Split from: 5.2.2 Lat/Long/Alt disappear after writeback

[Mario]

IMatch allows you to ignore embedded XMP by using the "force sidecar" setting. Having two XMP records for the same file is to be avoided. The camera vendors are causing the problem and should fix it. E.g. by allowing their users to prevent the camera from embedding partial XMP records in their files. I doubt that this will happen, because camera vendors give a shite. But I cannot fix this, and I'm not sure what the MWG says about competing duplicate XMP records. I can only allow users to choose, and encourage them to delete the partial XMP record produced by some Canon models using Exiftool.

[Ferdinand]

IMatch allows you to ignore embedded XMP by using the "force sidecar" setting.

Then I misunderstood the issue.  I thought even with this set, IMatch would read the embedded zero rating in a CR2 and give it priority.  I don't have one of these files to test.

I was interested in this because I have a similar issue with copyright in RAF, although there seems to be a workaround for this.  Or perhaps I switched to "force sidecar".  Not sure now.

[Mario]

Default means "combine". Force means "XMP sidecar only". Favor means "favor sidecar over embedded, but combine." The sole meaning of these options is to work around issues like the one you described.

I wonder how Adobe and the other vendors get away with a much simpler approach, just ignoring XMP data or having only one, 'right' way to deal with it. Users complain once, twice. And since no support is provided by the officials, users seem to settle with the status quo and find work-arounds. I sometimes think I should do the same for IMatch. Would save me a lot of time I could spend otherwise, e.g. for marketing IMatch (severe lack of resources in that department) or, gasp!, spare time...

[Ferdinand]

Adobe get away with it because they're big.  If we can only do in IMatch what we can do in Adobe apps, you run the risk that people settle for the Adobe apps.  Not your loyal users of course, but others might. 

[Mario]

I think users are doing that anyway. They restrict their workflow to what they can achieve with LR.

Occasionally I run short sessions with local photo clubs about DAM. And when I show LR users what a real DAM like IMatch can do, they suddenly notice what they are missing. Before they did not know, did not care or were totally overwhelmed by the Adobe marketing machinery - made to believe that what LR does is all they ever need. May be true for some, may be totally wrong for others.

I just read a thread in another photographer forum. A pro photographer tried out another RAW processor for fun with her Canon files. She uses LR for a couple of years now. She was baffled about how much better the photos looked in the other RAW processor...so it pays off to re-evaluate earlier decisions and tool sets. Not every RAW processor produces top quality for all camera models, motives and shooting conditions. Same is true for image management.

It's just so hard to push through the marketing vapor the big vendors produce with their marketing departments, tight press relations and money...

[Ferdinand]

I think users are doing that anyway. They restrict their workflow to what they can achieve with LR.

I just read a thread in another photographer forum. A pro photographer tried out another RAW processor for fun with her Canon files. She uses LR for a couple of years now. She was baffled about how much better the photos looked in the other RAW processor...

I read this a lot, esp for Fuji RAF where LR has issues in handling the x-trans sensor.  Any you know what?  They all import the developed images back into LR!!!  From what I can tell it's so that they can use its limited DAM.  In some cases it's also because they like the LR workflow and editing tools so they import a 16-bit TIFF into LR and finished editing it there, plus the DAM.  It's certainly true that the LR workflow is better than most other converters, but this is a complex workflow and not something that you'd want to do in bulk.

So I think there's a big market out there for a quality DAM like IMatch, although a lot of these users also seem to use a Mac so that reduces it somewhat.

We really have hijacked this thread now.  Sorry.  Richard will scold us.

[Mario]

I sometimes get the impression that many users use LR because they can download presets from the Internet for free. To make their images look "good" with a few mouse clicks. Often, the end results look like Instagram to me. Too much Instagram looks around, I'm bored...

Richard will forgive us this once. He runs a tight ship (and rightfully so), but maybe this time we can get away 

[Richard]

Richard will forgive us this once. He runs a tight ship (and rightfully so), but maybe this time we can get away 

It is one thing when forum members hijack a thread but what can I say when the forum member is also the forum owner? 

[Mario]

Moderators may also moderately moderate the forum owner - if he gets carried away...

[Ferdinand]

You know, I miss those occasional rambling and OT discussions we used to have back in the alpha and closed beta testers forum.  Why don't you do what I've seen done elsewhere and create a new board called something like "General Photography Related" for OT but not too OT discussions?  Then Richard could gently chastise us by moving the OT parts of this thread there.

Moderators may also moderately moderate the forum owner - if he gets carried away...

So which of us is that brave, hmmm???

[Mario]

Agreed.

https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?board=78.0