storage and organization

[arthurking83]

Arthur, that's exactly what Bridge does.

Almost no other software supports IPTC keywords. ..

maybe they changed
In my experience Bridge never added IPTC data into NEF, CRW nor PEF files that I've tried .. but in saying that, I'm talking at least 3years ago now.
Could do jpgs and tiffs .. but who needs jpgs and tiffs for archiving(well OK, tiffs maybe, but camera files .. not tiff .. always only only ever raw)

Maybe they have better interoperability with Olympus raw files?

Only software that I've ever found to allow IPTC data entry into raw files has been:
PhotoSupreme(now) .. but back in the day it used to be IDImager(which I still have a license for) PhotoSupreme wasn't a good upgrade path tho, may have to eventually reconsider it as an option.
I haven't yet tried Pentax's own software, but Canon and Nikon's raw file software allows IPTC data to be embedded into their respective raw files.
The only other software that allows embedding IPTC data into the raw file is M$'s Photo Gallery(free), with the stipulation that you have your manufacturers raw codec installed on Windows.
(no idea if this is possible in a Mac environment).
They are the only few software I've tried(and I reckon I tried them all! ) that will add keyword data into a raw file. (as well as Exiftool based software).

So my primary and secondary keyword/tag info is entered via Nikon's software and Windows Photo Gallery(but Gallery is about to be completely run out of town with the next incarnation of Windows .. so I'm on borrowed time using Gallery)

I have a sneaking suspicion that you may be confusing embedded IPTC data into a raw file(if that's what you were referring too) with Bridge's usage of 'linked data'
So in the instance(of linked data) Bridge knows of the file that you seemingly have entered IPTC data into .. but the reality is it's linked to that file, not embedded. Break the link and you see no IPTC data in that raw file.

What I'm referring too is:
Keyword with either Nikon software or Tag with Window Photo Gallery(makes no difference which).
Once done in one, the other sees it too. (that's really all I use).
But! .. open the folder of the raw files, click on a raw file in Windows Explorer and the data entered via Galley of Nikon's software is also usable in Win Explorer.
Almost all other software will also see the embedded data too. I've yet to come across software(of any use) that doesn't use that embedded data.
This is the major difference!
Add the data via Bridge, and Windows can't see it .. matter of fact no other software that I know of can either(other than Adobe software).
I know that soem software can be made to use the database of Adobe metadata, but it's an arduous process and basically regurgitates all that data into a new database. IDImager had a tool to do this. But it couldn't see Adobe 'linked' metadata.

Anyhow, this is the way it works on Nikon/Canon/Pentax(PEF!!) files
If it's different in ORW land .. could be a good reason to seriously look into Olympus!

Note tho .. I have limited experience with DNG, have converted some files, downloaded others(I don't have a DNG capable camera) .. but some data gets garbled in the conversion from CRW and NEF to DNG, but IPTC data is seen on some other DNG capable software.
Actually, my real hope is that one day camera makers will just suck it up and adopt DNG as a proper alternative to silly TIFF files in camera!
I can't ever remeber anyone in the last 15 years having shot in TIFF format in camera!

It'd be interesting to hear back if your use of IPTC data into Olympus raw files is seen across the board by other software(and which does, and which don't).

[John King]

Arthur, Among others, I have used both Nikon .NEF and Olympus .ORF raw files.

I have used both of these since 2005 ...

With vanishingly small exceptions, almost all IPTC keywording/tagging is either embedded in writable files (JPG, TIFF, DNG, etc), or written as sidecar files (XMP).

Almost all properly written s/w reads the original RAW file and the XMP file as if they were one file.

I have come across only one imaging program that writes data into a RAW file. I cannot recall its name. That process strikes me as being ill advised, to say the least!

Adobe Bridge (and Photoshop, and all other Adobe programs that support metadata keywords or tags) either write the metadata into writable image files, or into sidecar XMP files with non-writable RAW files. One can use a Hex editor to change the RAW files if you are feeling brave and have a thing for pain ...

