# controlled vocabulary keyword catalog   add on experience



## Dunkinidaho (Oct 12, 2014)

Became aware of the add on or plug in called "controlled vocabulary keyword catalog" that is available for LR and other programs. Does anyone have experience with it. I'm interested to know opinions both ways.

Thanks


----------



## clee01l (Oct 12, 2014)

The folks that offer the CV add on for LR want money ($70USD) for a text list of words.  While the list is thorough, it does contain more keywords than you could reasonably expect to use.  If you research Controlled Vocabulary you would see that it is a well organized hierarchy.  You probably only need a small subset if the CV list.  If you are a subject matter expert on a topic, you could will a little though construct your own  CV specific to your needs and import that into LR. 

I chose Nature and more specifically insects and spiders.  I developed a list of species common to my local area and expanded that as additional specimens were captured by my camera. I don't need lists that include anteaters, elephants and zebras. 

As for location, my Hierarchy top level is State. Almost everything gets located in Texas by county and geographical place in that county and further divided as necessary. If I ever get around to an international trip, I'll add two more top levels (Country and USA) and drag my state keywords under USA.  The keyword list is very flexible in this regard. 

While I won't say that you should or should not purchase the CV. I will say that you won't use large chunks of it and probably will find parts of it less than adequate.  (I seriously doubt that the CV contains a Keyword "Backyard" in  Bellaire, TX  or some of the other uniquely identifiable place names that point to a specific location.)


----------



## Tony Jay (Oct 12, 2014)

I would suggest that while buying a controlled vocabulary seems a great idea, in general, it is best to construct it yourself.
With a bit of planning and research it is very easy to construct a keyword list that is as detailed as needed.
Most of the complicated keyword hierarchies involve biological subjects.

My suggestion is to construct the upper levels of these various taxonomies and then only get down to species level when required for those subjects that actually exist in the area where you are shooting.
As an aside this is also a great way to learn about what you shoot.

Tony Jay


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 12, 2014)

There are a few controlled vocabulary keyword lists, some of which are free.  I agree it's generally worth constructing your own, but you can pick up some good ideas.  http://www.lightroomqueen.com/links/keyword-lists-controlled-vocabularies/


----------



## Dunkinidaho (Oct 13, 2014)

I think I'll construct my own.


----------



## tspear (Oct 13, 2014)

This raises a point for me. What do you guys put in your keywords?
I have read lots of blogs and posts and authors just state. I added my keywords, or I clicked on my keyword tree, or..
I have yet to find a decent blog/article/book on what to tag and why. I personally almost do not use keywords yet (I have a folder structure which needs to be normalized and then probably converted to keywords -- but I am keeping my folder structure, it is how I think).

Tim


----------



## Tony Jay (Oct 13, 2014)

Hi Tim.

Keywording is a somewhat personal endevour so what constitutes acceptable keywording for one individual may be hoplessly inadequate or absolute overkill for another.
Keywording also needs to be adapted for the purpose and part of that is the genre in which you shoot.
The set of keywords required for a wedding photographer is very different to someone who shoots landscapes and is different again for a dedicated bird photographer or someone who shoots coins.

My keyword collection is over 44 000 words and is strongly skewed towards geographic location, weather phenomena, plants, animals, and birds because it fits my preoccupation with outdoor photography.
My keyword collection is completely useless for a wedding photographer.

There are actually resources out there if you look for these subjects "digital asset managment" aka DAM, "controlled vocabularies".
Peter Krogh, active on this website, and John Beardsworth, also a noted luminary on this website are worth researching on the net.

In general the reason why keywording is much superior to using named folders for different subjects is the fact that the named folder acts like a single keyword.
The problem arises when a single image can be properly, usefully, and logically classified in several different ways.
Using folders the only way to achieve this is by duplicating the image in each folder.
Confusion and potential disaster result.

Additionally, as one's image collection grows, some people have image collections several hundred thousand strong is trying to find an image.
Using Lightroom (or any appropriate DAM software) appropriately keyworded images are easily found, especially when combined with EXIF metadata, star ratings and the like.

