Curiosity

[zematima]

Hi:
This is what I would like to hear from you:
Imagine a (real) situation:
I take a picture in a village called A. The picture is from a castle called B that is on the mountain (so when you look at the picture you see only the castle).
GPS - The local - village A - where the picture was taken or the castle - what you really see? (My camera doesn't have GPS, so I have to look in the map)
Location -  Village A - where the picture was taken or the castle - what you really see?
Keywords - Same as Location
Maybe a mix of these 3?
How do you have your database?
Thanks in advance.
JRosa.

[sinus]

I think, this is a wellknown "problem".

If you get a opostcard, where you can see the mountain "Matterhorn" (well, or Himalaya, but I am in Switzerland  ), I think, you want not have the gps of the place, where someone get this picture. What you want have is the gps of the moutain.
And because the mountain is big, well, depends  a bit on the photo, usually simply the top of the moutain.

Of course, we can store, the gps from where the photographer took this picture, and the direction of the cam and the mountain itself. But is this all important? Maybe! We could also store othere things, like the temperature of the time take the pictures and so on... 

[Mario]

GPS allows for two locations (the location the image was taken, and the location the camera pointed at). But this is rarely used (IMatch does not at this time).
There are applications for which this may be useful, but often it just complicates things if you have two different sets of GPS coordinates in the file.

If I make a photo of the London Tower bridge I add the coordinates of the bridge to the GPS data, not the standpioint of my camera 500 meters away.

[sinus]

If I make a photo of the London Tower bridge I add the coordinates of the bridge to the GPS data, not the standpioint of my camera 500 meters away.

Makes also more sense for me.

[zematima]

Thanks for replying.
So in the given example one way would be to put the GPS for the mountain (I only use one GPS location) . According to this I should put in the location the castle not the standpoint (the village).
If so the place where it was taken - the village - where should I put it? Keywords? Attributes?
Thanks again,
JRosa.

[Mario]

Mabye in your description?

"View of Mount Vesuvius, taken from the city of Pompei"

[zematima]

Description can be one solution.
Must review all my database...
Thanks for the inputs.

[Mario]

You can view and update both GPS coordinate pairs if you want.

See also this discussion:

https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?topic=4956.0

There is an open feature request for adding support for "camera direction" for the Map Panel. This would probably involve adding support for creating/updating both location shown and location created. But that would require changes in many IMatch modules, from the map panel to the reverse-geocoding to the GPS filter ... a lot of work, and only very few requests.

[zematima]

Thanks Mario.

[ColinIM]

Hi:
This is what I would like to hear from you:
[....]

Just to offer another point of view (and please excuse the pun  )

I decided a long time ago (around the time of that earlier discussion in 2015, linked-to by Mario) that I would record the photographer's location in the GPS coordinates, and then I would add - if it was appropriate for the photograph - a note in the Description field about the direction I was looking at the time I took the photo.

I enjoy doing cityscapes and streetscapes and it was illogical to record the coordinates of the subject or subjects in my photos (such as a distant hilltop or a church spire for example) because there will often be more than one object of special interest in my photos.

Another reason for this choice was because, for a given set of photos taken within minutes of each other at a particular location or during a particular shooting session, I preferred my photos' GPS coordinates literally to be a good approximation of the 'track' of my walk or my adventure around that site.  If instead I had chosen to annotate a photo's GPS fields with (say) the coordinates of a famous building some tens or hundreds of metres away - and if I'd done this probably more than once per session - then a map-based view of my photos at some later date would imply that I'd used some super-power to fly across country between (for example) those buildings   

I've accepted the following small compromise with this option:  I will typically add a series of keywords relating to each of the interesting features in a photo, therefore there will be no guaranteed correlation between any photo's GPS coordinates and the results returned for example from a keyword-based search.  I can use my map to get me into an area of countryside OK, but I'll rely on my keywords to locate my photos of any specific landmark or 'feature'.

It's a problem with no black & white answer of course, but I still marvel at the ease with which - nowadays - we can correlate our photos with our travels and our meanderings!!

Colin P.

[zematima]

Thank you very much for your input Mr.Colin.
Best regards,
JRosa.

[ubacher]

I have set up two category trees: LOCATION which would be the one which GPS would record
and WHATitSHOWS where I record (mostly) some characteristic mountains which I photograph frequently.

[zematima]

Thank you.
A very useful tip.

[axel.hennig]

Just for information: GeoSetter (http://www.geosetter.de/) can read, write and show on map the image direction as well as the destiantion latitude/longitude.

[zematima]

Thanks Axel.