Your approach to tagging photos

Messages
371
Edit My Images
Yes
So after 22 years of taking photos I've come to the conclusion that I should start tagging my photos so I can find them easier.

Last year I bought PhotoLab and I've been really happy with it. When tagging pictures the tags get saved in the sidecar .dop files rather than in the raw or jpeg files, which is fine - I prefer that over stored in a database. I'm sort of tied down to using PhotoLab forever more, but could in theory extract them out and write my own parser as the .dop files are just XML.

I've been going back and tagging pictures based on who is in them, if its of flowers, landscape, architecture, beach etc. But I don't know what to do about a lot of shots which are just pictures of something / a time and place. The kind of family snaps of a day out or something happening (or not) on the garden, or on a walk around a park.

What do you tag these with? "General"?, "snap"? "Documentary"?

I'm finding I have quite a lot of shots like this, recording family life that are important but don't fit into a photography style.

I feel like this whole process is going to take me several months to complete so I want to get off to a good start.
 
So after 22 years of taking photos I've come to the conclusion that I should start tagging my photos so I can find them easier.

Last year I bought PhotoLab and I've been really happy with it. When tagging pictures the tags get saved in the sidecar .dop files rather than in the raw or jpeg files, which is fine - I prefer that over stored in a database. I'm sort of tied down to using PhotoLab forever more, but could in theory extract them out and write my own parser as the .dop files are just XML.

I've been going back and tagging pictures based on who is in them, if its of flowers, landscape, architecture, beach etc. But I don't know what to do about a lot of shots which are just pictures of something / a time and place. The kind of family snaps of a day out or something happening (or not) on the garden, or on a walk around a park.

What do you tag these with? "General"?, "snap"? "Documentary"?

I'm finding I have quite a lot of shots like this, recording family life that are important but don't fit into a photography style.

I feel like this whole process is going to take me several months to complete so I want to get off to a good start.
Photolab should be able to write metadata to "universal" XMP files. as well as storing the data in the program database or *.dop file. I think it's been there since v5.

Why not just use a keyword (tag) of "family" for these misc pictures. You can still also add "landscape" "beach" etc as additional keywords, where that seems appropriate..

I add location data to the metadata when I ingest files from the memory card and then add keywords after ingest,. I would therefore still just keyword my home garden with "Garden" just as I might keyword a National Trust garden, with "garden", knowing I could search for my home village and garden to get all the pictures from "my" garden. edit: I also use a "personal" keyword for pictures only of personal/family interest.

I'm not sure if DXO allows you to create metadata templates, but this is lkely to be the quickest approach. Create templates for places you visit regularly, and sort your pictures into batches that need the same template.
 
Last edited:
I'm not especially good at the discipline of tagging files on import, but I ALWAYS add email address, then location, plus any obvious characteristics (i.e. Blackwell's, bookshop, underground, Norrington room, Oxford, home counties, England, UK). I don't add a category like documentary which is very broad, but might include 'action' or 'portrait'. I'll sometimes also add an attribute for a specific purpose, like 'straight lines' for the new old digital competition theme when scanning visually through the collection to help me find it later.
 
I use LR which is a very efficient way of using such tags (or keywords in LR). I have a list of about 40 headings some of which have several lower level keywords. So for instance I have "Nature" but below that I have "Birds". "animals", "Flowers", "trees", "insects", "fungi" and "Geology". I have no need for a "General" keyword as I cover such a wide range with my keywords. Of Course, many images are tagged with more than one keyword. A shot of an Urban fox from my window is keyworded ""Urban-Street" and "Nature-Animal" so would be easy to find also bearing in mind you can use many other search criteria in LR (e.g. Camera EXIF data). I have used the same keyword list for many years now and try to avoid adding to it now,

Dave
 
So after 22 years of taking photos I've come to the conclusion that I should start tagging my photos so I can find them easier.
Funnily enough I was thinking of starting a similar topic because I'm pretty much in the same position.