Appropriately keyworded images are best defined as those that are able to be easily found in a large image collection using keywords, and other metadata, as the basis for the search.
In my image collection the average image has between thirty to one hundred keywords.
That may sound like a lot of keywords but in reality, because I nest keywords, it isn't a lot of work because selecting a child keyword will automatically append all the parent keywords as well.
Typical images that I shoot have geographical location in huge detail, keywords defining weather, time of day, lighting conditions, fauna and flora, and genre.
I also use keywords describing dynamic aspects of the image as well as emotions that are expressed in the image.
I can find any image quickly and easily using any combination of keywords and other metadata that is pertinent to the search.

Obviously if one is submitting images to a stock agency then keywording is one's bread-and-butter.
In this situation however the agency usually provides the keyword list (managed vocabulary) and strict guidelines as to the application of keywords to images.

If you continue to struggle to find good info on the net I will be willing to provide more detailed references.

Tony Jay


----------



## tspear (Oct 13, 2014)

Tony,

I actually know enough about Controlled Vocabulary to get myself into a lot of trouble.  I did an informative speech on CV and the US National Library while in College a few decades ago.
So far I only have 16K images, and I am new to Lightroom and to photography as a hobby; so I have lots to learn. I will research the names you provided.
And I get keywords are very personal and change based on genre, but I think I am more struggling with what will I search for in the future. Basically when I look for something now, I am looking for a year or event or location or person (yes, I miss facial recognition in Picasa and Aperture). So it is very basic...

Tim


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 13, 2014)

Tony Jay said:


> My keyword collection is over 44 000 words



44k words?!?!  I couldn't think of that many!!!!


----------



## Tony Jay (Oct 13, 2014)

Well Victoria that keyword list continues to grow as I slowly get to visit interesting parts of the world.
If I am able to I will usually add keywords before travelling to the area of interest.
For me, since photography is a natural extension of my interest in the great outdoors, learning as much as I can about my potential photographic subjects partly expresses itself through the keyword lists that are constructed.

In addition better images are captioned with a detailed description of that image including weather phenomena, geographic and geological insights, as well as zoological and botanical detail that would not be evident by just viewing the image.
For me, it is all about learning and enjoying what I view and photograph.

Tony Jay


----------



## camner (Dec 27, 2014)

Tony Jay said:


> My keyword collection is over 44 000 words



How in the world do you keep consistency with that many keywords?  I have many fewer, but I find myself constantly checking to see if I already have a similar keyword in my list so I don't accidentally (probably months or more later) define a new keyword for something I already have in there!


----------



## rob211 (Dec 27, 2014)

One trick is to use non-exportable meta keywords. I use stuff like "_People." I don't even have to expand that list when it's not relevant. Ditto for something like "_Placenames" or "_Animals." Use of those keywords tends to clump together.

So if I had a bunch of vacation photos, and maybe 5% had animals in them, but I couldn't remember if I had "domestic" or "wildlife," or "possum" or "opossum," then I'd just tag temporarily with "_Animals," since I'm sure I had that, then later filter on that keyword, and then drill down for the specifics.

So you end up with a deeper hierarchy, so that you really only need to remember a much smaller list, and it sort of guides your keywording workflow as well.


----------



## Tony Jay (Dec 27, 2014)

camner said:


> How in the world do you keep consistency with that many keywords?  I have many fewer, but I find myself constantly checking to see if I already have a similar keyword in my list so I don't accidentally (probably months or more later) define a new keyword for something I already have in there!


My keyword collection is organised into about sixty hierarchies.
Each hierarchy, such as COLOUR, ANIMALS, WEATHER PHENOMENA etc are topped by non-exportable keywords and are capitalised as shown to make their status clear.
I also use non-exportable capitalised keywords within some of the hierarchies to help organise complicated keyword taxonomies such as the botanical taxonomies.