In Windows 7, Windows Explorer can finally read IPTC standard metadata tags, or keywords.

For those wishing to look further into this arcane subject, you could start here:
https://iptc.org/standards/photo-met...iptc-standard/

Olympus image editing s/w does not write IPTC standard tags/keywords. Neither did my old NikonView s/w. Adobe s/w does, and always has.
I have been using PS since around 2005. It has always done what it does today, and does it no differently for any type/brand of RAW file that it is used with.

[arthurking83]

....

Olympus image editing s/w does not write IPTC standard tags/keywords. Neither did my old NikonView s/w. Adobe s/w does, and always has.
....

Like I said, IPTC was a standard long before Adobe got their grubby little hands on it and made it a domain of their choosing .. which even they seem to break with some features they choose to use.
Personally I don't like the idea of clutter up storage with as many small sidecar files as there are images .. but that's just me.
But, what I don't like about this convoluted debacle is that whilst it's supposed to be an 'industry standard, no-one actually does it as 'industry standard' .. if they did, you'd have Adobe sidecars(xml files) usable in Nikon software, also usable in .. <insert any software here.

So the reality end up more like:
You have sidecar files for Adobe's instance of a raw file, and you may have a sidecar file for Nikon's software version of that same file,.. add DxO's version, Affinity's incarnation .. and well the list goes on so far .. it's easy to see that you don't have as many sidecar files as you do images, , you're literally swamped with a number that turns out to be a factorial number of the number of the images you have. Now they don't take up a lot of room, but they clutter things so madly on your storage space it beggars belief.

So you end up with a situation where you have raw files that you may one day want to transfer, but you have to also transfer all those 'sidecar files' as well which only serves to clutter up more storage space over and again.

In 12 years, I've never experienced any issues with writing to an NEF file, with software that does it well... and that's the only way I do it!
Nikon software used to do it(did it badly for a short while in a single specific instance, but they rectified it and came good on fixing corrupted images.
All my corrupted images have only ever been a few times directly out of camera, and then this one time when I transferred massive amounts of data(most likely those obnoxious sidecar files! ) and the transfer stalled, and began again.
Didn't think it corrupted the data, and the data seemed to be intact, but it ended up not so.

In terms of writing tagging data to raw file .. I'm totally comfy with my processes, based on historical perspective.

Your camera can be set to write IPTC data into the raw file directly as you shoot. It's not an ideal workflow, but can be handy in some instances.
I've tried it .. just clunky to manage on an image by image basis.
But the data it writes is in the raw file .. just as I do in my process above.

if I cant' locate my raw files(as Tanning described) .. many instances of a specific location over the course of many years, complicated with brief visits and prolonged visits.
Trying to sift through them to find one specific image with a specific bit of detail for me has become an ordeal sometimes.

BTW: for me Bendigo has become a 'cross to bear' I've been that way so many times fleeting and prolonged, I know an image has some specific detail, but I have so many <Date>_Bendigo/ folders that it makes me shudder at the thought of locating an image with <insert detail here>.

I delete jpg files, so they are of no use to me, and if I do end up locating that image with <specific detail inserted here> .. my first reaction is to tag it with that detail so as to never lose it ever again.

ps. I've now written close to 150K NEF files using Photo Gallery, I still have about 40+K remaining. I do it when I can both remember AND can be bothered. When I use locate an image I had been arduously seaching for for as described above, I almost always do it in Nikon's software.
Simply out of habit, rather than any quality issue tho.
It should be noted that the program itself doesn't 'write' the tagged data into the raw file.
It can't even manage to do much at all as a program without the use of manufacturers codec. So in effect, it uses the manufacturers codec to do the writing!
So to mistrust other software to write data to raw files is not as ill advised as stated. The writing process, when maintained using a correct workflow is really no different than trusting your camera to write the raw file in the first place.

pps. Nikon View could write IPTC data, but not directly via the main interface. Had to be used via a separate tool within the software, which opened a separate window for tag data to be entered. (as I remember it).

