upload toolbar, this "special" mode is almost non-needed, but I left it just in case when some one needs a mass action and wants some albums to control the dups behavior, and some just upload.
Clear as mud? :-)
Well, in you can specify only selected albums to check for duplicates. This menu allows you to select such special albums.
Originally the option that controls the dups check was (and still is:-) buried in the options dialog. After I moved the control to the upload toolbar, this "special" mode is almost non-needed, but I left it just in case when some one needs a mass action and wants some albums to control the dups behavior, and some just upload.
Clear as mud? :-)
Yep, clear as mud. Looks like a paragraph from the proposed healthcare reform plans!Thanks.
Acadiana Al
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
I just tested the IPTC data; it is exactly how you described it, incl. the multiple-word keywords not working ;-)
So, why don't you just put the complete keyword string from SM (comma separated keyword list) into a single IPTC keyword entry? This is the way that AlbumFetcher does it too and it works, ie. if I change the keyword (which is actually a list of keywords) in excifer and re-upload to SM, the keywords are updated there too.
If there are multiple IPTC keywords, SM ignores all but the first.
cheers,
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
I just tested the IPTC data; it is exactly how you described it, incl. the multiple-word keywords not working ;-)
So, why don't you just put the complete keyword string from SM (comma separated keyword list) into a single IPTC keyword entry? This is the way that AlbumFetcher does it too and it works, ie. if I change the keyword (which is actually a list of keywords) in excifer and re-upload to SM, the keywords are updated there too.
If there are multiple IPTC keywords, SM ignores all but the first.
cheers,
Nick.
I am, actually. I'm getting whatever string comes from SM and put it into Keywords thingie.
However, since different s/w vendors have different rules about commas, spaces, semicolons, apostrophes and quotes, it's next to impossible to please everyone. I understand Album Fetcher works for you, but it doesn't mean it works for everybody else. I use different EXIF/ITPC library, and it works for me. BTW, try to get AF putting images into respective folders...;-)
Until SM gets more specific about multiword keywords in respect to their API, I'm afraid it's gonna remain as is... Not enough reasons to change an algorithm if the decision is based on the unknown set of rules.
I am, actually. I'm getting whatever string comes from SM and put it into Keywords thingie.
However, since different s/w vendors have different rules about commas, spaces, semicolons, apostrophes and quotes, it's next to impossible to please everyone. I understand Album Fetcher works for you, but it doesn't mean it works for everybody else. I use different EXIF/ITPC library, and it works for me. BTW, try to get AF putting images into respective folders...;-)
Until SM gets more specific about multiword keywords in respect to their API, I'm afraid it's gonna remain as is... Not enough reasons to change an algorithm if the decision is based on the unknown set of rules.
I don't understand that Nicolai, isn't your software supposed to work with SM and SM only? I don't think you should care about other software vendors and concentrate on compatibility of your product with SM.
I also don't understand your remark about pleasing others... because the way you encode the keywords now, messes up the keywords in SM... for everyone, not just me.
The way you do it now for multiple keywords is the official way I think, but it's not the way SM handles keywords. But the way you handle multi-word keywords by chopping them into separate keywords isn't handy.
I don't understand the issue probably and I think you don't understand me, so let me explain: an "original" photo downloaded from SM with caption and keywords inserted into the ITPC, should be valid to upload unchanged, resulting in the same keywords and caption in SM as it had before. The caption works fine, but the keywords don't: only the first word of the first keyword makes it back to SM, the rest is lost.
Sorry it didn't work out.
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
I don't understand that Nicolai, isn't your software supposed to work with SM and SM only? I don't think you should care about other software vendors and concentrate on compatibility of your product with SM.
I also don't understand your remark about pleasing others... because the way you encode the keywords now, messes up the keywords in SM... for everyone, not just me.
The way you do it now for multiple keywords is the official way I think, but it's not the way SM handles keywords. But the way you handle multi-word keywords by chopping them into separate keywords isn't handy.
I don't understand the issue probably and I think you don't understand me, so let me explain: an "original" photo downloaded from SM with caption and keywords inserted into the ITPC, should be valid to upload unchanged, resulting in the same keywords and caption in SM as it had before. The caption works fine, but the keywords don't: only the first word of the first keyword makes it back to SM, the rest is lost.
