Additional colour designation for labels in Assign View

[Stephen]

I wish to suggest a further colour for labels and have raised this in Mantis:
Additional colour designation for labels
http://mantis.idimager.com/view.php?id=3080

Current 3 colors are available:
black - unassigned
green - assigned to all marked images
brown - assigned to some marked images

Another color (red?) could be used for labels in the miscellaneous category.

Several reasons result in misc labels, including:
Preferences are set to add folder names to misc
Images are imported with keywords
The user adds a label to misc when time is too short to search for the correct place
etc.

Having said this, the misc category can be a useful catchment and some users might find it useful.

In my case, I am slowly reducing the 60,000 images with one or multiple miscellaneous labels, but also new ones are being added when images have been edited externally. That can result in double labels (one in the correct category and one in misc). That is usually easy to spot and correct. It can however result in just one label being shown in the misc category, which might be overlooked.

My suggestion therefore would be to have a red (?) label designation that one or more images have a label which is in the misc category. This would clearly flag where attention is needed. The developers are the experts to work out how this is best accomplished.

Tips along the lines of delete all misc labels or don't use external programs which do this are well-intended but impractical if that is your workflow.

I look forward to your votes in Mantis to show your support, which I naturally only expect for those who are affected.

[Mike Buckley]

For me, this suggestion adds an unnecessary level of complexity. Any time you want to attend to images that are assigned catalog labels in the Miscellaneous hierarchy, you can easily conduct a search of that hierarchy with no need for another color to be added to the Assign panel.

[jstartin]

I look forward to your votes in Mantis to show your support, which I naturally only expect for those who are affected.

I am afraid that my vote would have to be a resounding negative, and the 'not affected' clause doesn't eliminate it.

If I understand correctly you want 'cells' in the assignment panel to be highlighted in red if the label shown comes under the Miscellaneous category. I admit that I cannot understand fully why this would be an advantage to you, but I think it would simply confuse the overwhelming majority of users (who would therefore be affected negatively).

Aside from this, how would the red highlight be combined with green or brown without messing up the simple elegance and practicality of the interface?

[Stephen]

I am posting this for clarity.

Photo SupremeScreenSnapz119.jpg (37.37 KiB) Viewed 13292 times

These are the combined labels of two images, one unedited and one edited.

Unfortunately the combination of my editor and PSu (no need for details here) results in duplicate labels when importing edited images and can come from other sources outside your control. Just because you have not come across this, does not mean that you are immune.
If we study the result:
Austria is categorized once under Places (the old image) and once under Misc (the new image).
My m.o. is now to remove the Vienna under Misc and assign both Vienna under Places.
I need to repeat that for all labels.
coffee house and coffee shop are designated synonyms of cafe, but are now also place in Misc.
"Funny sign" is a label which has not yet been assigned its correct place in the catalog and is still filed under Misc. and shown in green. It has not been duplicated.

This is an easy case just for illustration, but it can be more complex when a whole group of images with different labels are imported. My point is that it would be easier for sorting if labels in the Misc category were made in a different color. Furthermore, it would remind the user that it's time to put "funny sign" in the right category to keep things tidy. Keeping their catalogs ordered is surely in the interest of most and probably the reason that a DAM is being used.

In my opinion it would not over-complicate things, but make cataloging easier.

[Mike Buckley]

Unfortunately the combination of my editor and PSu (no need for details here) results in duplicate labels when importing edited images and can come from other sources outside your control.

That's actually not true, Stephen. Other sources are most definitely within your control if for no other reason than that you can choose not to use them. Your choice to use them is clearly within your control. As for your image editor, any proposals regarding solutions to its deficiencies should be solved by the company that markets it, not by IDimager.

If your proposal was the only convenient solution to your issue, I would understand. However, as my previous post explains, your proposal is not the only convenient solution. Moreover, that other convenient solution and perhaps others already exist. Certainly the solution I explained has existed for at least a decade in the IDimager portfolio of cataloging programs.

[Stephen]

@Mike
You can be really quite offensive, even without trying and this is not an isolated occasion.
You don't like this suggestion? Fine! No need to rant and try to invalidate my choice of editor and workflow. Besides, I said that the combination of C1 and PSu does not work and did not pass the blame to either one party.

I will not be dictated to regarding which software to use, nor which equipment. C1 works best with files from my equipment.

Basta! End of discussion.

[vlad]

Hi Stephen,

Austria is categorized once under Places (the old image) and once under Misc (the new image).
My m.o. is now to remove the Vienna under Misc and assign both Vienna under Places.
I need to repeat that for all labels.

I understand what you want to accomplish, but why do you need to work with the Assign panel? For example, why can't you use the catalog browser (Catalog->By Category) to simply merge the Miscellaneous::Vienna label with the Vienna label under Places? (This will automatically change all assignments of Misc::Vienna to Places::Vienna.)

[fbungarz]

Why anyone would want to use 'Miscellaneous' is completely beyond me. To me that category is a complete nuisance, because it simply means something with assigning labels to any category that makes sense went wrong. I try to keep my catalog clean and not have any labels inside 'Miscellaneous'. To me the category does not convey any useful information about that label. So, from my point of view a color that indicates a label being assigned to 'Miscellaneous' would make no sense at all.
Its simply a matter of ever so often checking the 'Miscellaneous' category and re-locating any labels that erroneously appear there or merge them with already existing ones inside other categories. To do that, as Vlad points out, the Assign Panel is pretty useless. Better to directly right-click the misplaced label and re-locate or merge it...

