Keyword Hierarchies

[Psamathe]

Lightroom Version Number

10.2

Operating System

1. macOS 10.15 Catalina
2. macOS 11 Big Sur

Where you have keywords "Inside" other keyword tags e.g.
Animals
Animals>Birds
Animals>Birds>Sparrow
i.e. "Sparrows" is inside "Birds" which is inside "Animals"

What do people do when they e.g. have a picture of a sparrow, keyword it as just "Sparrows" (and leave the higher keywords to be indicated with the little minus sign or explicitly mark the photo with all 3 keywords?

I assume there is no "right way" but is there a good or best practice. The only difference I've found is that higher level keyword counters don't include photos keyworded only in lower levels and selecting all e.g. "Birds" does not include photos in lower levels if not explicitly tagged as in Birds - which is good and bad as if you have a lot of sparrows it can get impossible to find the one photo of a blackbird which is only at the Birds level. I've been explicitly marking photo up through all keywords in the hierarchy but am now thinking I've been doing it incorrectly?

Ian

 

[clee01l]

If you assign "Sparrows" then the image will automatically inherit "Sparrows" parents , "Animals>Birds>Sparrow", You can not exclude the parent in a hierarchy. If you want just "sparrows", it needs to be added as a separate top level keyword to the keyword list before being assigned to the image.

 

[Psamathe]

If you assign "Sparrows" then the image will automatically inherit "Sparrows" parents , "Animals>Birds>Sparrow", You can not exclude the parent in a hierarchy. If you want just "sparrows", it needs to be added as a separate top level keyword to the keyword list before being assigned to the image.

I've been explicitly "checking" the parents rather than using "automatically inherited" and I'm suspecting this is "wrong" and I should just leave the automatic inherited rather than checking up through the parent hierarchies?

I do want the parent categories and think I was manually checking them to get the counts to include child photos and so e.g. selecting "Birds" gives all birds (but as numbers have grown this is not so helpful and sometimes very unhelpful - hence the question)

Thanks
Ian

 

[johnrellis]

The only difference I've found is that higher level keyword counters don't include photos keyworded only in lower levels

Right.

selecting all e.g. "Birds" does not include photos in lower levels if not explicitly tagged as in Birds

Not right. As Cletus said, when you add a keyword to a photo, LR implicitly adds all its ancestor keywords to the photo. So when you search for an ancestor keyword, you'll get all photos containing the descendant keywords too. For example, if you add Animals > Birds > Sparrow to a photo, then searching for Birds or Animals will also find that photo. (There is one obscure exception to this, a method that lets you find photos in which you've explicitly added Animals or Birds, but let's not deal with that yet.)

I've been explicitly "checking" the parents rather than using "automatically inherited" and I'm suspecting this is "wrong" and I should just leave the automatic inherited rather than checking up through the parent hierarchies?

That's my recommendation. With respect to searching, there's no practical difference between the two methods, and letting LR implicitly add the ancestors is far simpler.

 

[Psamathe]

.... (There is one obscure exception to this, a method that lets you find photos in which you've explicitly added Animals or Birds, but let's not deal with that yet.)
....

I assume that exception is the counts to the right of the keyword list in the right sidepanel in Library mode and when you select by clicking to the right of that keyword. If this is the exception it does explain what I did things the way I did as that is the way I use it.
I think it sounds like I'll spend some time adjusting my keywording as you say (allowing inheritance rather than being explicit. Take a bit of time but once done, it's done. Boring work but I was the person that did things in an "unwise" way.

Thanks
Ian

 

[johnrellis]

I assume that exception is the counts to the right of the keyword list in the right sidepanel in Library mode and when you select by clicking to the right of that keyword.

Gory details: The count in the Keyword List is, as you've observed, the number of photos that have been explicitly assigned that keyword, which doesn't include photos with descendant keywords.

The Keyword column in the Library Filter bar's Metadata browser has two modes, Hierarchical and Flat:

Hierarchical mode displays the keywords as shown in the Keyword List panel. Clicking on a keyword displays all photos with that keyword explicitly assigned and photos with descendant keywords. The counts are the number of photos with that keyword explicitly assigned.

Flat mode displays the keywords as a flat list:

Clicking on a keyword displays just those photos to which it has been explicitly assigned; photos with descendant keywords are not included. This is the only way using native LR features to search for explicitly assigned ancestor keywords. (Plugins can do it also.) The counts in Flat mode are as in Hierarchical mode, the number of photos explicitly assigned the keyword.