Are you planning on manually tagging all your files? I'm also using Photolab so definitely interested in how you handle tagging your photos from now on.

I've been trying to research different pieces of software that can help but there seems little consensus on what to use and I end up getting lost going round in circles. I did try Excire but I wasn't too taken with it, I was hoping it could automate people tagging by identifying the same people in photos so I could then tag them. However when I tried that it mixed people up claiming they were the same person when they clearly weren't. Where it seemed to work well is if I gave it a text prompt it would find suitable photos so I could see it being useful for a professional photography wanting to quickly pull out suitable photos but that's no tme.

Mylio is subscription only so it's out the window so the other one I've seen recommended is iMatch. Ultimately I think part of the problem is no software is going to be able to identify locations so I'm doing to need to do that manually anyway.
 
I use LR Classic now, and on import I am using Keywords for the location, camera, and aspects of the image such as water, bridge, etc to describe what's in it; and I use Collections to group images into sets for genre and in cases like mentioned, I have a collection called Things, which has sub-collections for bridges, tools, etc, but I also have other Collectiuons for landscape, nature, etc that also have more specific sub-collections. I've recently changed my workflow to make better use of these features.
I don't however have the issue of retrospectively doing this for many years of photography, yet on the other habnd I'm now thinking of creating a new catalogue and re-importing my images after doing some culling of the rubbish.
 
Using LR classic - I keyword everything with a bare minimum of location info, even if this is just ‘home’ using the hierarchy of where, what and/or who.
Then solely use smart collections based on keyword and location data to organise.
Using Jeffrey friedl’s smart collection sync plugin means I can then sync smart collections to the cloud Lightroom.
None of that might be relevant , the point of tagging though gives you multiple ways to find a photo quickly, ie - I know it was a pic of this person in this park in roughly this date, you can use any of the 3 to find it depending on what you remember.
Another advantage of using tags to find pics is if you choose to change your workflow or software in 5 years time, the tags will help you change quicker than just a folder structure.
I don’t bother with non helpful tags - ie general or snaps. Why not use ‘home’ or the name of your local park as a keyword - so you can use the same method for all pics , ie where, what who.

Inside ‘what’ I have folders like ‘Event’ for birthdays etc, and folder called ‘holidays’ with keywords specific for them, this is alongside the standard ‘animals’ birds, trees flowers landscapes etc etc
 
Last edited:
Tagging is definitely something that I need to get better at. I used to add names of people, but since Lightroom started recognising faces I've relied on that instead - I should probably use that tool to go through and add tags for all of the people. [Edit] Today I learned that it does apply these as tags - result! [/edit] I also have a smart collection in Lightroom that collates all of my untagged photos, unfortunately there are quite a lot.

As we are still at the start of the year, and I haven't added much to Lightroom, I am going to create a smart collection for "untagged in 2025" and make sure that I tag everything.
 
Last edited:
tagging photos is not something I do - I save images off the camera into folders on a dedicated drive with descriptive titles and dates and build a 'directory' of my images so, top level country, then year, then month, then date, if specific as a subject eg its a fungi walk then location and fungi as the final folder name - or just date and location if generic photos as lowest directory level so it looks like this - f:\france\2024\02 february\20022024 laForge. I find I can recall the actual date/location and if not I can recall close enought to find things easily with minimum reviews of folders
 
I'm with Elliot and Mark: give the image a sensible file name and use the file name search facility in modern operating systems to find what you're looking for, when you want it.

I've tried these specialist databases and they take too long to set up and too much trouble to search, for my needs.
 
All my photos are broken down into categories. Landscape, Portrait, Street etc.

1st pass they get that category tag.

I have Smart collections in LR to look for photos without that category tag so I can just do them when I'm ready. Then I have smart collections for each category which means I can tag in groups. Each photo gets a name tag (if it's a person or pet) and then three words picked from a sentence I'd use to describe the photo.

