# Tagging strategy: do you include spaces in names?



## turnstyle (Jan 26, 2011)

I'm gearing up to perform the Big Tag Chore, and I'm hoping to get it mostly right the first time -- I'd be grateful for any suggestions/tips you might have to share.

For example, if you tag somebody by full name is it a bad idea to include a space between the first and last name? Or, should I perhaps tag first and last names separately?

Also, do you just leave the tag data in Lightroom, or do you write it all back into the image files themselves?

Any other good suggestions I should keep in mind as I dig into this project?


----------



## dj_paige (Jan 26, 2011)

I don't personally have any problems with spaces in tag names. "New York" is perfectly acceptable as a keyword.

I keyword hierarchically, so family name is a keyword, and then individuals names is a keyword underneath the family name. But if you know two people named Judy with different last names, you might want to create tags that contain first and last name. There's no right or wrong here. You choose what you think will work for you.

I write the keyword to the photos just in case I ever want to e-mail or use the keyword outside of LR.


----------



## clee01l (Jan 26, 2011)

It depends upon your keyword scheme.  If you want to maintain a rigid family hierarchy, then {Surname} would be a parent keyword and {Given Name} would be children of that parent (though not necessarily children of a common parent).

If you are using a flat keyword scheme or are not needing a rigid hierarchy, then an individual's full name might be all that is necessary to uniquely label an individual. In that case a space between words in the keyword would be fine and is certainly permitted.


----------



## erro (Jan 26, 2011)

Me, i don't use spaces. Instead I replace them with underscore (_). So a photo taken in New York will be tagged New_York, and that tag is in the location hierarchy. That way I can search for the specific keyword New_York in smart collections. Searching for New York will otherwise give me photos from New Zeeland, York, Yorkshire and so on. LR allows spaces within a keyword tag, but unfortunately has no concept of the spaces when you search.


----------



## rccoleman (Jan 26, 2011)

erro said:


> LR allows spaces within a keyword tag, but unfortunately has no concept of the spaces when you search.



This is the main reason that I'd shy away from using spaces in tags, despite my opinion that it makes the tags ugly and less friendly.  If Lightroom just supported quotes to surround tags with spaces, it would be a step toward solving this problem.


----------



## harringg (Jan 26, 2011)

One thing people may not be aware of is, in LR3, Using Keywords>starts with>  will allow you to keep spaces in Keywords.

Keywords>starts with>New York shows only images that have "New York"
Keywords>starts with>New Zealand shows only images that have "New Zealand"

But

Keywords>Contains>New York will show both "New York" and "New Zealand" 

That may be where people get confused with Smart Collections and Keywords with spaces.

Hope this helps


----------



## rccoleman (Jan 26, 2011)

harringg said:


> Keywords>starts with>New York shows only images that have "New York"


 
Or a keyword that just starts with "New York", like "New York Subway".  If you want the second, but not the first, you're out of luck.  Perhaps it seems pedantic, but I've had to rearrange keywords to avoid just such an issue.

EDIT: Or you have to do something like "this and this, but not this", which I think is actually worse than the underscores in tag names.  It's just not a scalable solution.

Rob


----------



## turnstyle (Jan 26, 2011)

rccoleman said:


> This is the main reason that I'd shy away from using spaces in tags, despite my opinion that it makes the tags ugly and less friendly.  If Lightroom just supported quotes to surround tags with spaces, it would be a step toward solving this problem.


 
I've traditionally replaced spaces with underscores, and I was hoping I could finally stop that barbaric practice.

Is there a good reference on how to use hierarchical tags in Lightroom? If you have people hierarchically tagged like: Millers/John and Smiths/John, how do you search for only John Smith?


----------



## jimburgess (Jan 26, 2011)

This is another example where LR falls short on its DAM implementation. But if you can search for keywords using the Metadata panels, the issues with spaces within keywords are minimized. Of course, you can't always use that approach because of its limitations, and it doesn't work in smart collections, obviously.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 26, 2011)

I never include false characters such as underscores in keywords - even if the app's search mechanism is underpowered.