IPTC was a standard .. proper industry standard! .. long before Adobe was even an idea.
Look back into the significant ITPC history pre Adobe, and the only organisational name that maintains a presence up to the mid 2K's is IPTC. '79 and 90's it was ITPC.
In the mid 2000's Adobe entered the fray and well Adobe'd it.

actually: I do understand what it was they tried to do with it all, as video and other multimedia and accessorised devices entered the media world. But! it should have only ever been implemented by a totally non partisan committee of "proper geeks" with no affiliations or market clout/presence.
They would have received submissions by al interested parties involved, and the implementation would have been truly industry standard.
Like jpg .. 'is'(or maybe it isn't .. or is) but you get the idea.

There's really only one way to write a jpg, and it's coding has to conform to a set standard, that any jpg capable software can read .. and camera can create. . and it works.
Adobe 'gave the world' DNG and stuffed it, to the point where the majority of manufacturers still avoid using it even tho they're free to use it!(And even tho it's advantages are multivarious!)
My hunch is that it's a mistrust of all things Adobe on the part of the manufacturers(the large manufacturers) .. not simply a product of their inherent mistrust of openness.
Why bother to stick with TIFF which is an open format(even tho Adobe also own that too), when a better format exists?

Sorry for the arduous reply.

Basically: Tagged raw files rule!
Anything else is a compromise.

[Tannin]

No-one has yet satisfactorily addressed the massively time-consuming task of tagging many thousands of files. Specific commercial applications aside, I'll lay you Sydney to a brick that I can find files using my simple, logical, time-efficient method much faster than you can with a tedious tag-everything approach provided we are fair and count the time spent tagging as well as the time spent searching - in my case the former is zero, in the other case more hours than I care to contemplate. I could take on average ten times longer to find a given file (which I don't) and still be a mile in front.

[John King]

Tony, my old w/s took less than a couple of seconds to display the 4 images tagged "Tarrant" out of 96,000+. One only has to keyword files once ...

Arthur, sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I can't be bothered pursuing this with you. It works for me, regardless of whether I use Adobe products or a dedicated DAMS program. I do not use, and would never recommend any catalog based system (Lightroom, etc).

[Tannin]

I note that you are carefully avoiding any mention of the time required to tag 96,000 images. Which is my point.

It's like my great aunt, who once asked my father to drive her all the way across town to go to a particular grocery shop. Being a polite and dutiful lad (and wanting to put his best foot forward insofar as he was hoping to marry her niece) he cheerfully did so, which cost him half an hour each way and perhaps a sixpence or a shilling for petrol and other running expenses. (Cars were dear back then, and even dearer to run.)

My great aunt (well, she wasn't my great aunt then because my birth was still ten years in the future, but you know what I mean) was happy. As she explained to my father, thanks to his help she'd saved a ha'penny on the pound of butter she went there for. True story.

He, very wisely, kept his mouth shut, married the niece and the result, in the fullness of time, was me. (Which may of course not be regarded as an entire success.) Nevertheless, the tale is as good an example of spending a shilling to save a ha'penny as we are likely to see this side of tagging 96,000 files to find four of them once in a while.



PS: I'll let you know my address so you can send that brick you owe me.

[John King]

Keywording doesn't have to be painful.

I can tag all the images on a 32 GB card in minutes, depending on content.

Keywording everything in minute detail can be, and is almost never necessary IMO.

The benefit is that one never loses a file again.

Your system of adding information to a date folder is almost as time consuming, but nowhere near as powerful for retrieval. Trust me, I have lots of experience with this via my brother when using remote access software ...

Brick? What brick?

[ameerat42]

My great aunt... saved a ha'penny on the pound of butter...

Whence arose the expression: in for a ha'penny in for a pound, which held currency up till the
time of decimalisation in 1966. So that makes Tannin's age... predecimal.