When you click to the right of a keyword in the Keyword List, it always goes to the Metadata browser's Keyword column in Hierarchical mode, thus displaying photos with descendant keywords also.

 

[Psamathe]

Gory details: The count in the Keyword List is, as you've observed, the number of photos that have been explicitly assigned that keyword, which doesn't include photos with descendant keywords.

The Keyword column in the Library Filter bar's Metadata browser has two modes, Hierarchical and Flat:
View attachment 16438

Hierarchical mode displays the keywords as shown in the Keyword List panel. Clicking on a keyword displays all photos with that keyword explicitly assigned and photos with descendant keywords. The counts are the number of photos with that keyword explicitly assigned.

Flat mode displays the keywords as a flat list:
View attachment 16439

Clicking on a keyword displays just those photos to which it has been explicitly assigned; photos with descendant keywords are not included. This is the only way using native LR features to search for explicitly assigned ancestor keywords. (Plugins can do it also.) The counts in Flat mode are as in Hierarchical mode, the number of photos explicitly assigned the keyword.

When you click to the right of a keyword in the Keyword List, it always goes to the Metadata browser's Keyword column in Hierarchical mode, thus displaying photos with descendant keywords also.

Many thanks. I'd not come across flat mode though hierarchical is the way I use things anyway.

Thanks
Ian

 

[Califdan]

I just check the lowest level. I also make use of the "export containing" check boxe on the parents to specify if those parent KW's are also included on exported images.

Note 1: If you just check the lowest level but later move the lower level KW out of the Hierarchy for some reason, the images assoicated with that KW lose the implicit parents. For example, if you moved "Sparrows' out from under "birds" it would lose the context of it being a bird and an aniimal.

Note 2: In the beginning using either a flat list or a hierarichal approach is workable however if the number of KW's gets very large (Many thousands), which does seem to happen, the size of the list in the Keyword List Panel can become unmanageable. I also vaguely recall some discussion of a limit on how many lines the panel can show (maybe operating system specific). In addition, with a flat list a "keyword" column in the metadata filter will not show the whole list and you won't be able to collapse sections under a parent as a flat list has no parents.

Note 3: With both checking just the lowest level and checking all levels approaches, it is a bit tricky to determine which images are explicitly assigned to a parent KW and not any of the ones under it. For example, you assigned "birds" to a bunch of images when you didn't know what kind of bird it was. Eeverything works fine, but it can then be tricky to determine which images have been explicitly assinged "birds" excluding images assinged to lower level keywords.

 

[BobT]

I tick the lowest level only. It just seems neater. If I haven't fully identified the species, I'll tick it a higher level. That will be an indication to me that there is one or more images that have yet to be identified. The other clue is that there will be a number to the right of the higher level keyword.
For example, I have "Fungi>BASIDIOMYCOTA>Cortinarius" with various species under Cortinarius. However, I have Cortinarius ticked meaning that I have an image that I know is of the Cortinarius genera but not the species. There is also a 1 shown to the right of Cortinarius. I don't think I will be able to reliably ID it so I'll put in a catch all category under Cortinarius which I'll call Cortinarius sp. and tick that only. So now there is no tick nor number next to Cortinarius so I know there is no more to be done here.

 

[Califdan]

I tick the lowest level only. It just seems neater. If I haven't fully identified the species, I'll tick it a higher level. That will be an indication to me that there is one or more images that have yet to be identified. The other clue is that there will be a number to the right of the higher level keyword.
For example, I have "Fungi>BASIDIOMYCOTA>Cortinarius" with various species under Cortinarius. However, I have Cortinarius ticked meaning that I have an image that I know is of the Cortinarius genera but not the species. There is also a 1 shown to the right of Cortinarius. I don't think I will be able to reliably ID it so I'll put in a catch all category under Cortinarius which I'll call Cortinarius sp. and tick that only. So now there is no tick nor number next to Cortinarius so I know there is no more to be done here.

Bob T described my method as well.

 

[Psamathe]

Many thanks for everybody's comments. Decided my way (checking explicitly up through the parent keywords) was "not best" so I'm working through unchecking the parent keywords. More work than I thought but not impossible.

One aspect I've just found is that I was not 100% reliable on explicitly checking parents so it was a very unreliable thing anyway. Normally they were done but sometimes just level above and no higher, sometimes just omitting the highest parent. So if it's unreliable (or rather if I'm unreliable) then it is not useful.

Thanks
Ian

 

[Psamathe]

Apart from how to use hierarchical keywording, I'd never realised the flat/hierarchical views in the Library filter and that proved to be a real "life-saver" in sorting my Library keywording. Some photos were in "Birds" only, others in "Sparrows" (as well as all parent keywords) and the flat view became crucial in finding the photos specific in different parent levels. Very useful learning experience.

Thanks all
Ian

 

[clee01l]

Apart from how to use hierarchical keywording, I'd never realised the flat/hierarchical views in the Library filter and that proved to be a real "life-saver" in sorting my Library keywording. Some photos were in "Birds" only, others in "Sparrows" (as well as all parent keywords) and the flat view became crucial in finding the photos specific in different parent levels. Very useful learning experience.

Thanks all
Ian

My hierarchal keyboarding is a mess and has been since I started using Lightroom (cloudy) in my workflow. One of the differences between Lightroom Classic and Lightroom (cloudy) is how keywords are handled. Cloudy does not support hierarchal and everything sync'd from cloudy comes back flat . So I've ended up with nested keywords and the same keyword back from cloudy at the top (flat) level. I should have spent my COVID time working to clean this up but I haven't.

 

[Jim Wilde]

So I've ended up with nested keywords and the same keyword back from cloudy at the top (flat) level.

Out of curiosity, how are you getting keywords "back from cloudy"?

 

[clee01l]

Out of curiosity, how are you getting keywords "back from cloudy"?

Memory is not what it once was. I import from the camera card into cloudy and work the images on a iPad Pro before they sync to the LrC catalog. Once is discovered the difficulties getting Keywords (even flat keywords) back from cloudy, I stopped adding keywords in the cloud cloud. (and I am not so bothered to add them in LrC either) Once I go back to a flat keyword list, it won't matter.

 

[BobT]

My hierarchal keyboarding is a mess and has been since I started using Lightroom (cloudy) in my workflow. One of the differences between Lightroom Classic and Lightroom (cloudy) is how keywords are handled. Cloudy does not support hierarchal and everything sync'd from cloudy comes back flat . So I've ended up with nested keywords and the same keyword back from cloudy at the top (flat) level. I should have spent my COVID time working to clean this up but I haven't.

Yikes, that really puts me off cloudy. I depend so much on a deep keyword hierarchy. My folder structure is in year/month/day order so looks at it from a different perspective. It is only the risk of possible loss of LrC's powerful keyword hierarchical structure that has stopped me moving to another app.

 

[Psamathe]

Yikes, that really puts me off cloudy. I depend so much on a deep keyword hierarchy. My folder structure is in year/month/day order so looks at it from a different perspective. It is only the risk of possible loss of LrC's powerful keyword hierarchical structure that has stopped me moving to another app.

About a year ago I was looking to switch to Capture One. They don't do hierarchical keywords so I don't know how widespread this feature is outside Lightroom Classic (there were other issues for me with Capture One - so I didn't switch). I was surprised about Lr (cloud)'s handling (or lack of handling) of keywords.

Ian

 

[clee01l]

About a year ago I was looking to switch to Capture One. They don't do hierarchical keywords so I don't know how widespread this feature is outside Lightroom Classic (there were other issues for me with Capture One - so I didn't switch). I was surprised about Lr (cloud)'s handling (or lack of handling) of keywords.

Ian

IIRC there are two keyword fields in the EXIF/IPTC standard There are keywords and hierarchical keywords. Adobe is AFAIK the only vendor that populated and supports hierarchical keywords.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[johnrellis]

IIRC there are two keyword fields in the EXIF/IPTC standard There are keywords and hierarchical keywords. Adobe is AFAIK the only vendor that populated and supports hierarchical keywords.

Flat keywords are stored in the industry-standard fields XMP:Subject and IPTC:Keywords. LR stores hierarchical keywords in XMP:HierarchicalSubject, which is Adobe-specific and not defined by any standard; I'm not aware of any non-Adobe programs that read that field, but there might be.

 

[BobT]

IIRC there are two keyword fields in the EXIF/IPTC standard There are keywords and hierarchical keywords. Adobe is AFAIK the only vendor that populated and supports hierarchical keywords.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I too was seriously looking at Capture One. They claimed they could translate keywords. I wasn't convinced. That was the deal breaker for me. Had I lost the keyword hierarchy, my catalogue would have been little more than a skip bin full of random photos.