----------



## dj_paige (Jan 26, 2011)

Searching for Keywords / Contains All / New York will find New York photos but not New Zealand photos. Using the Keyword List panel, you can easily select those photos that have New York as a keyword, and you won't get New Zealand.


----------



## harringg (Jan 26, 2011)

turnstyle said:


> If you have people hierarchically tagged like: Millers/John and Smiths/John, how do you search for only John Smith?


 
 Take a look at this thread.Post #8


----------



## erro (Jan 26, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> Searching for Keywords / Contains All / New York will find New York photos but not New Zealand photos. Using the Keyword List panel, you can easily select those photos that have New York as a keyword, and you won't get New Zealand.


 
Yes, but it will also find photos tagged with "New York restaurant" in Paris.

This all boils down to LR not treating spaces as spaces when it comes to the filter bar and smart collections. It also boils down to having a global keywording/searching/collection strategy that works without having to remember all special cases.


----------



## harringg (Jan 26, 2011)

rccoleman said:


> Or a keyword that just starts with "New York", like "New York Subway".  If you want the second, but not the first, you're out of luck.  Perhaps it seems pedantic, but I've had to rearrange keywords to avoid just such an issue.
> 
> EDIT: Or you have to do something like "this and this, but not this", which I think is actually worse than the underscores in tag names.  It's just not a scalable solution.
> 
> Rob



Keywords>Starts With>New York !Subway 

This will return only "New York" keywords.  If you have "New York Subway", it is hidden because of the ! (Shift+1) operator.

Expanded it's reading it as: Show me words that start with "New York", but if the word "Subway" is part of that phrase, ignore it.


----------



## erro (Jan 26, 2011)

harringg said:


> Take a look at this thread.Post #8


 
As I relied to dj_paige: This all boils down to LR not treating spaces as spaces when it comes to the filter bar and smart collections. It also boils down to having a global keywording/searching/collection strategy that works without having to remember all special cases. To always have to remember to enter a lot of things NOT to include in a collection is not a scalable solution.


----------



## erro (Jan 26, 2011)

harringg said:


> Keywords>Starts With>New York !Subway
> 
> This will return only "New York" keywords.  If you have "New York Subway", it is hidden because of the ! (Shift+1) operator.
> 
> Expanded it's reading it as: Show me words that start with "New York", but if the word "Subway" is part of that phrase, ignore it.


 
And then you have to remember to exclude all other combinations that has New York in them.... not scalable.


----------



## harringg (Jan 26, 2011)

@Robert

You are correct, it's not (easily) scalable if you have a hundreds of New a*, New b*, New c*, ...., New z*, but it's clearly a solution for small case situations.  That's all I was hoping to convey.


----------



## erro (Jan 26, 2011)

What I'm trying to get through is just: please, Adobe, give us a keyword search functionality that is consistent. Keywords should be treated equally regardless if you search/select them from the Keyword List Panel, the Filter bar or a Smart Collection. If nothing else, it would make discussions like this one completely unneccessary.


----------



## harringg (Jan 26, 2011)

erro said:


> What I'm trying to get through is just: please, Adobe, give us a keyword search functionality that is consistent. Keywords should be treated equally regardless if you search/select them from the Keyword List Panel, the Filter bar or a Smart Collection. If nothing else, it would make discussions like this one completely unneccessary.


 
+1


----------



## turnstyle (Jan 26, 2011)

erro said:


> What I'm trying to get through is just: please, Adobe, give us a keyword search functionality that is consistent. Keywords should be treated equally regardless if you search/select them from the Keyword List Panel, the Filter bar or a Smart Collection. If nothing else, it would make discussions like this one completely unneccessary.


 
It seems like we're looking for a similar sort of solution -- so given current constraints, does it then make sense to tag a person as John_Smith or perhaps JohnSmith? Additionally, does it make sense to add a hierarchy for the Smiths? ie, Smiths/John_Smith would be the smart/current way to tag an individual?


----------



## harringg (Jan 27, 2011)

My honest opinion is know the current limitations of the product you are using, find suitable work-arounds, and make your workflow fit your situation.  

I don't have hundreds of Keywords that start with the same single word, Ie. New<space>...... and I have had no issues using the Not modifier (!).  That works for me.  It may not for you or others.

