Shutter speed display in data-driven category

[jch2103]

I'm getting some inconsistent results with a data-driven category for shutter speed, and wanted to check if this was an IMatch issue or an issue with underlying data (and/or more specifically ExifTool):

I set up a data-driven category for shutter speed using Composite/Shutter Speed. The results returned aren't consistent. I've tried several combinations of formatting, including Automatic and Real, both with 'Use RAW value' turned on and off. See attached screen shots.

If I use the defaults of Automatic = yes and RAW = no, I get an odd sorting, like this:
0
0.3
..
0.8
1
1.2
..
1.6
1/4
1/5
..
1/4000
2
2.1
etc.

See screen shots for other patterns. Using Real and RAW = Yes seems to present the fewest consistency issues, except that faster shutter speeds are combined into groups; for example, 0.00 includes all shutter speeds faster than 1/100 second.

Am I missing something, or is this an unavoidable problem?


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Mario]

Category Names are always text (there are no 'numerical' category names).
Which tag do you use? The default ISO category created automatically by IMatch uses Exif::Main\34855\ISO\0.

Why are the values you get so different? Using the RAW value will always result in decimal numbers, not a mix of 0.3 and 1/4000. So these are the formatted values as returned by ExifTool.

Which sort mode do you use for your category view? The "Standard" mode usually sorts all category names consisting only of numbers properly.

[RalfC]

To my understanding, the question was about the shutter speed display not the ISO setting.

Anyhow, I think that the problem is connected to the way how the times are written into EXIF and how Exiftool needs to convert those values somehow.
Remember that there might be times of a fraction of a second and times which are longer than a second. (And at least my Nikon is able to create times which lay between two 1/3 EV steps...)

Using the automatic mode with raw values could be a solution but the sorting of the numerical values seems to be wrong (although being correct when previewing the setting in the property dialog?). [Maybe due to international setting of Windows?]

Regards,
Ralf

[jch2103]

Category Names are always text (there are no 'numerical' category names).
Which tag do you use? The default ISO category created automatically by IMatch uses Exif::Main\34855\ISO\0.

Why are the values you get so different? Using the RAW value will always result in decimal numbers, not a mix of 0.3 and 1/4000. So these are the formatted values as returned by ExifTool.

Which sort mode do you use for your category view? The "Standard" mode usually sorts all category names consisting only of numbers properly.

RalfC is correct: I was using shutter speed (Composite\ShutterSpeed\ShutterSpeed\0), not ISO. See the screen shots for my specific settings. RalfC is also correct that there's a discrepancy between what the Preview shows and what ends up in the actual Category results (I'm using English US Windows settings. Most of my shutter speeds are from Nikon DSLRs but there are also other camera models in my database). Mario: Yes, I was using Standard sort mode for all my examples.

[Mario]

Tip: Try not to use Composite tags, use the XMP tag if possible (the standard shutter speed tag offered by IMatch).

IMatch can use only whatever is stored in your database. If you have values like

0.3
0.8
1/4
1/5
1/4000

there is no 'right' way to sort them. It's all just text. Which values do you get when you use the "RAW" values instead?
How does the sort order differ in the preview from the category view?
The preview uses a simple sort, which may or may not be identical to the sort used in the category view.