• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

Italicized metadata (City, State/Province, Country, etc)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cuzzinbrucie

Active Member
Premium Classic Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
129
Location
Ooltewah, Tennessee
Lightroom Experience
Beginner
Lightroom Version
Classic
Is there something different about metadata when it's italicized? Could someone tell me where to find documentation on how these metadata fields become "populated" based on GPS coordinates? See screenshot.
Italicized metadata.JPG
 
Yes, it is being supplied by "reverse geotagging" - ie based on the GPS data. So it is Google Maps information.
 
Adobe calls those italicized locations "suggestions", i.e. not user-confirmed. You can confirm them by clicking on the location field name, e.g. "City" and a pop-up menu will appear with the suggested name at the top and some recently entered names below. Click on one, or type in your own corrected name and the text will appear in the regular font. Note that on OSX those Google suggested names are so faint (being in a darker font) as to be almost invisible. So while you could leave the suggestions alone on Windows (if you're happy with the suggested data), doing so on OSX is probably not what folks do.

If you do decode to leave them alone, and you want that location metadata to be included in exports, you'll need to pay attention to the option on Catalog Settings>Metadata tab>"Export address suggestions whenever address fields are empty".
 
Interestingly, I lived 31 years in Gillette, Wyoming
 
We drove through Gillette, Wyoming on our way returning to South Carolina after photographing the solar eclipse outside Casper... :cool:
 
I also photographed the eclipse from Casper and then drove through Gillette on the way home...
 
I watched the eclipse from my back yard. Anything greater than 90% was fine with me. Rikk, we had lunch at the Dash Inn Restaurant in Gillete this past July 20. Do you know the place?
 
Adobe calls those italicized locations "suggestions", i.e. not user-confirmed. You can confirm them by clicking on the location field name, e.g. "City" and a pop-up menu will appear with the suggested name at the top and some recently entered names below. Click on one, or type in your own corrected name and the text will appear in the regular font.
Is it possible to confirm these suggestion at batch (multiple images) or do i have to do this one by one?
 
One by one. Adobe have been asked, more than once.

There is a plugin by Jeffrey Friedl that (I think) does it in bulk using the same Google data.
 
Thanks John, i will take a look at Jeffrey's plugin.
However, does it make any sense?
Lightroom does show me the images which i searched for with only suggested adress data.
And the suggestions can be exported according to Jim.
 
I am not sure. I think I would commit the data, partly so it can be backed up and saved to the images.

But I don't use the reverse geotagged data because it doesn't work well for me - it's "administratively" correct but not so useful in practice. So for where I am now, it would supply UK / England / Rosthwaite which is a tiny village, and gives no location. More meaningful would be England / Cumbria / Borrowdale / Rosthwaite. I get similar problems with London, where I want it to be the county, the borough to be the city, and then use location as I want (eg street, park). Jeffrey and I discussed this UK adaptation when he was updating his plugin, and I imagine he has improved how other countries fit into the 4 levels.

John
 
I don't use the reverse geotagged data because it doesn't work well for me - it's "administratively" correct but not so useful in practice. So for where I am now, it would supply UK / England / Rosthwaite which is a tiny village, and gives no location. More meaningful would be England / Cumbria / Borrowdale / Rosthwaite. I get similar problems with London, where I want it to be the county, the borough to be the city, and then use location as I want (eg street, park). Jeffrey and I discussed this UK adaptation when he was updating his plugin, and I imagine he has improved how other countries fit into the 4 levels.
Quite interesting matter!
 
I watched the eclipse from my back yard. Anything greater than 90% was fine with me. Rikk, we had lunch at the Dash Inn Restaurant in Gillete this past July 20. Do you know the place?
I lived there 31 years but do not know the place (I have been gone for 17...)
 
Yeah, those IPTC are a bit weird outside USA. In Norway we have Fylke = Region and Kommune = Municipality / City. In Italy there are Regions > Provinces > Municipalities. In both cases you may have sub-divisions of the municipality like the Norwegian Bydel = District (?) or the Italian Frazione (Hamlet, village).

I normally use a keyword hierarchy to pinpoint a specific location and in the IPTC what makes most sense as a rough division in any given territory.

For example, to specify "Hampstead Heath, London, UK" I would use the following IPTC United Kingdom > London > Camden > Hampstead Heath. On the keyword I would rather use also Europe > United Kingdom > England > London > Camden > Hampstead > Hampstead Heath.

What are your thoughts about this approach?
 
Yes, I don't see a problem in the difference, Umberto, as we just have to follow what makes sense to us rather than following whatever data got into Google's system. In the IPTC fields I prefer to enter England / Scotland / Wales / N Ireland since they are different to me - as I live in England, I might deliberately look only for photos taken in Wales. It also future proofs my metadata for when Scotland goes on its own or whatever! But you might feel no need to segment the IPTC fields that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top