Until Adobe fixes the situation, the only feedback I can offer is do what you are comfortable with.  If you want to use John_Smith, or Smith/JohnSmith, or JohnSmith, it still comes down to your comfort level with the known limitations of the software.

For me, I have this Hierarchy:
People
-Smith
--John
-Jones
--John

This works in the Filter Bar (Grid View) and Smart Collections.  I'm able to filter using Grid View, Smart Collection and find just John Smith with no issues, and save a Custom Filter to apply any time I need just those images in Grid View.

YMMV


----------



## turnstyle (Jan 27, 2011)

One more tag/strategy question: I started to put my vacation pictures into several Collections (one for each trip) -- but now I'm thinking it makes more sense to use Keywords instead, is that generally right?

Collections seem Lightroom-specific, whereas Keywords seem applicable if I later decide to use another application, yes? How do you use Collections vs. Keywords? Are Collections more for things you want to pay attention to, whereas Keywords are for the bulk of the organizational job?

Lastly: to save the Keywords back out to the image files, I just select a folder and choose Save Metadata, is that all? And that works for both RAW and JPEG? (I've never used Sidecar files, is this where I'm supposed to use them?)


----------



## dj_paige (Jan 27, 2011)

I agree, I use keywords for my primary identifying method, collections are secondary and optional. If you want the identifier to be visible by other applications (like Flickr or other web sites), you must use a keyword and not a collection. I have smart collections for portfolio type things (for example, "Best of Western NY", "Best Church Photos", etc.) and dumb collections for things I might probably never want to share publicly, for example "Trips with Jessica".

Yes, you can save metadata with Ctrl-S (Save Metadata) or via the autosave option Edit->Catalog Settings->Metadata, check Automatically write changes into XMP


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 27, 2011)

turnstyle said:


> Collections seem Lightroom-specific, whereas Keywords seem applicable if I later decide to use another application, yes?



Yes, and that's even more reason for not using fake characters in keywords merely because Lightroom's search isn't yet as good as we would all want. Sooner or later you will use another app, or LR's search will take some steps forward. 



turnstyle said:


> How do you use Collections vs. Keywords? Are Collections more for things you want to pay attention to, whereas Keywords are for the bulk of the organizational job?



Keywords have external uses, in ways that collections don't have. But keywords merely tag images, while collections are "containers" or "virtual folders" and have organisational and output roles. Each collection quietly saves the most-recent Web, Slideshow and Print settings.

In short, mark up images with keywords that describe the image's content and meanings, but use collections for grouping images.

John


----------



## turnstyle (Jan 27, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> Yes, you can save metadata with Ctrl-S (Save Metadata) or via the autosave option Edit->Catalog Settings->Metadata, check Automatically write changes into XMP


 
Thanks, and Saving Metadata works for both JPEG and RAW files? (I haven't yet used Sidecar files, should I be using them for this?) Can Lightroom also save metadata back out to video files it has imported?


----------



## turnstyle (Jan 26, 2011)

I'm gearing up to perform the Big Tag Chore, and I'm hoping to get it mostly right the first time -- I'd be grateful for any suggestions/tips you might have to share.

For example, if you tag somebody by full name is it a bad idea to include a space between the first and last name? Or, should I perhaps tag first and last names separately?

Also, do you just leave the tag data in Lightroom, or do you write it all back into the image files themselves?

Any other good suggestions I should keep in mind as I dig into this project?


----------



## dj_paige (Jan 27, 2011)

Saving metadata works on all types of files (i don't know about video, as I don't have video files). You, the user, don't use sidecar files at all. Lightroom (and some other Adobe products) use them as appropriate, so there is nothing for you, the user, to be concerned about regarding sidecar files.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 27, 2011)

You can read about sidecars in other threads (my view: they're OldThink). But saving metadata back to videos is a subject in itself, and the industry as a whole is at a point a long way behind where we are with still images. Standards are very weak and practices diverse. LR won't save metadata back to videos, and in my view the best Adobe tool for this is Bridge which can save directly into video files in the same way as it can write directly to JPEGs. If I had a lot of video, I would be tagging in Bridge, and importing into LR.