Once I've finished keywording, I give them a green label. The smart collections all then remove the photos so I know exactly how many images I have that are keyworded and what's still to do. It makes it a progressive task I can do when I feel like it rather than an overwhelming job that gets out of hand. There's also a mild dopamine hit when you reduce a category to "done".

This is how mine looks today...

Screenshot 2025-01-13 155810.png

Finding a photo of a cat in a tree, or a rose, or a portrait of daughter #1, or something red is dead easy. As well as "find all my 1* or better photos of a church".

I'm not sure if LR Classic still allows it, but you used to be able to not pay the sub and still have access to the Library module where all this is done. Once it's keyworded, you can CTRL+S to save the metadata back to the raw/jpeg files (rather than it being in the cat) and when you load it into your DAM software of choice they will pop back up again.
 
Last edited:
is there much benefit? perhaps the solution is to have a better filing system? i file into year then event/occation tagging the folder with the date so that they fall into each year sequentially but it depends what you do and how good your memory is or if you want to batch find photos to export?

It seems like a bit of a long winded job for little beneft for me personally but thats not to say it would be the same for someone else - how often are you going to search for "flowers"?- is it going to take more time to find the images you are after than the cumulative time you spend tagging everything? Maybe if you have 500,000 photos but otherwise i am not sure?

For me, as i shoot cars - it is important to be able to quickly find specific cars at an event so for that Ive been using an AI plugin called anyvision - perhaps try that?
 
For me, I enter competitions. If I need an image of say a model in red taken after 2018 and it must be a finally edited TIFF file (I use a green code for this). I would use Keyword portrait and Keyword Red, plus dates after 2018 and colour code Green. To undertake a search of all of my 35,000 images, it would take many hours possibly days using Adobe Bridge but less than half a second using LR Classic. The idea of finding specific images manually does no strike me as feasible as it would also rely a lot on my memory over say 20 years.

Dave
 
I use LR Classic and keywords rather than collections. It is not that difficult to keyword family occasions.
 
is there much benefit
As you say, it depends on your memory and ability to file things logically, as well as what you're doing photographically.

I have digital photos going back to 2006, not to mention neg scans going back to the 80s. I have zero hope of finding anything over about 5 years old using the year. I frown when someone asks me what year I got married. It's an age thing. Keywording now might be something your older self will thank you for.

If I want to see all the pictures of daughter #1, I can just search on that keyword in LR and they all appear, no matter what I filed them under or when I took them.
If I want pics of Yosemite, I search for that, because as I sit here, I have no clue what year it was.

I also make a lot of zines and books. Finding collections of images is very useful to me. A book on "Lone Trees"? One click and I have all my images in one place. Easy to curate down to final images, and easy to organise. Did a book for the outlaws a few years ago showing our girls growing up. Took me 5 minutes to get all the images in one place, an hour or so to curate it down and a couple of minutes to export them all to a folder ready to start doing the book layout.

Yes. It's a tedious job, but staying on top of it once it's done takes a few minutes. For me - it's worth it.
 
As you say, it depends on your memory and ability to file things logically, as well as what you're doing photographically.

I have digital photos going back to 2006, not to mention neg scans going back to the 80s. I have zero hope of finding anything over about 5 years old using the year. I frown when someone asks me what year I got married. It's an age thing. Keywording now might be something your older self will thank you for.

If I want to see all the pictures of daughter #1, I can just search on that keyword in LR and they all appear, no matter what I filed them under or when I took them.
If I want pics of Yosemite, I search for that, because as I sit here, I have no clue what year it was.

I also make a lot of zines and books. Finding collections of images is very useful to me. A book on "Lone Trees"? One click and I have all my images in one place. Easy to curate down to final images, and easy to organise. Did a book for the outlaws a few years ago showing our girls growing up. Took me 5 minutes to get all the images in one place, an hour or so to curate it down and a couple of minutes to export them all to a folder ready to start doing the book layout.

