# custom metadata fields



## Michael Gray (Mar 15, 2019)

I have been attempted to set-up Jeffrey Freidl's custom fields plug-in without success.
I have already made adjustments according to the LR feedback.
Using Desktop lightroom 6.

Any suggestions? Is there an alternative?

Michael


----------



## johnbeardy (Mar 15, 2019)

What exactly have you done? Have you been editing files in a text editor? I don't know Jeffrey's plugin and have no idea what you mean by "the LR feedback", but I do know my way around this area. The message means exactly what it says - if you change a setting like its searchability, then you must increment the version too.


----------



## Wernfried (Mar 15, 2019)

Michael Gray said:


> Is there an alternative?



According exiftool there are 20'000 exif tags defined. I don't know what kind of custom data you are using but I would pick an unused exif tag and put your information there. 

For example I use tag "MasterDocumentID" to put the full path of the source file.


----------



## Wernfried (Mar 15, 2019)

Actually I would assume for any kind of "custom data" there is already an exif tag. 
For example you have tag AcquisitionDateTime , PregnancyStatus, PatientWeight, MilitaryRank, SpectralWidth, Polarity, Occupation, Habitat, Kingdom, etc.


----------



## PhilBurton (Mar 16, 2019)

Wernfried said:


> Actually I would assume for any kind of "custom data" there is already an exif tag.
> For example you have tag AcquisitionDateTime , PregnancyStatus, PatientWeight, MilitaryRank, SpectralWidth, Polarity, Occupation, Habitat, Kingdom, etc.


Wernfried,

I would be thrilled to know if there are EXIF tags for the subject area of railroad and rail transit photography.  For example:


System name (e.g. BNSF or DB or Transport for London)
Division name (e.g. Western)
Route Name (e.g. Piccadily Line or Blue Line)
Route Number (on the New York City subway system could be a number or a letter)
Station Name (e.g. Lexington Avenue or King's Cross)
Rollling stock type (passenger, freight, boxcar, goods wagon, flatcar)
Rolling stock manufacturer (e.g. Pullman Standard, Metro Camwell, Alsthom)
Rolling stock series name (e.g. GP 35, R29,)
Locomotive wheel arrangement (4-8-4 (US) 2-4-2 (Europe), BB)
Rolling stock number (e.g. 61097)  Or capture an entire UIC number, as in this photograph:




I had always assumed that I wold need to define custom metadata fields for this information.  That was before I started to investigate DAM solutions, including Lightroom, and discovered almost no support for custom metadata fields.  After a while I came to the conclusion that I would have to use groups of keywords as a barely acceptable substitute.   I'm not happy about this situation, but that's the reality I have to work with.

Phil Burton


----------



## Wernfried (Mar 16, 2019)

PhilBurton said:


> I would be thrilled to know if there are EXIF tags for the subject area of railroad and rail transit photography.  For example:
> 
> I had always assumed that I wold need to define custom metadata fields for this information.  That was before I started to investigate DAM solutions, including Lightroom, and discovered almost no support for custom metadata fields.



Ok, for such complex data a DAM solution seems to be needed. 

I would say items like wheel arrangement or route number are not a property of an image but the image is just one property out of a "railroad and rail transit" data set.


----------



## sty2586 (Mar 16, 2019)

Check this Plug-in, maybe it works for you:

https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/jbeardsworth/findreplace/index.php?sec=custom
Franz


----------



## PhilBurton (Mar 16, 2019)

Wernfried said:


> Ok, for such complex data a DAM solution seems to be needed.
> 
> I would say items like wheel arrangement or route number are not a property of an image but the image is just one property out of a "railroad and rail transit" data set.



Perhaps, but for railroad photography, that might be just as important as other parts of the subject description such as geo-coordinates.

Phil Burton


----------



## PhilBurton (Mar 16, 2019)

sty2586 said:


> Check this Plug-in, maybe it works for you:
> 
> https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/jbeardsworth/findreplace/index.php?sec=custom
> Franz


Franz,

For me the issue is explained clearly in the description for this plug-in:

_These custom fields are stored in the Lightroom catalogue and are never written to images themselves or to exported files. That is both good and bad. It means that they can be used for information which you do not want others to see, but it also means the information is locked inside Lightroom and only a plug-in can access the fields. _

If/when/ever this limitation is removed, then I will gladly use this plug-in.

Phil Burton


----------



## Wernfried (Mar 16, 2019)

PhilBurton said:


> For me the issue is explained clearly in the description for this plug-in:
> 
> _These custom fields are stored in the Lightroom catalogue and are never written to images themselves or to exported files. That is both good and bad. It means that they can be used for information which you do not want others to see, but it also means the information is locked inside Lightroom and only a plug-in can access the fields. _
> 
> If/when/ever this limitation is removed, then I will gladly use this plug-in.



Perhpas you can use Jeffrey Friedl's Run Any Command

Have a look at "PluginProperty=_field_" or  The Special {LUA=...} Token, it might be possible to access the custom metadata from the Search and Replace Plugin.

_"PluginProperty" allows you to access the per-image custom metadata kept by a plugin, where field is the plugin's id and the metadata field id, joined with a dot. [...] with PluginProperty, you can reference any plugin data for which you know the plugin id and field name. You can get these from the plugin author, or try digging around the plugin's *Info.lua* for the plugin id and a reference to its LrMetadataProvider, where you can find field ids. _

When you check the code with a HEX editor then the filed names should be "uk.co.beardsworth.findreplace.custom01" to "uk.co.beardsworth.findreplace.custom16" and/or  "uk.co.beardsworth.findreplace.jbParse01" to "uk.co.beardsworth.findreplace.jbParse05"


----------



## johnbeardy (Mar 16, 2019)

Just don't come to me for support on this! 

Sure, a plugin such as Jeffrey's can _read_ any other plugin's custom metadata and could therefore write it to the original or to a sidecar. However,  what benefit does this really have?  As backup? Well,  the backup is the catalogue. Then  are you going to take this metadata to another app? Which? Because none (of any significance) is coded to read custom metadata. So are you going to bring it back into LR? OK. But  one plugin can't write another plugin's metadata, so you can't write it back to Search and Replace's fields.  This means you are going to need _another_ plugin which can both read from the originals _and_  has custom metadata. Phil, you and I have gone over this a few times.... and you're best off with the course you've taken.


----------



## PhilBurton (Mar 16, 2019)

johnbeardy said:


> Just don't come to me for support on this!
> 
> Sure, a plugin such as Jeffrey's can _read_ any other plugin's custom metadata and could therefore write it to the original or to a sidecar. However,  what benefit does this really have?  As backup? Well,  the backup is the catalogue. Then  are you going to take this metadata to another app? Which? Because none (of any significance) is coded to read custom metadata. So are you going to bring it back into LR? OK. But  one plugin can't write another plugin's metadata, so you can't write it back to Search and Replace's fields.  This means you are going to need _another_ plugin which can both read from the originals _and_  has custom metadata. Phil, you and I have gone over this a few times.... and you're best off with the course you've taken.


John,

I think we are in total agreement.  I completely agree with your reasoning.

It's a darn shame that Adobe won't support their own XMP standard, but I don't see any real value in custom metadata fields that can't be shared with others.

Phil Burton


----------



## johnbeardy (Mar 16, 2019)

It's a shame, Phil, but it's been going downhill for more than 10 years. I guess I am moving to the view that one should focus on the stuff that will survive machine learning, like keywords and "rich" captions, and not spend too much time structuring metadata in a purist way.

John


----------