[Tannin]

Your system of adding information to a date folder is almost as time consuming

Huh? Downloader Pro asks me for a folder name once per photographic day, which requires that I type in something like "Laratinga" or "Birdsville Track". That's it. Entire task completed (other than popping in the other flash cards and telling it to upload them.) Downloader Pro takes care of renaming all the files (in the form "180514-103214" for a picture taken at this moment) and placing them in the appropriate folder (which might be /2018/05-May/14-Laratinga). That provides all the information necessary to find whatever it is I'm after.

[John King]

Tony, I simply cannot comprehend why you are fighting so hard against something that, on your own admission, you have zero experience with!

I take lots and lots of photos of cars. These are spread out over six different cameras over 15+ years. If I want to find every photo of every Ferrari (or Bolwell, Tarrant, P76, Mustang, whatever ... ) that I have ever taken, it takes seconds to find them. Regardless of which camera I used, or where/when I took them.

You take lots of bird photos. If you want to find all the Australasian Pipit photos you have ever taken, how do you go about this? Or say you want to find all the pelican shots, or rainbow lorikeets, or ...

The more common the subject, the harder it becomes to find THAT particular shot that you have a vague memory about taking. Was it at Lake Eyre? Maybe it was at Lake Wendouree? Or maybe it was at Port Macquarie, or Macquarie Harbour ... Which year was it? What date/trip?

It doesn't matter whether you use an Adobe product, there are third party products that will also do this - e.g. https://www.fastpictureviewer.com/help/#fileutilities

As I get older, my memory is not what it used to be. The anaesthetic for my open heart surgery didn't help. Keywords/tags help enormously.

[ameerat42]

Tomatoes/tomatoes.... Potatoes/potatoes

[poider]

I had a quick look at all the programs suggested. Last night I opened bridge and typed in focal lengths under 300mm, and low and behold it listed every focal length. (Which is what I wanted originally, but it wouldn't give it to me), I took many hours to do and when I woke up the list was there waiting for me, I took a screenshot of the list and will check it out at my leisure, this afternoon I will reopen bridge and check if the list is still available.
Thank you all for you suggestions and enjoy your debate.
Peter

[arthurking83]

....

short version:
Arthur, sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I can't be bothered pursuing this with you. It works for me, regardless of whether I use Adobe products or a dedicated DAMS program. I do not use, and would never recommend any catalog based system (Lightroom, etc).

No need to apologise.
My only concern was to highlight the strengths and weaknesses(limitations) of certain systems. My preferred system is to keep it as lean as possible and raw(file type! Not slang for whatever meaning the hipsters use the term for now )

I'm unsure of your use of the term 'catalog based system' tho.
I never delved into the guts of Bridge's innards, but my understanding is that it is a catalog based system.
If it wasn't, then every search would require that it re-indexed every image in the archive over and over again.. making it painfully slow to do a search(as the archive grew in size).


....

Warning! .. lonnngggg version!

On the point of keywording, John and I agree that tagging/keywording isn't time consuming or difficult unless you want it to be.

In Photo Gallery, I start to add a keyword, and as it's already in the system, it automagically auto pops up on a side panel as an option to choose from, along with multiple others with a similar alphabetical structure.
In ViewNX2 this doesn't auto pop up, but there is a click link with a long list of all the recently entered data. handy, but far less useful than Gallery's method.

So9in Gallery) typing "B" will initiate all the data currently starting with B, entering an 'e' then brings up all the relevant keywords with the name "Be....." one of which is "Bendigo".

Hit the down arrow to scroll to "Bendigo" and it's done.

For adding keywords to multiple images, Cntrl-A those images(within the folder) and do as above.
Once they're all tagged, search those images with(as my example) "Bendigo".

I then see hundreds of thousands of image in and around Bendigo.(as a search should provide).
Choose your 'file view' setup to assist with the ease of which you then add further tag data.
If you set the file list view to date created order, then all the images shot in succession are easier to choose collectively and you then add more tag data.

This is quite easy in M$'s Photo Gallery, and you only add the folder(s) that you wish to have catalogued. Easy, but time consuming if you need to play 'catch up'. But far easier than any other software that allows embedding into the raw file(where John and I diverge).

