# Your Keywording Best Practices



## Parafly (Aug 24, 2012)

Hey guys, 

I have currently over 31,000 photos in my library. There was a point in time when I was keywording some pics in Picasa but I became overwhelmed because of inconsistency and so forth. 

What are you best practices for effective keywording? 

I came from Picasa and I had location and people nailed there. All pics were (are) geotagged (which replicates just fine in LR) and all pics were name tagged (which I'm still figuring out how to get into LR in a good usable manner). 

But other topics I never figured out .... I started tagging thinking of three things ... people, places, and things. But then it dawned on me I might want subjects .... colors ... photographic principles .... do I call dog photos just "dogs" or do I call it "labrador retrievers" or do I call it the name of my dogs ... or all three? 

I ended up quitting. So far I have been OK with just digging photos out when necessary from their folders but it takes some time, and as each year passes it gets a little more tricky (was that photo in 2003 or 2004???). 

I just feel like I don't know where to start. 

At a minimum, I think I'd like to capture: 

- Event Type (so  .... vacation, birthday, wedding, anniversary, whatever)
- Some specifics of the photo (cake, ocean, lake, water ... but then do I do ocean AND water, or just ocean? And then if I search later and I only did half my photos one way, I'm "missing out' on the ones I missed, right?)
- General type (portrait, landscape, still life)

I guess I'm just lost on where to begin. I'm sort of a perfectionist for these types of things so I get flustered easily if things are out of order. I maintain meticulous music catalogs and I've actually pushed off keywording for 2+ years because of the daunting task of going back to my old photos but it's getting bigger and bigger. 

PS: I'm sure this has been discussed earlier but I didn't find an exact version of this thread, so I am sorry if this is a repost.


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Aug 24, 2012)

Hi Parafly,

I understand how you feel - being overwhelmed by the enormous task, and I also understand the perfectionist making things even more difficult to get started.

This article may be a good start for you:
http://x-equals.com/blog/?p=2523

Do a search for "effective keywording, lightroom", and you'll find several.  

For me, reading about how to do it helps motivate me get started.

Although some may disagree, I find that since I have a large number of photos that I imported before I really started keywording, it helps to create temporary static collections.  For example, I created a collection for "Christmas", and then placed pics from several dated folders (around Cmas time) into one collection.  It helps me in the sense that photos of various time periods but similar events are going to have similar keywords.  It helps me to take a group of photos and do them all at once.

In terms of what keywords to use, ie dog vs. Labrador Retriever vs. "Brownie", it's really up to you.  What types of pics are you likely to want to find easily? The beauty of Lightroom is that as long as you are consisten, you can use all of the above as keywords! 

One important question to settle (as a fellow perfectionist), is whether to do one straight list, or do your keywords in hierarchical order.  There are strong users on both sides of this issue, and it may help you to search for "hierarchical keyword" within the forums here for those perspectives.  For me, I chose a mostly straight list, with just a few broad categories.  I do group all my "people" together under "people", and I should also probably group animals together, since I do a lot of photos of animals of various kinds.  Also, for general keywords I encompass "single" and "multiples" with one keyword, ie. animal / animals are both under "animal(s)". 
What I'm "hearing" from you is that one big concern is how to get over the overwhelmingness of 31k pictures to keyword.  Though I am still working on this habit, I'd suggest you start by beginning a habit of keywording as soon as you import.  Create the habit "from here forward", and then tackle the previous photos as time and energy/motivation allows. 

A HUGE help for me in tackling both my previous and current keywording in this way is by using a modified version of John Beardsworth's "workflow" collections, which he explains and even generously supplies a download for, here. It allows me to select a smart collection containing a particular piece of the workflow (missing state, country, copyright, keyword fields...) to concentrate on filling in.. 

For me, keywording includes filling in some of these generally widely used metadata fields (I do not include place names in my keywords).  

Keep in mind that using a smart collection for "keywords" is tricky - see THIS Message String for help on that aspect specifically.  It may also give you some additional ideas about how to group your pics for keywording.

I hope some of these "spattered" thoughts help. 

Dawn in NJ


----------



## erro (Aug 24, 2012)

I use hierarchical keywords. I have a number of different top-level keywords for the "catagories":

- people
- places
- workflow
- events

This makes it, among other things, easy to track images that are missing keywords within certain catagories. I can elaborate further, but have no time right now.


----------



## Tony Jay (Aug 24, 2012)

I would spend some time researching this before jumping into the task.

For what it is worth using hierarchies seems much the logical to me (this is what I do).
I have about 60 000 keywords in the hierarchies currently. This would be impossible to manage without an hierarchical approach.

