"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in
message
> In article
> , "Peter
> Jason" wrote:
>>I have been using the "comments" field in
>>the
>>"Image" folder in the EXIF in Exifer for my
>>notes for each photo.
>>
>>But when I open these photos in iView
>>version3.3 the comments appear in that
>>programs annotations "source" field, and
>>not
>>in its EXIF section.
>>
>>I ask: which is the safest field to add
>>annotations across several such programs?
>>Is
>>it the "Copyright field?
>
> This is a very real problem.
>
> First, I wouldn't mess with the EXIF data.
>
> If you're working with JPEG's, using the
> comment
> field is probably your best option.
>
> In theory, IPTC was supposed to address
> this problem.
> It failed, IMHO. Things tend to break
> pretty quickly
> once you start converting between file
> formats and/or
> switch between different software programs.
>
> It all gets even worse with (camera
> manufacturer)
> proprietary RAW formats.
>
> But if you're mainly JPEG based, I'd work
> with the
> comment field. Most of the time, the data
> will be
> visible and serious problems (like file
> corruption)
> are very low risk.
Thanks. I want to trump this problem by
having the annotations watermarked across the
very bottom of the image in unobtrusive type
that can be cropped away in future if
necessary.
I have been using Exifer which has the
annoying property of wrapping the text about
1/3 of the width of the image, so making the
text obtrusive.
Lightroom is good in that it gives a line of
watermarked text across the whole of the
bottom, but bad because it can only add the
"copyright" text automatically, and it
cannot, like Exifer string together info from
various EXIF fields.
So far I've had no luck with iView3.3 which
does not seem to watermark at all.
I guess I'll just have to stuff all the data
into the "copyright" field in Lightroom.
>> Stay informed about: Which is the best field in metadata for annotations.