But even easier than using Gallery, is on initial browsing or downloading of the files to the computer device.
** If your computer device is a disposable/ultra portable/tablet type thing .. then I have no further advice than to bin it and get a rear device!

in the Nikon world, the two easy-ish options are:
ViewNX2: once the images are loaded up, scroll the RHS pane down to Metadata look for the Keywords input box add a keyword hit [add], hit save and it's done.
Alternatively: you can use Nikon Transfer(which I do, for file renaming!) and use the keywording feature in that program to keyword all the images in one hit. I used to do this and have many keyword data sets saved now, but it's just as easy to do the same in ViewNX2 anyhow. So I haven't used keywording in Transfer for a long time now.
The issue is what keywords to use? That's the hard part.

For me it's obviously the primary theme or subject in the scene! That could be a bird, a bridge, a bicycle, or a Brian. But sometimes I'm lazy and won't add that keyword into the image.
I may have travelled to Bendigo and shot 4 images of a Brian, a bird, a bicycle and a bridge.
Entering all the individual keywords IS tedious as Tanning presumes it to be, but what I do instead is add the common keyword .. ie. Bendigo, instead!
The point is to get the images into the catalog(or database) so that further tagging is then made easier.

**if there is one thing that is for sure, it's that I'm inherently lazy. Why do something tedious that you can always put off till another time.
Sometimes I can't be bothered, other times I look forward to doing the tedious stuff!!

So, once the main tag data is decided on, select all images(make sure they're active!) and add the common keyword hit add hit save.
This takes all of about 2 seconds. What I like about ViewNX2 is that this is done on the NEF files. Saving over 400 images once with the keyword "2015/Lake Eyre" had the 400 NEF files saved in about 5 seconds. So time consuming is not a point of contention.
I had no interest in keeping that keyword as it was in any of those files, it was simply a place keeper(or notation) to simply get those newly downloaded files into the catalog system.
Had I used 'Lake Eyre' without the 2015, I'd have confused those images with the lot I already have of Lake Eyre.
I wanted those images separated till I could be bothered to tag them properly with more detailed data.
As I remember I got back to those images at a much later date .. maybe a year or so later .. ie. when I could be bothered!

Tony: from experience I'd say I could tag those 96K images in about 4-5hrs or so.
Basically what I had to do when I first learned of my error in not tagging my images for the first 5 or so years. Can't remember exactly when I realised I got in way too deep, and changed my ways.
I wouldn't sit there for hours doing them all, I'd do some(many!) for about an hour, then come back to them again another day.
Note tho that this was from scratch, which is much harder, AND! ... with not much tag data already in the system!
Now with more data, tagging is easier. I think I have about 2500 individual words saved in my system. Why this is important is that it saves your soul/sanity from typo errors(hugely important) and RSI/tedium.

Only time I take longer than I'd like too is when trying to determine what species of bird/insect/flower/etc a subject is.

And as already noted earlier. I know that I've been to Bendigo far more often than anyone with zero links to that town ought to have visited. I think 10 trips in one year where I actually had the time to take photos(far more when it was just work and straight back).
So to locate the time when I took that photo of a bird on Brian's shoulder whilst he was riding that bicycle over a bridge in Bendigo .. for me is a monumental task!

XNView makes that process a bit easier as the thumbnail would be distinctive, but you still need to sift through hundred of thousands of images.
In the years to come I'll forget Brian's name, so I'll most likely just use the search term 'Bendigo'.
Once that's done and the 100K images of Bendigo have loaded in the preview pane, across to the RH pane is the list of all the other keyword data that relate to all those 'Bendigo' images.
That additional tagged data may be 'Blue Banded Bees', 'Brown Brick Building', 'Big Bad Bozo', 'Bridge'(yay! bingo) ... that's the new keyword I click on.
Now the new list of images(maybe 1000) is only of bridges in bendigo, and the new tag list on the RH pane is Bird, Balloon, Badminton, Berries, Bicycle(yay! .. click that!)
And there's Brian on his bike on the bridge, along with Benny driving his Bentley, and Billy walking his Bullock!