The research that you need to do involves discovering the "correct" taxonomy that allows one to group keywords appropriately.
Rover may be a dog but he is also a canine and a mammal. I use the scientific descriptions and Rover would be a subordinate keyword to Canis canis and so would other dogs with names.
The beauty of the hierarchical approach is that just selecting Rover as a keyword would also allow all the appropriate keywords higher in the taxonomy to be automatically included such as Canis canis, mammal etc.

In lightroom it is possible also to select a keyword not to be exportable but to be visible inside lightroom itself. I use keywords of this sort to organize my hierarchy.
For example COLOURS is a non-exportable keyword (I capitalize these keywords to easily identify these keywords) but blue and green which are subordinate keywords under COLOURS are exportable with the image.

With animals, birds, plants insects, fish etc the keyword hierarchies indent 6-12 times. However, in my world anyway the COLOURS hierarchy is almost flat however on could still divide colours into PRIMARY and SECONDARY and so on if desired. This depends on you whether this sort of distinction is important.

Further advice: I think it is obvious that classifying everything in the world that could possibly be photographed to ultimate levels of detail is NOT possible.
However it is possible to completely and accurately keyword every image in your collection. 
Here is how one goes about achieving this: For me I am an avid outdoor photographer and the locations I photograph or are likely to photograph are represented in my keywords. I live in Brisbane, Australia. 
So the hierarchy goes as such:
 CONTINENTSAfrica
                                                  Antartica
                                                  Australia​STATES AND TERRITORIES​Australian Capital Territory
                                                         Northern Territory
                                                         Queensland​South East Queensland​Brisbane​Rochedale​Priestdale Road​
Under Priestdale road could be street addresses or named parks or whatever.

Now the key (pardon the pun) is that if you never go near the Australian Capital Territory don't go and flesh out that part of the hierarchy. The skeleton is in place and should you ever go there to shoot then appropriate keywords can be added to the hierarchy at the time.
Parts of the world where I shoot have an incredibly detailed geographical hierarchy. Asia, where I am yet to shoot, has only a skeleton with every country in Asia listed under ASIA and thats all so far.

Another suggestion I would make is to experiment with a small definable hierarchical group of keywords appropriate for what subjects that you shoot.
Once entered into Lightroom try and apply them to your images in order to get a feel for the mechanics of the whole system.
Once you feel comfortable with how it all works that is the time to start working on more extensive hierarchical classifications.

As an inducement to you - research how SMART COLLECTIONS work in Lightroom - once you "get" the smart collection thing you will be massively motivated to accurately and comprehensively keyword your images. After that the world will be your oyster.

This is quite a long and involved post nonetheles I thought it worthwhile because keywording and digital asset management in Lightroom is almost completely neglected in favour of the capabilities of the develop, print, and web modules, which is unfortunate given the sophisticated abilities of the library module.

Regards

Tony Jay


----------



## erro (Aug 24, 2012)

Tony pretty much wrote exactly what I didn't have time to write. We seem to have a very similar approach.


----------



## Parafly (Aug 24, 2012)

Thanks guys, this is really helpful, and the research you mention Tony Jay is exactly the reason why I was (am!) overwhelmed by all this, the worst scenario I can think of is spending days tagging and keywording images only to find at the end that I have some fundamental flaw in my structure. 

Can I ask; why do you tag geographically with keywords when you can just use the map to physically place photos? It seems geotagging would replace the need to utilize keyword based location descriptors; with the exception possibly of named places ("the White House", "Golden Gate Bridge", etc.)


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Aug 24, 2012)

Tony Jay said:


> I would spend some time researching this before jumping into the task.
> 
> I thought it worthwhile because keywording and digital asset management in Lightroom is almost completely neglected in favour of the capabilities of the develop, print, and web modules, which is unfortunate given the sophisticated abilities of the library module.
> 
> Tony Jay



I agree with both of these points. Research a bit first so you know how to approach it... but please do it.. it is worth it regardless of which approach you use.

I also totally agree that the organizational capabilities are VERY under-appreciated in lightroom. I find as a hobbyist photog only (and an organizational crazy person), that the library module is my best friend for keeping track of photos and being able to find whatever I need easily when I need them.


----------



## Parafly (Aug 24, 2012)

When I did try doing this before I also ended up with issues with consistency. Basically if I searched for "dog" I would get some photos of dogs, but not all of them, as some of them I just labeled with my dog's name (maui, kona) so it wasn't that great. I think I need to really think about it. I don't want to maintain a 60000 keyword library, I"m pretty much only using this for personal use (right now), not stock photography or professional work.