[Mike Buckley]

@Mike
You can be really quite offensive, even without trying and this is not an isolated occasion.

Just imagine how offensive I could be if I really tried, Stephen. My guess is that you probably have a really good idea of how much time I'm going to spend in the future helping you out of your problems. Even so, just in case you're thinking that I might spend even a nanosecond considering whether to try to help you, you would be very, very wrong.

[tstoddard]

Why anyone would want to use 'Miscellaneous' is completely beyond me. To me that category is a complete nuisance, because it simply means something with assigning labels to any category that makes sense went wrong.

Frank, I have plenty of labels in my Miscellaneous category because they are miscellaneous labels. Sure I could come up with categories to put them in but then I'd have dozens of categories with only one label in each. What's the point in that? I may go through them someday and create some new categories or parent labels to put some of them into but in the meantime Miscellaneous is a pretty handy place to keep them. Basically, it's a place to put labels that I create primarily for the purpose of keywording my photos. They are descriptive keywords that are not intended to be used for organizational purposes. I guess I could create a "Keyword" category or a "Descriptive" category but those categories would just contain the same labels that are in my Miscellaneous category now. What's the saying "A rose is a rose by any other name"?

With that said, I definitely wouldn't want them to appear red in the assign panel. I can understand why Stephen might find that to be useful for his situation but I don't think it would be appropriate to change core behavior in an effort to compensate for errors arising out of some compatibility issues. As vlad and others have pointed out, there are mechanisms in place to correct those situation already.

[Mike Buckley]

Why anyone would want to use 'Miscellaneous' is completely beyond me.

I participate in a photography forum and part of that participation involves downloading other photographers' images to my computer. I then import them into my catalog for temporary examination. (That's because Supreme is at the center of everything I do with photography.) When those image files have keywords in them, they are automatically added to the Miscellaneous category of my catalog because Auto synch is enabled on my system. In that situation the Miscellaneous category becomes a temporary depository of catalog labels not created by me that are easy to identify and delete from the catalog. The Miscellaneous category and its implementation are very handy in that situation.

[Preston B]

I have a decent number of Miscellaneous labels for various things that do not fit a specific category. If that particular label is no longer needed, I can easily delete it.

I like the Label Panel and the colors it uses. Personally, I do not see a need for any added complexity.
--P

[fbungarz]

Why anyone would want to use 'Miscellaneous' is completely beyond me.

Hi Mike et al.,
sorry if my comment came across a bit 'rough'

Mike Buckley wrote:
I participate in a photography forum and part of that participation involves downloading other photographers' images to my computer. I then import them into my catalog for temporary examination. (That's because Supreme is at the center of everything I do with photography.) When those image files have keywords in them, they are automatically added to the Miscellaneous category of my catalog because Auto synch is enabled on my system. In that situation the Miscellaneous category becomes a temporary depository of catalog labels not created by me that are easy to identify and delete from the catalog. The Miscellaneous category and its implementation are very handy in that situation.

yes that is exactly why the category is necessary, and I obviously have to use it for that purpose too, but that is not what I meant by that statement. Also, I can see that one might be too lazy to bother fitting everything into neat categories and just dump labels into 'Miscellaneous' - fine.

Cheers,
Frank

[Mike Buckley]

On the other hand, Frank, it just now occurred to me that if I didn't use Auto synch, I would have no use for the Miscellaneous category and it would be completely empty all of the time.

[vlad]

Mike, I think you are wrong:

When those image files have keywords in them, they are automatically added to the Miscellaneous category of my catalog because Auto synch is enabled on my system.

On the other hand, Frank, it just now occurred to me that if I didn't use Auto synch, I would have no use for the Miscellaneous category and it would be completely empty all of the time.

Unless I'm missing something, the keywords are automatically added to the Miscellaneous category because you probably specified "Merge keywords with existing Catalog labels" as a Read setting, not because you enabled Auto synch (which is a Write setting).

Anyway, this thread shows that some people use the Miscellaneous category on purpose, while others (including Stephen) desperately want to move all their labels out of it. To account for different needs, Stephen's proposal could be changed (extended) to allow the Assign panel color scheme to be set by the user, according to any label category. In particular, one generic scheme could display any label in the same color as its containing category. (Note that any label category, including Miscellaneous, can already be displayed in the catalog browser using a custom color, via Edit Category.) Furthermore, the same label could be displayed in either solid color or light color, based on whether it is assigned to all selected images or only to part of them.

Having said that, I'm not sure if I would personally use a color-rich scheme. (I would like to try it, first.) What I think I might like is being able to quickly find out which label categories contain the labels assigned to an image selection. For example, I would like to confirm at a glance that all images have (at least) one location label (inside Places). Following the existing conventions, the Places category could be displayed (at the bottom of Assign panel?) on a green, brown or black background, depending on the actual case. Likewise, Stephen could use a similar indication to find out if the Miscellaneous category inadvertently affects his selected images.

Cheers, everyone - and keep cool, please!