Sorry it didn't work out.
Nick.
Nick,
that's what I'm trying to explain: multiword keywords are "fuzzy". The way keywords work with API is different from the way SM UI is working with them, which is different from how they are imported on the upload, especially if they were "prepared" by the different software packages.
I understand my current solution is half-baked, but I don't have an official word from SM on how this should be done. Once I learn how to make it "reciprocal", I will change it. In the mean time, I simply don't know how.
At least I got simple keywords working, I hope it counts for something...
Nick,
that's what I'm trying to explain: multiword keywords are "fuzzy". The way keywords work with API is different from the way SM UI is working with them, which is different from how they are imported on the upload, especially if they were "prepared" by the different software packages.
I understand my current solution is half-baked, but I don't have an official word from SM on how this should be done. Once I learn how to make it "reciprocal", I will change it. In the mean time, I simply don't know how.
At least I got simple keywords working, I hope it counts for something...
Okay, I'll do some more testing, but I don't have a development platform aboard Jedi (retired..) so I can't code here. Hands are itching again though . . .;-)
As I understand it, the smugmug.images.GetInfo() returns Keywords as a string. My gut feeling (but un-confirmed) is that this will be the string you get to edit when you select the "edit" hyperlink next to the keywords under a photo. It's not the same as the keywords and is messed up by stuff like the bulk keyword editor. I have many with subsequent comma's without keywords in between.... but SM simply skips that and processes the string as a comma separated list, ditching empty elements. Multi-word keywords are simply keywords where the [space] is considered like any other character of a keyword.
I'm sure you checked how AlbumFetcher puts that into the ITPC. But I didn't check what constructions of the keyword attrib in ITPC are acceptable for SM in uploaded photo's, so I'll check on that a bit more.
Then there's the API for manipulating the jpg's. I have no clue which one you're using or you might edit directly...
I just found an EXIF bug in XP SP3: when you sort files on "date taken" MS shows that they still don't understand a date field and didn't find the ParseDate() routines yet. They sort "7/15/2003" after "11/15/2003" because "7" comes after "1" instead of "7" comes before "11". The last time I saw a bug like that, it was written in Cobol!
cheers,
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Okay, I'll do some more testing, but I don't have a development platform aboard Jedi (retired..) so I can't code here. Hands are itching again though . . .;-)
As I understand it, the smugmug.images.GetInfo() returns Keywords as a string. My gut feeling (but un-confirmed) is that this will be the string you get to edit when you select the "edit" hyperlink next to the keywords under a photo. It's not the same as the keywords and is messed up by stuff like the bulk keyword editor. I have many with subsequent comma's without keywords in between.... but SM simply skips that and processes the string as a comma separated list, ditching empty elements. Multi-word keywords are simply keywords where the [space] is considered like any other character of a keyword.
I'm sure you checked how AlbumFetcher puts that into the ITPC. But I didn't check what constructions of the keyword attrib in ITPC are acceptable for SM in uploaded photo's, so I'll check on that a bit more.
Then there's the API for manipulating the jpg's. I have no clue which one you're using or you might edit directly...
I just found an EXIF bug in XP SP3: when you sort files on "date taken" MS shows that they still don't understand a date field and didn't find the ParseDate() routines yet. They sort "7/15/2003" after "11/15/2003" because "7" comes after "1" instead of "7" comes before "11". The last time I saw a bug like that, it was written in Cobol!
cheers,
Nick.
thanks. Yeah, As I said, these are murky waters... If I find a reliable way to deal with the multi word keywords, I'll sure implement that...
i'll admit i didn't read all of the posts above...
but
i don't think i really want SE to overwrite keywords i put into jpg's with another DAM program...???
i'll sleep on it then let you know how i really feel
i'll admit i didn't read all of the posts above...
but
i don't think i really want SE to overwrite keywords i put into jpg's with another DAM program...???
i'll sleep on it then let you know how i really feel
Edward
Edward,
this is probably not gonna happen. The files you download from SM via S*E are brand new JPEG files with no EXIF to begin with. Plus they are typically named differently (according to renaming pattern), so nothing is gonna happen to your originals (especially if you tag RAW files, like you should).