Yes. It's a tedious job, but staying on top of it once it's done takes a few minutes. For me - it's worth it.

Yeah I wasn't meant to be critical of anyones way of doing things. Obviously scale is relative and 35,000 pictures in @Dave Canon 's archive since 2006 to me is quite small - thats just under 1900 a year - I took 6000 yesterday and last year (After culling 2/3 aprox) I took circa 65,000 and in those circumstances its cost/time/benefit argument comes into play.



I would try any vision though. It takes a bit of reading since the upgrade but basically its about $0.019 dollers per 1000 photos and it will pretty much tag what you want from car numbers and registrations for me, to locations, objects, items, brands, landmarks for other people. Here is what i was playing with a couple of days ago to set the new version up. Look at my prompt on the left and the output on the right:


excuse the quality I've deleted the original and copying and pasting from a whatsapp chat!anyyvision.jpg
 
Last edited:
I use Digikam for DAM.
You will need to think carefully about the keywords you use, make them hierarchical.
You will rearrange the keywords, but that will be easy when required.
 
I have tagged the photos I have created to date although I did later realise some of my tags (e.g. year, the camera I used) ended up being uncessary as I could filter on those using the EXIF data and so I was adding keywords uncessarilly for those. I do sometimes worry whether I have used tags inconsistently (e.g. football or U14football) for photographing my son's matches. But I am slowly getting over that worry as I can just search on all things containing 'football'

I have been a bit inconsistent on using location and I should really. As often one might recall where you took a photo
 
I'm a serial tagger... this is made easier and more necessary as I'm almost exclusively a film photographer. The exif data says my photos were created by a Noritsu or a Plustek camera! So I tag at least camera, lens, film, developer, and anything else relevant. I'll admit the latter is patchy; so I'll use location a lot when the photo was not taken nearby, but that might be Edinburgh or it might be Scotland etc. I do try to tag anything which at the time I think might be useful. And if I find a photo by other means and discover it wasn't tagged that way, I'll add the tag. Most of the first set of tags just happen the once (in C1Pro) after I've selected all the photos from that roll of film.
 
is there much benefit? perhaps the solution is to have a better filing system? i file into year then event/occation tagging the folder with the date so that they fall into each year sequentially but it depends what you do and how good your memory is or if you want to batch find photos to export?
This is how I've done it up until now but the problem I'm having is that my photos now span 23 years it's more difficult to remember exactly when some photos were taken, increasingly I re-discover photos I'd forgotten I'd taken. Ideally if all my photos were tagged I'd be able to easily find any photos I was looking for, as an example say I wanted to find pictures of a car I owned - there's no specific album for my car photos so they'll be mixed in with others but I'd need to do some digging to try and find them. Whereas if I had it tagged I could just put the name and get the photos.

I have started tagging now while processing images and it takes a matter of seconds to add the tags, it's going to take time to add tags to older photos but I think it would be worth it.
 
I aim to do it all for the year before the year is out. I have never achieved this. It's now past mid-January and I have 1500 from 2024 to tag still.

It's tedious, so gets left. But worthwhile as it's the only way to find stuff five years down the line.
 
Interesting to read how others tackle this. I have always put into folders by date with a meaningful word e.g 2025-01-10beach but a few years back I invested in Photo Mechanic so that I could find my photos more easily. I've gone back and keyworded most now. I can search and find photos going back to about 2006 if I want to and it will tell me on what drive they are located. I do a catalog per year and you can choose which catalogs you want to search - all of them at once if you want.

When I import photos I add generic tags for all of them e.g. Spain, Extremadura, birds and then later when I have time I might go through and tag them more individually.

The only trouble is, I've now moved to a new Mac and I believe Photo Mechanic Plus won't run on that without me forking out a lot more money - grrr! So for the moment my database is on my old Mac which is not ideal, but at least the keywords are all in xmp files.
 