In all seriousness tho those click to search endeavours take a mere few seconds to enact.

[John King]

Sorry to be short with you, Arthur. I have pain from many causes almost all the time. It can make me intolerant and downright bad tempered at times.

Bridge both embeds all applied metadata in images (or sidecar XMP files) and keeps them in a central MySQL database.

Unlike the cataloguing system in Lightroom and Photoshop Elements, the Bridge central database is not essential for Bridge to function. It can be moved or deleted completely without having any effect on a single image.

What Bridge does keep in its database is the thumbnails along with all associated keywords. Both of these are also embedded in the image files, so nothing is lost irrevocably if the link to the database is broken.

If I understand correctly, loss of the link in Lightroom leads to loss of all applied keywords and all image edits unless the image has been exported from Lightroom. Quite a few people have had this happen for various reasons, and there appears to be no recovery system that works. Hence my comments about catalog based editors/DAMS methods.

Agree with you about keywording not being particularly onerous. The benefits far outweigh the time spent. Like any classification system, whether in accounting, cladistics or photography, there are significant benefits>costs or no one would bother!

[Geoff79]

A lot of posts here and I didn’t get to read them all. But just wanted to add my 2 cents on a couple of things.

Firstly, I get the impression that everyone here uses a PC and there are no Mac users? The single hardest thing to accept when I switched from PC to Mac was that Faststone is not compatible with Mac. That was, and obviously still is, a great program and I mourned it’s loss heavily.

However, if there are any Mac users out there, I tried a few alternatives on the Mac and the one I personally settled on was Photoscape X. These days, I only use this type of program strictly as a browsing/sorting agent, and all edits are done in ACR/Photoshop. But as far as I can tell, it’s a pretty worthy comparison to Faststone, for Mac users.

And just quickly on Bridge, I also find it to be a quick search tool. I don’t label individual photos, but tag every dated folder with whatever I know will show up in whatever broad searches I might do to locate particular shots. It still requires decent amounts of searching once the folders are found, but at least helps to dramatically narrow the field very quickly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tannin]

keywording: The benefits far outweigh the time spent. Like any classification system, whether in accounting, cladistics or photography, there are significant benefits>costs or no one would bother!

On the contrary, if there were significant benefits, everybody would do it.

Nowhere in this thread has there been any sensible attempt to quantify the cost of keywording. Having tried it for myself, I know for a fact that in my case (and probably in 90+ percent of other cases), on a time = money basis keywording an entire collection is the equivalent of paying $1000 a year to insure your car for $100.

[arthurking83]

John, no need to apologise. no offence taken on my part. My only concern is info and accuracy of info:
ps. didn't know about the MySQL database either. Is it truly open format? That is, can you search it with other software.

....
Bridge both embeds all applied metadata in images (or sidecar XMP files) and keeps them in a central MySQL database.

....

This is what I don't understand, because my experience is that it really doesn't!
That is it doesn't embed metadata into raw files .. which is really the only important aspect of this conversation for me.
Yes, it embeds metadata into TIFF and JPG files, but then again almost all the software I use for imaging purposes does that anyhow, and once that's done you don't need any other software other than your computer's file browser to see it and search it!

The issue(or more accurately MY issue) with almost all metadata handling software is that they don't help with keeping track of raw files.
Except in the specific condition that you're happy to be tied to the current software into perpetuity.
I'm not(happy to be stuck with only a single software for the rest of my capable existence(capability of existence debate, notwithstanding! )

So the litmus test isassuming you're a Windows user, using Bridge), and only for your raw files:
can you see any metadata you've entered via Bridge, in the Tags section in Windows Explorer's file list(or Finder for Mac users)?

as an example of my preferred system, see my old thread about tagging/keywording/searching
(scroll down a bit to see my screenshots of Windows Explorer).

So my experience is that using Bridge(as well as Lr) I couldn't get the tagged data into the NEF files. I searched the topic and found that it doesn't do that. it does for commonly used raster images(ie. jpgs/tiffs) and some video formats.