HTH
Could you describe your idea about workflow and how the keywords fit in around S*E and SM? It's not clear to me and the post from TexasFamily and your reply to it confirm my suspicion that there's more to it than what I see. An explanation from you would make it all much clearer I think.
I also posted another keyword bug in SM and it got very quiet there... I believe the behavior I describe started today but I'm not certain. I can't believe that random numbers in the uploaded filenames become indexed keywords but I see it happen in front of me, while normal letter-keywords do not get indexed!
thanks,
Nick.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
I am trying to download a album content. In the album I tried, it contains only images.
When i clicked on download images and clicked x3large for pics and auto+ for videos.
But the download is getting struck after the first image is downloaded. Looking at the log, looks like the program is trying to download a corresponding video for the image - eg if there is an image with key abcHEk-X3.jpg, the program is trying to download abcHEk-620.mp4, which is not there..
any idea? i am missing something..
if uncheck all the video sizes, it downloads successfully all images with no problem
I am trying to download a album content. In the album I tried, it contains only images.
When i clicked on download images and clicked x3large for pics and auto+ for videos.
But the download is getting struck after the first image is downloaded. Looking at the log, looks like the program is trying to download a corresponding video for the image - eg if there is an image with key abcHEk-X3.jpg, the program is trying to download abcHEk-620.mp4, which is not there..
any idea? i am missing something..
if uncheck all the video sizes, it downloads successfully all images with no problem
Siva
Siva,
I will look into that, in the mean time try to separate the downloads of images and videos into two different steps.
I haven't taken the time to re-read this whole thread to see if this has been answered...
Is there a "re-upload" option? I found out how to have duplicates detected but I had to re-enter keywords and captions. Is there a way to just tell SE to re-upload the same file with the same caption/keywords? For example, navigate to the "images" tab in the lower pane, select a photo, and click a button or context menu item to put it into the queue? If not please add this to your list of feature requests.
I haven't taken the time to re-read this whole thread to see if this has been answered...
Is there a "re-upload" option? I found out how to have duplicates detected but I had to re-enter keywords and captions. Is there a way to just tell SE to re-upload the same file with the same caption/keywords? For example, navigate to the "images" tab in the lower pane, select a photo, and click a button or context menu item to put it into the queue? If not please add this to your list of feature requests.
Dave,
1) reupload - yes. You need to select "Check and Replace" mode. And you can do it in bulk, along with the new uploads, etc.
2) keeping caption and keywords the same - that's something new and I don't have it now.
By default, SM API totally replaces an image, zeroing its rank and whatever else it has accumulated.
Since I am a big proponent of an idea of keeping all the DAM done locally this was never an issue, since the "new" image would already have all the proper IPTC fields filled, juts like the old one was.
But this is an interesting idea (I see more and more people using SM as their DAM tool:-), to get this info from SM first and the apply it to the new version. I'll think about it...
Thanks... I'm not sure "sync" works for me. I don't want all of the different sizes kept locally, I just keep my originals. I never care about pulling from SM to "sync". Maybe I just don't understand the feature.
I am transitioning to LR for DAM, SE is just a bulk uploader for me at the moment. So, if I put the caption that I want in SM into the IPTC, this would mostly take care of itself? Or would you (a) get caption/keyword data from SE history (b) get this info from SM?
Thing is, I tend to have more keywords locally than I do in SM - stuff that is meaningful to me but perhaps too much info that will clutter my "keywords" page.
Thanks... I'm not sure "sync" works for me. I don't want all of the different sizes kept locally, I just keep my originals. I never care about pulling from SM to "sync". Maybe I just don't understand the feature.
I am transitioning to LR for DAM, SE is just a bulk uploader for me at the moment. So, if I put the caption that I want in SM into the IPTC, this would mostly take care of itself? Or would you (a) get caption/keyword data from SE history (b) get this info from SM?
Thing is, I tend to have more keywords locally than I do in SM - stuff that is meaningful to me but perhaps too much info that will clutter my "keywords" page.
If you have caption/keywords in IPTC, then you don't have to do anything else: S*E (in either upload or replace mode) + SM combo will take care of it.