Interesting to read how others tackle this. I have always put into folders by date with a meaningful word e.g 2025-01-10beach but a few years back I invested in Photo Mechanic so that I could find my photos more easily. I've gone back and keyworded most now. I can search and find photos going back to about 2006 if I want to and it will tell me on what drive they are located. I do a catalog per year and you can choose which catalogs you want to search - all of them at once if you want.

When I import photos I add generic tags for all of them e.g. Spain, Extremadura, birds and then later when I have time I might go through and tag them more individually.

The only trouble is, I've now moved to a new Mac and I believe Photo Mechanic Plus won't run on that without me forking out a lot more money - grrr! So for the moment my database is on my old Mac which is not ideal, but at least the keywords are all in xmp files.
I do the same as you. Files arranged chronologically, but with some descriptive words added to the folder name, with the key tool being Photo Mechanic.

But, after nearly 20 years of using Photo Mechanic, the prospect of £300 a year subscription is just too much for me, and I have been trying to work out a replacement. Nothing works as well as PM, but, and in spite of its failings, I seem to have ended up using Capture One for database and ingesting, I'm, also still using or tried, Lightroom, Fast Raw Viewer, Neofinder and Photo Supreme.

But none of the combination of things I've tried is a proper replacement for PM, and every week, I feel tempted to bite the bullet and accept the costs of going back to PM. I'm not working professionally, so the time saved by using PM shouldn't be that important now that I'm retired, but I'm trying to reduce the time I spent at the computer, not increase it.

Also things that were done automatically by PM are now done manually and therefore open to error.
 
I do the same as you. Files arranged chronologically, but with some descriptive words added to the folder name, with the key tool being Photo Mechanic.

But, after nearly 20 years of using Photo Mechanic, the prospect of £300 a year subscription is just too much for me, and I have been trying to work out a replacement. Nothing works as well as PM, but, and in spite of its failings, I seem to have ended up using Capture One for database and ingesting, I'm, also still using or tried, Lightroom, Fast Raw Viewer, Neofinder and Photo Supreme.
Photomechanic is £300 a year perpetually and £150 a year I think looking at their current pricing? It's still not cheap and I'm sure it was quite a bit less before but at least they offer the perpetual license.
Interesting to read how others tackle this. I have always put into folders by date with a meaningful word e.g 2025-01-10beach but a few years back I invested in Photo Mechanic so that I could find my photos more easily. I've gone back and keyworded most now. I can search and find photos going back to about 2006 if I want to and it will tell me on what drive they are located. I do a catalog per year and you can choose which catalogs you want to search - all of them at once if you want.

When I import photos I add generic tags for all of them e.g. Spain, Extremadura, birds and then later when I have time I might go through and tag them more individually.

The only trouble is, I've now moved to a new Mac and I believe Photo Mechanic Plus won't run on that without me forking out a lot more money - grrr! So for the moment my database is on my old Mac which is not ideal, but at least the keywords are all in xmp files.
Does Photomechanic write to the actual files as well though so even without it installed you can still search the tags?
 
Photomechanic is £300 a year perpetually and £150 a year I think looking at their current pricing? It's still not cheap and I'm sure it was quite a bit less before but at least they offer the perpetual license.
The perpetual license for PMPLus is £403.10 and for PMstandard is £302.08, for the subscription its £256.56 +vat for PMPlus and £150.53 for PM standard. They don't mention VAT when listing the perpetual licenses.

Although, the most important aspects of PM come with th standard version, the Plus version adds the cataloging tools, and substantially add to the usefulness of PM
Does Photomechanic write to the actual files as well though so even without it installed you can still search the tags?
It "can" write into the actual files, but it uses XMP files by default (as well as a catalogue database)
 
Photomechanic is £300 a year perpetually and £150 a year I think looking at their current pricing? It's still not cheap and I'm sure it was quite a bit less before but at least they offer the perpetual license.