For me, jpg and tiff files simply waste space and resources that can be better utilised by other stuff.
Previously I said I had about 200K images, but that was everything! I'd forgotten that I'd deleted about 40-50K of jpgs and tiff files, as I just checked my archive and I have 90K tagged images, and still 47K files still not tagged(that I'll get around too one day).
The only jpg/tiff files I keep are jpgs made by jpg only camera devices(point and shoots/smartphones/etc) and the tiffs I've scanned of old photos/slides.
So I have to be careful when shift-deleting those image file types, that I don't accidentally delete the jpgs/tiff that I want to keep.

Once the system is setup for this, you don't need any other software to enter tag data into the raw file .. Windows Explorer itself can do it. Clunky! .. but can do it.
It's search function is faster than Bridge, and can be used on any system with little effort.

Note!! I'm not questioning your reasons for doing how you do what you do. Important to note this point, as I'm not arguing any point with you here.
As this is a forum, and the forum is here to serve varied user tastes, I feel it's important to highlight advantages and disadvantages of each method. That really is the only reason I post about this stuff.

I know of people that program their own software and maintain their self made SQL databases for their archives and all sorts of variable workflows to similar effects .. so we each have a preference.

My issue(not that it's just my issue) is, that I've gone through the process not fully understanding the limitations of the various methods.
Once I did discover the disadvantange of using Lr .. actually Adobe's software, I was mightily pissed .. thinking that my files(raw .. only raw) were tagged, where they weren't.

Like Tannin said, keywording can be arduous, painful, annoying, etc .. and to a degree I agree with that sentiment, but only in that I was bitten(by Adobe) without realising it, and in the end all that work was for nothing!

never again!
side note: I was hoping to teach myself a bit of programming(of which I know completely zilch, even tho I persevered for a short time) to make my own software that could do what I wanted above.
Part of that process was to delve into various tagging software systems as well, for the ability to transfer their data into various other systems too.
(end result = 0! .. not even 01, or 10. Just a single solitary zero, as I couldn't find the time and ability to program consistently! )

In summary:

1/. If you use Adobe software, you need to keep using Adobe software to maintain that searchable tagged data, if your only concern is for your raw files.
If you transfer image rights/usage to any other system you need to be sure that system can also use Adobe software(and it's associated installation/costs) on that system too.

2/. If you use the manufacturer's codec system, you don't need any other software to tag or search your raw files, but better software than the built in file browser makes for an easier task of entering tag data. With Windows Explorer it just needs to be set to index the data stored on the relevant drives. I think this is usually on by default, but don't count on it.
Other free software exists that can simply make entering tag data easier and allow more complex search parameters.
The only point to note(as the OP asked the question here) is that these software won't index the exif data for focal length/lens used .. and stuff like that.
Other free software can do similar stuff.(tip: do a search for Wega2).

3/. for a small fee I found that IDImager was the best all rounder in that it could do everything I wanted(important to me) and import Adobe metadata info.
IDImager no longer exists and the updated software, Photosupreme, wasn't as good(back then). I need to reacquaint myself with that software to see if it's improved any too.


ps. (for Tannin). For location tag info, there are some software that can tag your images with any GPS tagged data in the image(s).
When I shoot, I always have my GPS on camera, so every image is geo tagged. Location data new set, ViewNX2(and I think there are others, like Lr too) can embed location tag info into the image to save the user from inputting it.
Can work well, limitation on the system is that it may only use the limited ability of Google Maps, and if in remote unknown places it generalises to the nearest thousand kilometers!
if you had a Nikon system and used ViewNX2, it also gives the option to check location via Wikipedia too .. much more accurate for remote locations. Can be handy, I've used it a few times to assist with my lack of enthusiasm for tedious processes.

[John King]

Arthur, I'm buggered today. Not a rare occurrence, unfortunately.

Just a quick comment. Windows Explorer has always natively supported CanNikon raw files via its native codecs. Most of the rest of us have to purchase third party codecs to even see the embedded thumbnails in the raw files!