Hmmm... interesting... I don't use IPTC much, except for copyright info. I'm using SE to add captions, since the caption that I put on SmugMug may not be the caption that I want attached to the image for all time. I'll give that approach some thought though. Thanks!
So I am using S*E 1.0.0.251. I noticed that when one wants to upload a PNG, such as for a watermark, the image gets converted to a jpg, and not only does it lose its transparency it also changes the image. I will try to explain and include pictures...
So I created a watermark in Adobe Illustrator based on the directions on SmugMug's Help Pages. I exported it as a PNG file format (I tried it both as Save for Microsoft.... and Export. Export is better as it lets you set the transparency.
The output looked like this (Not sure how well it will read here)
When I tried to upload it via S*E it changed the image to look like this:
So at first I thought it was a glitch with my creation process. So I kept redoing it in different formats. Nothing changed. Then I wondered if it was a problem with me taking the files from my Mac OS through VMWare to the Win XP environment. So I took the files via thumbdrive to my Win XP desktop (yup with S*E in the Dropbox). I then uploaded again with the same result. So I then tried it with the SmugMug Browser Uploader and it worked fine. But that was on the Mac side, I tried it on the Win side, directly through the VMware shared directories, and they worked fine.
I then noticed something surprising, when I dragged the PNG files into S*E it would convert them to JPG files and place the copies right next to the originals in the directory.
I am aware that there might be some file limitations and API things, but I think that if the image is going to be modified it would be good that there is a warning that the image is being changed.
Comments
I mean, I am getting them, but I simply don't know where to put them to make a good use of them
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
I just tested again and can confirm that SM takes that IPTC data from uploaded photo's to fill the SM captions and keywords. When people like me edit that data on SM instead of on a local copy, it only makes sense to put the SM data back into the IPTC when you download the images again.
But then again, it might just be me who edits this at SM, I really don't know. But if you edit local, you must re-upload it all again before it becomes available on SM... makes no sense to me?
cheers,
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Well, to begin with, I actually bring SM generated keywords back when I get full image info. I simply put them into a database (and you can do a full text search against them in S*E, with wild cards, mind you, how cool is that:-). You can also see them when you look at the Images tab (you might need to get images info first).
As to your workflow: it's a valid one, but S*E is not a DAM tool. And it was built with "all processing done locally" in mind, be it Bridge, LR, ACDSee, PM or something else.
However, I'll see what I can do by re-populating keywords on the downloaded images. No promises and no ETA at this point, though ;-)
Nicolai,
I understand that. Local processing used to be the only thing not so long ago ;-) But now, with all the great Internet services, not storing keywords and captions inside the jpg's is like having mp3's without the artist,album,song-tags etc. I know of artists that don't care for that at all so I assume that there are many pro photographers that don't care about these tags inside jpg's either. But people using photo's on services like SM to also link to them from their blogs and websites love this because the keywords and captions are always there, inside the jpg.
The tags inside these media-files are standardized, while storing in external files/databases are not, severely limiting the choice of applications to work with these files without loosing tags or integrity of data.
Pls. take all this as positive comments; I was a programmer too, before I retired, so I know how it is. I also know that it is a good thing when another programmer shoots at your code because it'll often trigger something in the programmer's mind or at least stick there ;-)
cheers,
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
OK, your wish is granted: downloaded files are now feature SM-based keywords and caption in their EXIF/IPTC section
One gotcha: multiword keywords are not tranferred well and are split into separate keywords upon arrival.
To ensure caption/keywords will get into downloaded files EXIF section first check if you see this info in the Images section. If not - make sure to *not* use the cache while downloading (checkbox at the bottom of the download dialog).
Enjoy!
If I have partially uploaded files to an album and come back later to add the rest from same HDD folder, how do I prevent uploading duplicates? What does album "check online when adding more files" mean? What does queue "check & reject" mean? Is this info available from help file? Thanks.
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
Now another question: The last few times I have uploaded a large number of files, a single file is left in the queue window. When I restart S*E, I get the message saying one file is left in the queue, so I have to upload it separately. Why is one file always left?
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
Okay. Thanks for great support!
In Album window, what does "check online when adding more files..." mean?