Does Photomechanic write to the actual files as well though so even without it installed you can still search the tags?
For me (which I may have set up when I got it), it writes to an XMP file, however I think jpegs get saved (and therefore presumably there is a slight loss).

Today I have done a search and just found that I have omitted to tag some of my 2016 photos, so it looks like I still have more work to do. Pah!

It is expensive and I didn't realise they were going to keep the perpetual license as an option (I think you don't get future updates with that). I felt it was an expensive luxury before, but at the time I was doing some paid photography, so it was worthwhile. It's hard to justify it for me now. I started with Photo Mechanic and then upgraded to the Plus version - that is far more useful.
 
So, er, I tag everything religiously.

Right when I started photography in the early 1980s I catalogued my pictures (using those little boxes for index cards that you could buy in W H Smith) and my day job for 30+ years has been designing database systems, so it's second nature to me. I've about 200,000 images in my my Lightroom Catalogue, I require the discipline to be able to find anything quickly, especially for things that I may revisit many times across several years. I often search for images and I easily get frustrated if I can't locate photos because I skimped on tagging. For me, it's worth the investment in time.

Directly after I have imported the photos from the card into Lightroom, tagging is my first task before I do anything else so that the data is propagated to any edits or copies I make.

Most of the tags I use are concrete nouns. I'm not one to tag things with 'moody', 'uplifting' or other subjective terms. 'General' or 'snap' would be similarly excluded.

I'll include basic geographical data. If it's in London Postal Area that will include the Postal District (EC1, NW3, SE19, etc.). Locality and street will usually be included. If it's a park, I'll name the park.

Buildings will be tagged with the name of the architect if I know or can find it. I might stretch to an architectural classification such as modernism, Gothic Revival or High-tech. Interiors will be tagged as such. Vehicles like buses get the operator, route and registration number and so on. Bands, musicians and their instruments will be named.

I'll usually include the model of camera and lens too; I often shoot with legacy manual focus lenses that have no electronic connection to the camera, or with film bodies so that data is not always recorded in EXIF.
 
Last edited:
The perpetual license for PMPLus is £403.10 and for PMstandard is £302.08, for the subscription its £256.56 +vat for PMPlus and £150.53 for PM standard. They don't mention VAT when listing the perpetual licenses.

Although, the most important aspects of PM come with th standard version, the Plus version adds the cataloging tools, and substantially add to the usefulness of PM

It "can" write into the actual files, but it uses XMP files by default (as well as a catalogue database)
So in practical terms, how do you find the plus version useful? I've read the differences on their site but without using the software the benefits are not clear.
For me (which I may have set up when I got it), it writes to an XMP file, however I think jpegs get saved (and therefore presumably there is a slight loss).

Today I have done a search and just found that I have omitted to tag some of my 2016 photos, so it looks like I still have more work to do. Pah!

It is expensive and I didn't realise they were going to keep the perpetual license as an option (I think you don't get future updates with that). I felt it was an expensive luxury before, but at the time I was doing some paid photography, so it was worthwhile. It's hard to justify it for me now. I started with Photo Mechanic and then upgraded to the Plus version - that is far more useful.
Surely software that handles tagging is only writing to the metadata and not re-encoding the picture data?
 
Surely software that handles tagging is only writing to the metadata and not re-encoding the picture data?
I would hope that was the case.
 
So in practical terms, how do you find the plus version useful? I've read the differences on their site but without using the software the benefits are not clear.
PM (standard) isn't a DAM. it’s a sophisticated file browser for ingesting files from memory cards and managing metadata, and for very quickly exporting files via FTP.

It's roots, and still it's key customer focus are professional sports and event photographers who need to rapidly cull, add metadata and bulk export images.

It "was" unique in using the Raw file embedded jpeg for all file operations, but also working with ACR for editing before exporting.