In general terms it is possible for keywords that mean different things but share the same spelling, a trivial example is crane that might be a bird or construction equipment, to be present more than once.
Which crane to use is simple because the word is in different hierarchies.
Searching for a keyword using the 'filter keywords' option at the top the keyword list will highlight any and all keywords that have that spelling. Selecting the appropriate keyword is simple because the keyword is highlighted along with the hierarchy in which it resides.

So in fact, purely because these hierarchies are well organised and constructed, maintaining consistency is actually trivial and encouraged.

Tony Jay


----------



## camner (Dec 27, 2014)

Thanks, Tony.

I'm assuming then that that the way you actually assign the keywords is NOT to type them in manually but to look for them in your keyword list and assign them that way (thus avoiding the bad memory problem!).  Is that correct?


----------



## Tony Jay (Dec 27, 2014)

camner said:


> Thanks, Tony.
> 
> I'm assuming then that that the way you actually assign the keywords is NOT to type them in manually but to look for them in your keyword list and assign them that way (thus avoiding the bad memory problem!). Is that correct?


Absolutely!

If it is true that a needed keyword is not present in the appropriate hierarchy then it is added in the appropriate place and then assigned.
In an absolute sense a keyword hierarchy is never complete but the skeleton of my keyword hierarchy is and if new keywords are needed there are always appropriate places in the hierarchy to place them.

Tony Jay


----------



## rob211 (Dec 28, 2014)

BTW, one way to think about all of these is with logical operaters instead of keywords being "in" other keywords. A hierarchy of animals>birds>cranes is really (animals AND birds AND cranes), and it's important to remember that this metadata is NOT hierarchical when viewed in other software (it gets written as a hierarchy in the XMP in <lr:hierarchicalSubject>, but I don't think most applications access it).

And if you want to create a hierarchy for LR, but you're using other software that writes to metadata, enter "animals|birds|cranes" in the keywords; LR will make that into an LR keyword hierarchy of animals>birds>cranes on importing from the XMP sidecar. Then when you save metadata from within LR, the normal IPTC keywords drop the "|" and you're left with the normal list of "animals, birds, cranes" and the "animals>birds>cranes" hierarchy in <lr:hierarchicalSubject>


----------



## muymalestado (Jan 19, 2015)

Do I understand that no-one recommends to NOT use a hierarchy?  With a few hundred keywords I add only a few new ones each month.  Their predecessor in PSE Organizer was hierarchical.  I have found Lightroom to be so fast in responding on a plain old PC that a flat alphabetically listed system of keywords works very well.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 19, 2015)

I'm not 100% enthusiastic about a hierarchy, or at least about putting too much time and mental energy into building one. Too often I see people creating a well-thought hierarchy because they think that's what they should do before anything else. They're likely to be better off getting to know the other ways to assign keywords (metadata presets, the keyword sets) and developing a methodology of applying them (eg who/what/where or my list/meaning/known). Use a hierarchy if it suits you, but don't feel you'll lose out by not doing so.

John


----------



## muymalestado (Jan 19, 2015)

Tony Jay said:


> Absolutely!    ...........



As Tony Jay indicates keywords can be / usually are selected from among existing ones so loads of typing is not always required.  But the good thing is that typing just a couple, or a few, characters will bring up a list of potential keywords - the last used one at the top - and far fewer characters than expected need be typed.  Very fast!  Very good design, built-in.


----------



## rob211 (Jan 20, 2015)

I agree that I wouldn't obsess on creating big hierarchical lists in the abstract. It can be daunting.

Just do it as it becomes natural. For example, you get a request for photos taken at your old job. You have them tagged with coworker names, but then you have to remember each one. So you just make a "exjob>[name]" hierarchy and then you're done. Or maybe you need to distinguish place names from one state from another, so you add a state>city hierarchy. Or maybe you just wanna group all the people keywords as people, so you use a people>[name] hierarchy and make "people" non exporting. In some ways it's just a convenience for organizing a big group of words, sort of like using a folder structure.


----------



## Luc (Jan 21, 2015)

I imported the free keyword list from Ann Torrence: http://www.anntorrence.com/blog/2011/01/lightroom-keywords-updated.html.  Although it is quite extensive and uses keywords that I do not need,  i use it as a base to have some ideas as what to use as a keyword and how to organize my list. Because keywording is such a personal choice,  I opted to go with a well organized list that's easy to adjust.