I cannot speak for Windows 10. I don't use it.

My point being that it is always tricky to generalize from support for CanNikon cameras to other, smaller brands.

I have located the Bridge database store in Windows 7. It has moved from where it was stored in XP. It is very imaginatively (for Adobe ... ) called "store".

The link to it is via an explicit pathname in Bridge/Edit/Preferences/Cache. This allows the cache files to be moved and reattached to Bridge.

Bridge can be forced to rebuild the entire cache (thumbnails and metadata) either using Bridge or by simply deleting the contents of the cache folders and telling Bridge to rebuild the cache at either the existing location or a new one. Bridge extracts the data it needs from the image and XMP files.

[arthurking83]

....

Just a quick comment. Windows Explorer has always natively supported CanNikon raw files via its native codecs. ....

Kind'a sort'a!
Not in every installation, there are downloadable camera codec packs available from both M$ and some camera manufacturers(like Canon, Sony, etc)

I may have remembered the issue with Olympus, but did forget about it till you mentioned it again in this thread.

Note that there are differences between M$s codec pack download, and Nikon's codec .. so that could play a major part.

I'm thinking that maybe the M$ camera codec pack has major codec differences from the manufacturers codecs.
Most likely the M$ codec pack is at it's most basic level, simply to allow displaying of the raw formats but nothing else.
I've had it installed.
How you know you do or don't have it is:
If you use thumbnail display mode in Explorer, and open a folder containing your manufacturers raw files, the thumbnails will show the scene in each raw file. If you don't have the codec installed, the thumbnail image is a generic icon.

The latest M$ codec download is very old now, so maybe they've ceased supporting the system.

Anyhow, I'm sure there will be limitatons to the M$ codec pack compared to the manufacturers available codecs.
M$s codec pack file size if about 16Mb which contains the codecs for hundred of raw capable cameras from many manufacturers ... ie. many more codecs than just the Nikon camera database, but the Nikon codec package is larger than the entirety of the M$ codec system.

Looking into the Nikon codec system, once installed, it's 32Mb(or more), which seems to imply a degree or two more features within it than the M$ codec pack would be just for those same Nikon NEF file types.

[Tannin]

Cheers John.

When I setup my filing system, there was no such thing as geotagging, so I evolved my own method. It is very, very rare that I can't locate an image to within a smallish area, and rare not to be able to locate it as precisely as I could wish. I played briefly with GPS on cameras when I happened to buy one that had it, and quickly decided that it added little to my existing system, and had disadvantages, in particular battery life. I'm not knocking it, I hasten to add, it's just not necessary or particularly useful to me, given my highly efficient automated filing system and memory for places. (To this day, I still don't use GPS or satnav for anything.* The day I can't look at a map and memorise the salient features such that I can then go where I want is the day I'll hang my boots up and declare myself officially past it.

This made me laugh the other day. My 86-year-old father and I were travelling in north-west Victoria. Now he is, by training, an expert navigator - as pilots had to be when he started in the caper, which was 50 years before GPS and decades before widespread installation of other radio navigation aids. In his day - when he was flying DC3s around outback Queensland for example, or carting the flying doctor around to cattle stations in the Northern Territory - navigation was all about map reading and calculated speeds and drift rates on a given leg, and so on. So here we were, having to find our way to a given destination away to our north-west. One of us was doing the modern thing like any 25-year-old, looking at a tablet with Google Maps. And the other one just looked out the window, using the lie of the land, the position of the sun and the run of the riverbeds to navigate. After a couple of hundred kilometres, we got to our destination, we hadn't disagreed about any of the major navigation decisions, and we'd taken the shortest, most direct route. The joke, of course, is that it was my father using the GPS and me navigating the way that bushmen have navigated for 200 years. I like doing it that way. It demands that I know and understand the country - and if I don't know and understand the country, what the hell am I travelling there for in the first place?

* Exception: I use GPS when doing Birds Australia Bird Atlas surveys, because GPS refs are what they need for their database.