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 24, 2012)

You may want to have a look at http://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/keywording-a-3-phase-approach/ and these too http://lightroomsolutions.com/tag/keywording/ 

John


----------



## Bruce J (Aug 24, 2012)

Parafly said:


> When I did try doing this before I also ended up with issues with consistency. Basically if I searched for "dog" I would get some photos of dogs, but not all of them, as some of them I just labeled with my dog's name (maui, kona) so it wasn't that great. I think I need to really think about it. I don't want to maintain a 60000 keyword library, I"m pretty much only using this for personal use (right now), not stock photography or professional work.



Let me add one more suggestion to those above.  Just start.  You don't need to figure out your entire keyword hierarchy from scratch and add it to LR before starting to put keywords on your images.  Figure out a few high-level categories that interest you (events, people, animals, etc.) and then add sub-keywords to those as you need them.  The cool thing about LR keywords is that the keyword list is infinitely flexible.  Get some keywords in your list and start adding them to your images.  As you learn more with your own experience, you'll want to make changes.  No problem; you can add keywords, delete keywords, rename keywords, combine keywords, move them to a different part of your list, etc. to your heart's content.  The point is, get started with something and modify it as you see the need in the future.

The other thing to keep track of is what kinds of searches you do.  I started keywording with a relatively small keyword list, which has been growing for years now.  I also started by deciding that I would keyword all new images as they were processed.  That's a tough one when you're in a hurry, but it really pays off in the end.  Then, I started going backward through my collection (50,000+ images), one year at a time, adding keywords.  Along the way, I realized that I most often search for people (family, friends, etc.), so I stopped the general keywording march into the past and went all the way back to the beginning and just added the 'people' keywords to all of my images.  That's been enormously helpful already, even without the rest of the keywords.  So, just start somewhere, always remembering the point of keywording is to enable you to find images quickly.  If you never use some aspect of the image to search, don't waste your time adding those keywords.  My $.02 (which is not worth as much as it used to be worth).  Good luck!


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Aug 24, 2012)

As you said, it's important to think through the PURPOSE of your keywording in order to decide what type/style/how broad your keyword scheme should be.

So, you have two dogs, Maui and Kona.  Have you had dogs previously? How about other pets? What reasons might you want to find your photos? To share with family, to post on a flickr dog group, to input to a stock photography database?
In my case, I currently have 3 cats, plus pics of previous pets as well- dog, fish, etc.... I take pictures for my own creative benefit (so I like to find my "best" pics), but I also share pics with family, and I like to post on flickr groups on occasion.
I don't use "feline" or whatever, because that's simply not what I'll be searching for.  I will use the keywords pets, cats, and my cats' names, because pets and cats give me a broad filter, and the names specify cats within MY family- my pets.  If I took a picture of someone else's pet, I would use the type (dog, cat, etc.) and the name of the pet, but not pet, because I designate that for my own animals.  

Now, for dogs, I may get a little more specific, because I am interested in dog breeds.  So, for me, adding their breeds (and deciding ahead of time to Capitalize or not) as keywords would be important for me- for you perhaps not.  Regarding hierchical keywording- for me I'm adapting as I go - I decided to group my family/friends names into a "People" keyword, because that group of keywords was getting unwieldy.  I may wind up doing the same with animals soon, but my point is that I made that decision when I realized what I was taking the most pics of.  Perhaps it's not the best way (and planning out more is better), but I can give myself permission to be flexible because LR makes it so easy to change things when I need to.

Do you take your dogs with you to family events?  You may want to place information on the location, though I do that using the location metadata fields, and if I need to find pics of my cats while their at my neighbors house, I'll include a criteria using "any searchable metadata field" to do my filtering.

I just noticed I have not been using the keyword "animal(s)" for my cats, but as I'm writing this I'm thinking using "animal(s)" could be useful.  Why? Because gathering all my animal pics together in one place would be tedious if I had to do it by hand.  If I keyworded them all with animal(s), then I can easily create a smart collection for that keyword, and I'm set to go... IF I think I'll use a set for ALL animals (or flowers, etc.)  The beauty of LR is that if I have already keyworded pet cat(s) and decide I need to add another keyword to all my pet + cats photos, I can just filter for pet + cats and add "animal(s)" to that collection of pics.  I can't speak to adding or modifying keywords in a hierarchical way because I don't do much of that.

I do know that when I have changed my mind on a keyword (like adding "(s)" to keywords when I might have one OR more of that thing in the pic), it has been quite easy to go back, select the group I need to modify, and then change it as needed.  LR has sooo many ways for you to find groups of photos...
My point here is that yes, you need to think about it, but don't get so bogged down (as it sounds you've done before) that you don't start at all.  The more time you think about it, the less time you are keywording and therefore making it easy for you to create collections for your various purposes.  And again, we come right back to what's the purpose(s) of your photograph collection... that should be your ultimate guide.