John


----------



## turnstyle (Jan 27, 2011)

Is the .xmp file next to my RAW file a sidecar? I gather Lightroom doesn't save the metadata *into* my RAW file, but rather *next to* it? And if I were instead to use DNG that data would be contained within the file?

In the case of a catastrophic failure of my Catalog, is it just as easy to import RAW+.xmp as it is to import DNG?


----------



## dj_paige (Jan 27, 2011)

In the case of catastrophic failure of your catalog, the best solution is to have regular backups of the catalog file. You would then use your backup.

Get out of the idea of using XMP as a replacement for a catalog backup, as there is a lot of information in your catalog file that does NOT get written to XMP. 

Also get out of the idea of re-importing photos. This simply is NOT a good idea.


----------



## turnstyle (Jan 27, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> In the case of catastrophic failure of your catalog, the best solution is to have regular backups of the catalog file. You would then use your backup.
> 
> Get out of the idea of using XMP as a replacement for a catalog backup, as there is a lot of information in your catalog file that does NOT get written to XMP.
> 
> Also get out of the idea of re-importing photos. This simply is NOT a good idea.


 
I'm actually comfortable with my backup strategy -- my inquiry is more about portability than backup, and I'm also a bit leery of getting too dependent on Lightroom, even with a good backup plan.

So, going back a step, do you consider it a "good practice" to save Metadata back out to your files? Or do you just leave it in Lightroom?


----------



## dj_paige (Jan 27, 2011)

The purpose of writing data to XMP is to exchange some metadata with other applications. It is not a backup strategy. So, yes, I consider it a good practice FOR ME, because I do sometimes exchange metadata with other applications. It also allows me to be "less dependent" on Lightroom, in case someday I choose to not use LR.

Is writing metadata to XMP a good practice for everyone? I don't know. I can't answer that. If it meets your needs, then I suppose it is a good practice. If you don't need it, then it is not a good practice, it takes up extra disk space without providing a benefit.


----------



## erro (Jan 27, 2011)

turnstyle said:


> It seems like we're looking for a similar sort of solution -- so given current constraints, does it then make sense to tag a person as John_Smith or perhaps JohnSmith? Additionally, does it make sense to add a hierarchy for the Smiths? ie, Smiths/John_Smith would be the smart/current way to tag an individual?


 
Smiths/John_Smith is the way I do it. Actually, I do it like this:

> ¤people
> > ¤friends
> > > ¤Smith_family
> > > > John_Smith

This way I can quickly show/select/filter/smartcollect all photos of John Smith, or the whole Smith family, or even all photos with any people whatsoever in it.

I use the ¤ to indicate keywords that are not really keywords but more sort of categories.


----------



## erro (Jan 27, 2011)

I tend to use keywords more and more. Keywords are a great way to not only tag your photos with information, but you can also make use of the lack of keywords (lack of information). Let's take my previous example of keywords for peoples names:

> ¤people
> > ¤friends
> > > ¤Smith_family
> > > > John_Smith

With this hierarcy I can simply search for "keywords doesn't contain ¤people" to show me all photos that are not tagged with regards to poeple. I also have two special people-keywords:

> ¤people
> > no_people
> > unknown_people

This way, I get a ¤people-tag even for those photos that have no people or unknown people. Meaning I know that I have actually evaluated this photo with regards to people, and it won't show up in my no-people-search.

Doing this with static collections isn't as easy. You have to remember what you have done, and how can you know if you have evaluated a certain photo or not?


----------



## turnstyle (Jan 27, 2011)

Can you explain a bit more about your use of ¤ ?


----------



## erro (Jan 27, 2011)

turnstyle said:


> Can you explain a bit more about your use of ¤ ?


 
I'm just using that to indicate that this keyword is not an "actual" keyword, but a keyword used for grouping other keywords. Also, then I can search for this "grouping keyword" to find non-tagged photos, without worrying about if that word is used somewhere else. Suppose I have one or more regular keywords that somehow contain people. Now, if I just used people as the grouping keyword, they could conflict. But I know that I'm not using ¤people anywhere else, so that can be searched for exclusively.


----------

