Location fields issues

Post Reply
bimo
Posts: 121
Joined: 29 Aug 07 22:34
Location: Germany

Location fields issues

Post by bimo » 05 Jan 21 14:47

After using the GEO Tag panel and applying the GPS info as well as the location (country, city a.s.o) the data is populated to the xmp items IPTC4xmpCore:Location, IPTC4xmpExt:LocationCreated and IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown. Because IPTC4xmpCore:Location is deprecated since several years I will only stick to IPTC4xmpExt:LocationCreated and IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown.

Populating both items with the same values is only correct if both locations are identical (images taken in a museum for instance) or at least nearby (makros). For all other images they are different by hundreds of meters or even kms (wildlife, landscape, panorama, aerial photography or the like); the most typical example is an image of Mount Fuji (=IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown) taken from Tokio's town hall (=IPTC4xmpExt:LocationCreated). With PSU you can achieve this differantiation by first treating the IPTC4xmpExt:LocationCreated, i.e. finding and applying the loacation. If afterwards you are dealing with the IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown, and that means finding the location and applying it(!), the item IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown is overwritten and thus the mapping of both location items is correct. A bit clumsy perhaps and not self explaining - but it works.

What I don't know and can't figure is how to add a second or even third LocationShown (panorama!) with the GEO Tag panel: any subsequent location that has been found and should be applied to the image is not added but overwrites the first LocationShown. Anyone an idea how to achieve mulitple LocationShowns for an image??

I also tried to establish different values for IPTC4xmpExt:LocationCreated and IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown with the detail panel instead of the GEO Tag panel. My findings (please correct me if I'm wrong!):
  • the globe beside the IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown items is still falsely connected to IPTC4xmpExt:LocationCreated, meaning that if you tick the globe for a given LocationShown it instead shows the LocationCreated; if you have identified the wanted LocationShown in the globe's popup the values are instead written to LocationCreated (and falsely replace the original values for that item)
  • the "delete this element..." button for IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown is without function...
  • Both IPTC4xmpExt:LocationCreated and IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown have a five level hierarchy, with World Region as the top level entry. World Region always has the value "World", instead of "Europe", "Asia" etc. Shouldn't that be set to the proper value by PSU??
BTW: if in the preferences / Synchronize Settings / Read Settings you activate Geo Location processing then IPTC4xmpExt:LocationCreated and IPTC4xmpExt:LocationShown are written to the same category for places - IMO this is wrong because although both have the same structure they are semantically completely different.
Michael

Mke
Posts: 532
Joined: 15 Jun 14 15:39

Re: Location fields issues

Post by Mke » 05 Jan 21 16:22

bimo wrote:
05 Jan 21 14:47
Anyone an idea how to achieve mulitple LocationShowns for an image??
AFAIK it's not possible; I misuse face tags for this purpose - see keyword organization. It doesn't comply with the standard, but it works, with the bonus of showing which of the multiple features is which.
bimo wrote:
05 Jan 21 14:47
Populating both items with the same values is only correct if both locations are identical. With PSU you can achieve this differentiation by first treating the IPTC4xmpExt:LocationCreated...
I suggested one potential improvement in that same keyword organization post. I'd be interested in other ideas too.

User avatar
G8DHE
Posts: 277
Joined: 21 Aug 17 13:58

Re: Location fields issues

Post by G8DHE » 05 Jan 21 17:53

Have to agree, I've not found a way around it either, also there is no bearing information which is also provided with a lot of GPS units so you know which way the camera is pointing. The way GeoSetter implements it is nice;
GeoSetter-direction.JPG
GeoSetter-direction.JPG (354.73 KiB) Viewed 292 times
Geoff Mather (G8DHE)

snowman1
Posts: 289
Joined: 01 Jan 07 3:13
Location: UK

Re: Location fields issues

Post by snowman1 » 05 Jan 21 18:07

Mke wrote:
05 Jan 21 16:22
I misuse face tags for this purpose ... It doesn't comply with the standard, but it works, with the bonus of showing which of the multiple features is which.
FWIW the Google AI feature seems to do exactly this, if it thinks it recognises a landmark - it defines it as an area and tags it so you get a corresponding label. But perhaps not what Michael is looking for, I agree.
Snowman1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/snowman-1/
--------------------------------------