The USP for PM was speed and automation: the use of sophisticated templates during ingest that read the exif data during ingest to automatically file and rename files along with autofillng metadata.

For example, on ingest, I automatically prepend the last three numbers of the cameras serial number to the file name, and as I have templates set up for my photographic locations, all location data, some keywords, and partially completed captions are also automatically added to the metadata in th XMP on ingest.

But you can also have PM read txt files and codes/tokens to fill in metadata. For official sports events these might be the name and other details of football players playing at a specific match. By typing the jersey number into a metadata field within PM, the program will look up the txt file and replace the jersey number with the players name and team name.

I use PM codes on ingest to read the exif data and automatically add Season and orientation keyword (ie, Spring, Summer, Autumn or Winter and Vertical or Horizontal) to the XMP

I also use codes to autocomplete animal and plant names in the metadata fields so, for example, I can type the code"=marha=". and PM instantly types "Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginous)". PM auto completes the code so usually I only need to type "=mar" and hit return.

I get get an initial caption of "Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginous), RSPB Ham Wall, Glastonbury, Somerset, England GBR by simply typing "=mar" and return. by selecting all the files with Marsh Harriers before typing "mar" into the selected file, I can complete the initial caption in many files with a few keystrokes. The location data is autofilled during ingest by the ingest template for Ham Wall.

Subsequent editing and adding metadata is extremely flexible and fast as the program is designed around the rather specialised use of sports photographers trying to cull, edit and upload files to news agencies during live events. But, with the tools, just as useful for other event photographers, e.g wedding, where you are dealing with culling large numbers of photographs or wildlife photographers who may come back with hundreds/thousands of similar photographs that need culling and captioning/keywording.

Both Lightroom and Capture one now use the RAW embedded JPEGs for culling and the massive speed advantage of PM for this has waned, C1 has also added some smart culling tools (as well as overall being much faster than LR) but neither can still fully match the speed and flexibility of PM for ingesting. keywording and captioning.

Users, have stories of how culling/captioning that used to take them days/weeks now takes them hours since switching to PM (and learning how to use its features)

BUT PM (standard) has no DAM, or built in editing tools. If you were on a Mac, PM would use the Macs ndexing tool (Spotlight) to search metadata, But Spotlight was unreliable at reading photo file metadata . Indeed at one point they removed the Spotlight integration because of its unreliability, but users demanded they put it back.

Equally, because PM (standard) doesn't build and index image previews and metadata, if you wanted to browse "all" your photographs rather than just the photographs from a single event, it was very slow at building thumbnails for your entire photo collection.

PM Plus adds the DAM features so it now builds a properly indexed database of metadata and previews, Searches and rendering thumbnails are super fast with PMplus. Apart from these DAM features, PM standard and PMPlus are identical, but if you want to work e.g modify metadata, on a subset of your entire collection the features of PMPLus are pretty well essential.

The big flaw with PM standard (and by default PMPlus), is that there are no image editing tools. I usually use ETTR, or deliberately expose to ensure highlight details giving me either very light or very dark images to assess and you can't adjust the exposure in PM, This makes these pictures impossible to properly assess in PM. For these pictures I have Fast Raw Viewer set up as the default editor in PM and make the assessment in FRV

The big flaw with PMPLus is that still has things missing: No smart folders, and limited search fields (including orientation). This has been done to keep everything speedy, as turning PM into a DAM while also keeping it's reputation for speed and reliability . The latter was apparently a major headache, which was why PMPlus took almost 15 years to go from alpha into public beta.

I could go on and explain how I am trying to replace PMPlus, but I have written enough, and so far nothing has properly replaced it.


Surely software that handles tagging is only writing to the metadata and not re-encoding the picture data?
 
The big flaw with PMPLus is that still has things missing: No smart folders, and limited search fields (including orientation).

I'm surprised that PMPlus doesn't do this well - there's little point in being able to put data into a database if you can't use it to find things effectively.