----------



## Tim Makins (Mar 25, 2015)

Great to see this discussion on keywords, and the balanced arguments for and against having a keyword list and creating your own keyword list. To add my own thoughts on this...

Why do you need a List of Keywords ?

Lets first consider why you need a keyword list at all. After all, you could just open Lightroom or your other image editing programs and start keywording on the fly, adding keywords as they occur to you.

Here are 8 reasons why that's not a good idea:

1/ Consistency - using the same terms for similar photos throughout your collection makes searching and filtering much easier.

2/ Spelling - a Keyword List has already been checked for spelling mistakes. Misspelled words result in unique keywords, un-located images, and resultant lost income.

3/ Clarity - Nested terms are only on view when you want to look at them. When you start Lightroom, you will only see the seven Main Categories, not the full list of many thousand Keywords, but you can speedily 'drill down' to locate the exact words for your needs in a quick and logical way.

4/ Speed - a Keyword List will help you to quickly locate Keywords as they come to mind through a logical progression of sensible groupings.

5/ Similars - Once a topic has been opened, other keywords will suggest themselves, helping you to refine your description and keyword-set until you are satisfied that they can't be improved.

6/ Hierarchy - When a Keyword is chosen from a hierarchical list, its parent keywords are automatically added. Add 'Fox Terrier' and you automatically include 'dog', 'household pet', and 'mammal'.

7/ Completeness - It's important that no aspect of the image description is omitted when choosing keywords - Photo buyers expect your image to be keyworded in the correct way.

8/ Diversity - You probably have a good imagination, but it might take you a little time to match our list of approximately 27200 keywords ordered by 7 main categories, 97 sub-categories, and 598 sub-sub and deeper level categories.

Now lets ask ourselves why it makes sense to buy a list - why not just make your own?

Its true to say that you know what you are photographing better than anyone else, and so are ideally placed to create a list that works well for you, but why waste your valuable time re-inventing the wheel? Why start from ground-zero and invest a lot of time and effort thinking of, organising, and spell-checking words when this basic leg-work has already been done by someone else? If you are a general photographer, it is more than likely that the words you need have already been thought of, formatted, and produced as a list that you can download and import into Lightroom straight away. If you have specialist interests, then it makes far better use of your time and money to take an existing list that is already well-structured and add your own specialist-interest words in their own specialist area of that list.

Please take a look at the Resources page on my website:

http://www.photo-keywords.com/keywording-resources.php

It lists all the major commercial keyword lists, including my own, plus a large collection of free lists and other keywording resources.

If you want to make your own keyword lists, my website has many pages explaining the hierarchical tab-indented format and giving tips as to how to construct and error-check your own lists. There are even a range of free 'Tab-Indented Tools' to make your life easier:

http://www.photo-keywords.com/tab-indented_list_tools.php

Regards, Tim Makins
Pro Travel Photography: http://www.gnomeplanet.com


----------



## Luc (Mar 25, 2015)

Tim Makins said:


> Now lets ask ourselves why it makes sense to buy a list - why not just make your own?
> 
> Its true to say that you know what you are photographing better than anyone else, and so are ideally placed to create a list that works well for you, but why waste your valuable time re-inventing the wheel? Why start from ground-zero and invest a lot of time and effort thinking of, organising, and spell-checking words when this basic leg-work has already been done by someone else? If you are a general photographer, it is more than likely that the words you need have already been thought of, formatted, and produced as a list that you can download and import into Lightroom straight away. If you have specialist interests, then it makes far better use of your time and money to take an existing list that is already well-structured and add your own specialist-interest words in their own specialist area of that list.
> 
> ...



That's what I did: imported the free list that Ann Torrence made. Some of the keywords I didn't need,  some were added or altered but in the end it saved me a lot of time...


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 25, 2015)

Great to see you sharing your experience here, thanks Tim.


----------