Thanks again.
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
Well, in you can specify only selected albums to check for duplicates. This menu allows you to select such special albums.
Originally the option that controls the dups check was (and still is:-) buried in the options dialog. After I moved the control to the upload toolbar, this "special" mode is almost non-needed, but I left it just in case when some one needs a mass action and wants some albums to control the dups behavior, and some just upload.
Clear as mud? :-)
Smugmug: Bayou Oaks Studio
Blog: Journey to the Light
"Serendipity...the faculty of making happy, unexpected discoveries by accident." .... Horace Walpole, 1754 (perhaps that 'lucky shot' wasn't really luck at all!)
I just tested the IPTC data; it is exactly how you described it, incl. the multiple-word keywords not working ;-)
So, why don't you just put the complete keyword string from SM (comma separated keyword list) into a single IPTC keyword entry? This is the way that AlbumFetcher does it too and it works, ie. if I change the keyword (which is actually a list of keywords) in excifer and re-upload to SM, the keywords are updated there too.
If there are multiple IPTC keywords, SM ignores all but the first.
cheers,
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
However, since different s/w vendors have different rules about commas, spaces, semicolons, apostrophes and quotes, it's next to impossible to please everyone. I understand Album Fetcher works for you, but it doesn't mean it works for everybody else. I use different EXIF/ITPC library, and it works for me. BTW, try to get AF putting images into respective folders...;-)
Until SM gets more specific about multiword keywords in respect to their API, I'm afraid it's gonna remain as is...
I don't understand that Nicolai, isn't your software supposed to work with SM and SM only? I don't think you should care about other software vendors and concentrate on compatibility of your product with SM.
I also don't understand your remark about pleasing others... because the way you encode the keywords now, messes up the keywords in SM... for everyone, not just me.
The way you do it now for multiple keywords is the official way I think, but it's not the way SM handles keywords. But the way you handle multi-word keywords by chopping them into separate keywords isn't handy.
I don't understand the issue probably and I think you don't understand me, so let me explain: an "original" photo downloaded from SM with caption and keywords inserted into the ITPC, should be valid to upload unchanged, resulting in the same keywords and caption in SM as it had before. The caption works fine, but the keywords don't: only the first word of the first keyword makes it back to SM, the rest is lost.
Sorry it didn't work out.
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Nick,
that's what I'm trying to explain: multiword keywords are "fuzzy". The way keywords work with API is different from the way SM UI is working with them, which is different from how they are imported on the upload, especially if they were "prepared" by the different software packages.
I understand my current solution is half-baked, but I don't have an official word from SM on how this should be done. Once I learn how to make it "reciprocal", I will change it. In the mean time, I simply don't know how.
At least I got simple keywords working, I hope it counts for something...
Okay, I'll do some more testing, but I don't have a development platform aboard Jedi (retired..) so I can't code here. Hands are itching again though . . .;-)
As I understand it, the smugmug.images.GetInfo() returns Keywords as a string. My gut feeling (but un-confirmed) is that this will be the string you get to edit when you select the "edit" hyperlink next to the keywords under a photo. It's not the same as the keywords and is messed up by stuff like the bulk keyword editor. I have many with subsequent comma's without keywords in between.... but SM simply skips that and processes the string as a comma separated list, ditching empty elements. Multi-word keywords are simply keywords where the [space] is considered like any other character of a keyword.
I'm sure you checked how AlbumFetcher puts that into the ITPC. But I didn't check what constructions of the keyword attrib in ITPC are acceptable for SM in uploaded photo's, so I'll check on that a bit more.
Then there's the API for manipulating the jpg's. I have no clue which one you're using or you might edit directly...
I just found an EXIF bug in XP SP3: when you sort files on "date taken" MS shows that they still don't understand a date field and didn't find the ParseDate() routines yet. They sort "7/15/2003" after "11/15/2003" because "7" comes after "1" instead of "7" comes before "11". The last time I saw a bug like that, it was written in Cobol!
cheers,
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
thanks. Yeah, As I said, these are murky waters... If I find a reliable way to deal with the multi word keywords, I'll sure implement that...
i'll admit i didn't read all of the posts above...
but
i don't think i really want SE to overwrite keywords i put into jpg's with another DAM program...???
i'll sleep on it then let you know how i really feel
Edward
Edward,
this is probably not gonna happen. The files you download from SM via S*E are brand new JPEG files with no EXIF to begin with. Plus they are typically named differently (according to renaming pattern), so nothing is gonna happen to your originals (especially if you tag RAW files, like you should).