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Aug 24, 2012)

Bruce - saw this once I posted mine- your philosophy is in line with my point as well.  Very well said $.02


----------



## johnbeardy (Aug 24, 2012)

Bruce J said:


> Let me add one more suggestion to those above.  Just start!



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Parafly (Aug 24, 2012)

Thanks again all ... as I said I just have to get over the perfectionist hurdle that I have. I get overwhelmed thinking about the infinite # of keywords that could be there and then getting stuck with using a keyword in one set of circumstances but not using it later and as a result losing a photo I should have seen because of holes in my keywording process, but I'm probably being pretty neurotic about that.


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Aug 24, 2012)

Parafly said:


> Thanks again all ... as I said I just have to get over the perfectionist hurdle that I have. I get overwhelmed thinking about the infinite # of keywords that could be there and then getting stuck with using a keyword in one set of circumstances but not using it later and as a result losing a photo I should have seen because of holes in my keywording process, but I'm probably being pretty neurotic about that.



Really.. I hear ya... and it's OK... Lightroom works really nicely with neurotic perfectionists too 
 Keep in mind, if you are importing by date, you'll STILL have those photos in a basic structure. 
Also, if you create a smart collection and think "something is missing", it is very possible, in a number of ways, to find those missing photos, and adjust accordingly.

While pondering about your post (because I struggle with much the same issues as you even after doing keywords for a while), I also came across a couple of John's posts/articles, which I really appreciate. The first is a different perspective then most here about keywords (and one which I tend to lean towards myself). The other is about the process of keywording and one (not only) way to go about it. I happen to really like this technique, though lately have been "lazy" about it. Keywords are awesome tools, but no one will tell you that it's the most exciting- so it's a matter of getting the most "bang for your buck", and choosing to do what is going to be most useful to you.

http://lightroomsolutions.com/hierarchical-keywords/

http://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/keywording-a-3-phase-approach/


----------



## GDRoth (Aug 24, 2012)

I've been using LR for over a year, but still learning. I'm now convinced that I need to go back and start keywording. Luckily, I have only around 4,000 images and very few of those are "keepers". My question is so basic, I'm embarrassed, but here goes.................can someone give a step by step in using the paint can to apply keywords to images already imported. I like to do 20-30 at a time............   I went over the "paint can" pages in Victoria's book last night, but can't quite get it.......
Dave


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Aug 24, 2012)

Here is a video you can look at to see what is being done...

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-compl...st/quick-tip-the-painter-tool-in-lightroom-4/


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Aug 24, 2012)

Dave,

Go into Grid Mode. In your toolbar at the bottom of the Grid, click on the paint can. 
(If the toolbar isn't showing, type T) (If the paintcan doesn't show, click on the down-pointing triangle at the right end of the toolbar and make sure it's checked.)

You'll see this in the toolbar:


Now, taking the arrows from left to right, 
--The paint can is gone from the bar, and is now in your mouse cursor when you have it over the Grid.
--"Keywords" is a clickable dropdown list. If yours doesn't say keywords, click on it and make it say that thing. 
--The text field is where you type the keywords that you will be painting. Type keywords separated by commas.

Once that field has the keywords you want to paint, you can click on a thumbnail in the grid to apply that keyword to an image, or you can click and drag over the images you want to "paint" with those keywords. Holding down the Alt key (PC) turns the paint can into an eraser.

Hal


----------



## GDRoth (Aug 24, 2012)

very cool................thank you Dawn and Hal


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Aug 24, 2012)

Hal- Excellent! Those tips are important - to make sure the toolbar is showing and make sure toolbar contains the paintcan.. that's tripped me up a few times!


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Aug 24, 2012)

GD - also, *do NOT *press the "DONE" button until you are done using the paintcan with those keywords.  I've accidentally clicked "DONE" after assigning the keywords but before actually painting them on, and of course it de-activates the paintcan.


----------



## Tony Jay (Aug 24, 2012)

With regard to geotagging and geographic keywords: I often photograph in VERY remote places. Geotagging images using a GPS in camera is very helpful in later reconstructing where I was exactly to allow accurate geographic keywording.
However, for your purposes, I just used that hierarchy as a taxonomic example to help your thinking about how to divide and conquer the task.

Regards

Tony Jay


----------



## GDRoth (Aug 26, 2012)

Thanks again................my paintcan work went fast and easy after your help


----------