bimo
Posts: 121
Joined: 29 Aug 07 22:34
Location: Germany

Re: Location fields issues

Post by bimo » 07 Jan 21 20:07

snowman1 wrote:
05 Jan 21 18:07
Mke wrote:
05 Jan 21 16:22
I misuse face tags for this purpose ... It doesn't comply with the standard, but it works, with the bonus of showing which of the multiple features is which.
FWIW the Google AI feature seems to do exactly this, if it thinks it recognises a landmark - it defines it as an area and tags it so you get a corresponding label.
That sounded so interesting to me that I had a closer look at the "Image region metadata" defined by the MWG 2.0 specification. I hadn't been aware that these specs allow 4 different types of regions:
mwg-regions.jpg
mwg-regions.jpg (52.94 KiB) Viewed 239 times
[Source: GUIDELINES FOR HANDLING IMAGE METADATA (Version 2.0), p. 56]

In the specs' following examples there even is a (simple) reference to a location:
mwg-regions_sample.jpg
mwg-regions_sample.jpg (62.63 KiB) Viewed 239 times
[Source: GUIDELINES FOR HANDLING IMAGE METADATA (Version 2.0), p. 59]

But you are not restricted to a simple title: you might also bind any xmp item to the region; "Nest any top level XMP metadata within mwg-rs:Extensions. With this approach additional or arbitrary metadata can be applied locally to the region" [Source: GUIDELINES FOR HANDLING IMAGE METADATA (Version 2.0), p. 56], as the specs assert. That e.g. also allows for differentiating between several products shown in a picture. So, @Mke, you are on the right track in my opinion! And @snowman1: your finding concerning the Google AI feature seems to be compliant with the MWG specs. GREAT!!

The approach of coupling multiple LocationsShown to ImageRegions is far beyond my requirements (at least at the time being...) but also demands several LocationShown items as part of an image's meta data. And as I stated in my last post I simply have no idea how to achieve that.

[BTW: back in 2015 the GEO Tag panel only used the CoreLacation; I used the panel repeatedly for LocationCreated as well as for LocationShown and populated with 2 specialized scripts the data from CoreLocation either to LocationCreated or Location(s)Shown (multiple entries for LocationShown were possible!). That's why I'm lost now...]
Michael

Hert
Posts: 6564
Joined: 13 Sep 03 7:24

Re: Location fields issues

Post by Hert » 07 Jan 21 21:41

Regions in metadata is currently one of the most splintered type of data. There is the Microsoft Region metadata data, the MWG Region metadata, and most recently the IPTC has, finally, released their IPTC Regions. Since MWG and MS Regions are no longer actively backed up by a formal organization, I highly recommend using the IPTC Regions going forward.

https://iptc.org/news/announcing-the-ip ... e-regions/

As you can read in that link, they also mention the Location Shown as a possible use for IPTC Regions

BTW; when defining area for an image in PSU, then Photo Supreme will take on the daunting task of keeping all these different metadata region types up-to-date.
Attachments
IPTC-Region Shapes
IPTC-Region Shapes
IPTC-Regions.png (833.75 KiB) Viewed 231 times
This is a User-to-User forum which means that users post questions here for other users.
Feature requests, change suggestions, or bugs can be logged in the ticketing system

Mke
Posts: 532
Joined: 15 Jun 14 15:39

Re: Location fields issues

Post by Mke » 09 Jan 21 1:47

Interesting. And good to know that the standard has caught up with me :)

I wonder, then, if it would be possible to make this official in PSU, at least for locations. That is:

1) for xmp ImageRegionRCtypeName to be set to 'location shown' if any item in the 'places' hierarchy is linked to a 'Region'? At the moment it's always set to 'human'...

2) for xmp ImageRegionRCtypeIdentifier to be set to http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/imageregiontype/geoArea instead of http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/imageregiontype/human

3) for PSU to allow the manual linking of 'Areas' to items in the 'places' hierarchy. The message 'No linkable catalog Labels found' is displayed if you try to do that. Dragging and dropping already works with no problem, which is how I use it.

Can add that to Mantis if necessary.

snowman1
Posts: 289
Joined: 01 Jan 07 3:13
Location: UK

Re: Location fields issues

Post by snowman1 » 09 Jan 21 22:31

For the images that Google AI tagged in this way I removed the areas and unassigned the labels because they were incorrect, the images were not of those places - so unfortunately I can't tell you exactly what it did with the metadata. But out of interest I just had a search for those labels in the catalogue and to my surprise they were neither under "AI" nor "Places" but were under "Objects". A bit peripheral to the discussion but thought it might be of interest.
Snowman1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/snowman-1/
--------------------------------------

Post Reply