HTH
Could you describe your idea about workflow and how the keywords fit in around S*E and SM? It's not clear to me and the post from TexasFamily and your reply to it confirm my suspicion that there's more to it than what I see. An explanation from you would make it all much clearer I think.
I also posted another keyword bug in SM and it got very quiet there... I believe the behavior I describe started today but I'm not certain. I can't believe that random numbers in the uploaded filenames become indexed keywords but I see it happen in front of me, while normal letter-keywords do not get indexed!
thanks,
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Hello,
I am trying to download a album content. In the album I tried, it contains only images.
When i clicked on download images and clicked x3large for pics and auto+ for videos.
But the download is getting struck after the first image is downloaded. Looking at the log, looks like the program is trying to download a corresponding video for the image - eg if there is an image with key abcHEk-X3.jpg, the program is trying to download abcHEk-620.mp4, which is not there..
any idea? i am missing something..
if uncheck all the video sizes, it downloads successfully all images with no problem
Siva
Siva,
I will look into that, in the mean time try to separate the downloads of images and videos into two different steps.
Is there a "re-upload" option? I found out how to have duplicates detected but I had to re-enter keywords and captions. Is there a way to just tell SE to re-upload the same file with the same caption/keywords? For example, navigate to the "images" tab in the lower pane, select a photo, and click a button or context menu item to put it into the queue? If not please add this to your list of feature requests.
Dave,
1) reupload - yes. You need to select "Check and Replace" mode. And you can do it in bulk, along with the new uploads, etc.
2) keeping caption and keywords the same - that's something new and I don't have it now.
By default, SM API totally replaces an image, zeroing its rank and whatever else it has accumulated.
Since I am a big proponent of an idea of keeping all the DAM done locally this was never an issue, since the "new" image would already have all the proper IPTC fields filled, juts like the old one was.
But this is an interesting idea (I see more and more people using SM as their DAM tool:-), to get this info from SM first and the apply it to the new version. I'll think about it...
HTH
I am transitioning to LR for DAM, SE is just a bulk uploader for me at the moment. So, if I put the caption that I want in SM into the IPTC, this would mostly take care of itself? Or would you (a) get caption/keyword data from SE history (b) get this info from SM?
Thing is, I tend to have more keywords locally than I do in SM - stuff that is meaningful to me but perhaps too much info that will clutter my "keywords" page.
If you have caption/keywords in IPTC, then you don't have to do anything else: S*E (in either upload or replace mode) + SM combo will take care of it.
Howdy-
So I am using S*E 1.0.0.251. I noticed that when one wants to upload a PNG, such as for a watermark, the image gets converted to a jpg, and not only does it lose its transparency it also changes the image. I will try to explain and include pictures...
So I created a watermark in Adobe Illustrator based on the directions on SmugMug's Help Pages. I exported it as a PNG file format (I tried it both as Save for Microsoft.... and Export. Export is better as it lets you set the transparency.
The output looked like this (Not sure how well it will read here)
When I tried to upload it via S*E it changed the image to look like this:
So at first I thought it was a glitch with my creation process. So I kept redoing it in different formats. Nothing changed. Then I wondered if it was a problem with me taking the files from my Mac OS through VMWare to the Win XP environment. So I took the files via thumbdrive to my Win XP desktop (yup with S*E in the Dropbox). I then uploaded again with the same result. So I then tried it with the SmugMug Browser Uploader and it worked fine. But that was on the Mac side, I tried it on the Win side, directly through the VMware shared directories, and they worked fine.
I then noticed something surprising, when I dragged the PNG files into S*E it would convert them to JPG files and place the copies right next to the originals in the directory.
I am aware that there might be some file limitations and API things, but I think that if the image is going to be modified it would be good that there is a warning that the image is being changed.
If you need more info, let me know.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact