I started using the new map in Lightroom 4 adding GPS Data to images. I just realized that actually there are two ways to tag them. I could tag the location where the fotografer was standing or I could tag the location of the content shown on the image. It could be a significant difference between both locations for example, when I take pictures from mountains with a zoom lens during safari.
How do you guys tag your images? Do you tag the location of the photographer or the location of the shown content?
I wasn't aware there was a standard in this case. I use the location of the object photographed. If I am taking a picture of the Sears Tower in Chicago from 1/2 mile away, I still have the GPS field indicate Sears Tower. There is no value to me to indicate where I was standing.
that remembers me several years back when I saw a photo book about new zealand. I so much loved some of the images, that I wanted to find the exact location from where the images was taken from. Later in New Zealand I tracked them down
thinking from that point of view it would be helpful to know where the photographer was standing. there are 360 chances of finding the right spot for an object.
I tent to go with Johns point of view, but would like to wait for more feedback before I continue tagging my images. thanks so far.
Smart Phones, GPS devices, GPS enabled cameras, et al, record the photographer (well the camera's) position. Anything automatically tagged is going to be the capture device's location so I maintain that convention for manually recorded locations. The subject is left for Keywords, Titles, and Captions.
The keyword, titles and captions don't identify the subject as precisely as a GPS location does. I can type in the caption field "Erie Railroad Bridge over the Genesee River west of Avon, NY", but that doesn't exactly specify the location, the GPS coordinates of the bridge specify the location. Such is my goal. You can choose a different goal.
if you photograph for google earth you should tag your position not the position of the subject.
in general it makes more sense to tag your position.
especially when you tag the viewing direction too (not possible with LR).
I think it would be best if Lightroom would offer to add two GPS locations to one image. one from where it is taken, and one from what was taken. having both in one file would even offer informations about distance, altitude and heading.
It can't be two - unless Paige's picture of the Sears Tower is taken through a very long lens, the subject is more like an area. This is recognized by the IPTC Extension's location fields where you can define multiple Location Shown values. Each of these might have a GPS value, but do we have the will / time to enter so much detail, and are there downstream applications of it?
to enter all the details, well, not for all images I agree, but for my few highlights it would be nice to have that little extra inside. I would like have a Lightroom version where I can add two GPS Infos right into the metadata location section and then Lightroom automatically calculates distance, altitude and header and shows me that. it may not work and be necessary for all images, but the second GPS could be a nice optional feature.
The IPTC standard recognizes the ambiguity of the location fields and is trying to move towards more precise metadata fields. This may influence your choices.
The IPTC Standard, Photo Metadata (July 2010, 1.1), distinguishes between the location of the subject matter and the location where the camera was positioned. IPTC now has three different sets of location fields:
Location (IPTC Core): These are the original IPTC location fields (Sublocation, City, etc.), shown in LR under the metadata Location subpanel. The standard calls them "legacy" and defines them as the location "the content is focussing on", either "a sublocation to a city or the name of a well known location or (natural) monument outside a city". However, the standard recognizes that historically the Location fields has "blurred semantics as it does not clearly indicate whether it is the location in the image or the location the photo was taken".
Location Shown (IPTC Extension): The standard says for photos it "is a location shown in the image". "If the location the image was taken in is different from this location the property Location Created should be used too". These fields are shown in LR under the IPTC Extension subpanel.
Location Created (IPTC Extension): The standard defines this as "the location the photo was taken". These fields are shown in LR under the IPTC Extension subpanel.
The standard uses the term "legacy" "if the IPTC Extension provides a better solution to annotate the information about an image than the IPTC Core does. In this case, the IPTC recommends to phase out the use of the (legacy)-marked property and to move towards using the IPTC Extension."
If your metadata is intended to be used by others, then you should find out if they prefer the original IPTC location or the newer IPTC Extension locations. But many, perhaps most, applications and workflows are still using the legacy IPTC Location and ignore the IPTC Extension locations.
For example, LR's Map module uses the legacy Location, not the new IPTC Extension locations. A GPS tracklog is nearly always the location of the camera, not the location of the subject matter, so if you use LR or Geosetter to tag your photos from the tracklog, the legacy Location field will be set to the camera location. (And Location Shown or Location Created are not set.)
This is recognized by the IPTC Extension's location fields where you can define multiple Location Shown values. Each of these might have a GPS value, but do we have the will / time to enter so much detail, and are there downstream applications of it?
A clarification: The IPTC Extension Location Shown and Location Created don't contain GPS values. However, EXIF fields do allow exactly two GPS locations, which the Metadata Working Group Guidance says should be used for the first Location Created and the first Location Shown.
Unfortunately, LR 4 doesn't give access to the second GPS location.
John R. Ellis wrote:
However, EXIF fields do allow exactly two GPS locations, which the Metadata Working Group Guidance says should be used for the first Location Created and the first Location Shown.
Unfortunately, LR 4 doesn't give access to the second GPS location.
thanks John, that is new information to me. do you have a source link? I'd like to know more about it. I googled already but didn't find anything yet.
Yes, which is why I only said "might". If I recall, the Exif spec isn't clear that GPS tags 19-26 are for Location Shown. More importantly, pictures frequently show more than one location, so making available this vaguely-specified second GPS location wouldn't be particularly beneficial. It might be interesting to see what LR does if it ever encounters an image with the second GPS tag.
I tag where I took the photograph, I do a lot off off the beaten track photography, and sometimes want to find my way back to take an image in a different light. Having the location helps me back track to some of the remote areas I visit. That helps me plan my trip and route, really helpful when on multi-day hiking expedition
I have a GPS unit that plugs into my camera so all my images are tagged at capture time - one of my better investments. Did not know there was a standard for scene coordinates as well as capture coordinates. Learn something every day
John, that is new information to me. do you have a source link? I'd like to know more about it. I googled already but didn't find anything yet.
Here's a link to the Metadata Working Group's "Guidelines for Handling Image Metadata":
(Adobe is a member of the MWG, and Adobe employees have stated that they intend LR to be aligned with the guidelines.)
See section 5.8, "Location", for details about the two EXIF GPS locations.