Lightroom's extensive metadata search facilities, such as orientation, are very useful on the occasions you need them. I'd like the option to stack queries using some proper logic (e.g. every photo that contains London in its keywords but not Westminster) although I suspect that might get confusing for some people.
 
Lightroom's extensive metadata search facilities, such as orientation, are very useful on the occasions you need them. I'd like the option to stack queries using some proper logic (e.g. every photo that contains London in its keywords but not Westminster) although I suspect that might get confusing for some people.

You can do that using Smart Collections.
 
I'm surprised that PMPlus doesn't do this well - there's little point in being able to put data into a database if you can't use it to find things effectively.

Lightroom's extensive metadata search facilities, such as orientation, are very useful on the occasions you need them. I'd like the option to stack queries using some proper logic (e.g. every photo that contains London in its keywords but not Westminster) although I suspect that might get confusing for some people.
PMPlus does allow to search effectively, and does it extremely well and very quickly, It just doesn't index (and therefore, be able to search) every single IPTC field. I don't think any database allows you to search every IPTC field,

I became aware of it, because it searches the Headline field and not the Caption field. There is some logic to this as the Headline field should contain the key info related to the image, where as the Caption is likely to be more wordy, as well as containing words not unique to the image. There will always be some duplication of important words between the Caption and the Title field, so indexing and searching both fields is. bit redundant, and likely to slow down searches and indexing.

Unfortunately, I had been using the Caption field, even if it only contained (on investigation of what went into which field) the content that would normally go into the Title field.

I used a PM code to copy my Captions text into the Title field, and thereafter I had PM fill in both fields with the same content. For export, I would add content to the Caption field, but by that time the field contents are static and the Title field contents aren't changed.

And although it doesn't have smart folders (ie folders that are constantly running in the background to auto update ) it does allow you to save multiple types of searches, which do the same sort of thing but need to be manually run

The orientation issue was solved by me through the example I gave earlier. PM reads the orientation exif tag and auto adds a vertical or horizontal keyword on ingest, I then just search/filter on the keyword. Interestingly, and I don't know how LR does it, but with C1 the orientation is based on the crop orientation, where as the exif based orientation keyword generated by PM is based on the camera orientation. Having both available seemed a good idea.

PMPLus allows you to write (and save) sophisticated boolean queries to do the kind of searches you describe.

Edit: With LR, I have a saved smart folder in my "admin" collection of folders which allows the use of "not". I then open and edit it to make custom searches that require a NOT operator,

Both an orientation filter and smart folders are coming for PM, but I get the feeling they are struggling with the speed penalties of adding smart folders.

The database part of PM was developed in conjunction with sports photo agencies/libraries, and in practice it's very good, but as with everything to do with PM the desire for speed has underpinned their design/feature .decisions.
 
Last edited:
I use a program called Excire, in fact I have just updated to the new Excire 2025, it uses AI to go through all your photos and automatically tag them, plus you can add your own tags too. There are many different types of search options too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I use a program called Excire, in fact I have just updated to the new Excire 2025, it uses AI to go through all your photos and automatically tag them, plus you can add your own tags too. There are many different types of search options too.
How useful do you find Excire and what sort of subjects are you keywording?

I bought Excire 2023, and upgraded to 2024, but haven't upgraded to 2025, The review I watched on the 2025 version suggested there had been no real improvements in the keywording with this latest version

For my use, landscape and wildlife, I found the keywording useless, Nearly every landscape was simply identified as "Nature*" regardless of whether it was a mountain or a river. I seem to member it occasionally identfied something as "water". Many were only identified as "low contrast*". Images of frame filling birds or butterflies only received a keyword of "color*".

* I can't actually remember the exact keywords, but they were something like this.

It was very fast, and good at metadata searches, but the AI keywording was very disappointing.

As I suggested in my first sentence, I wonder if it works better with different subject matter. Have you found any keywordng improvements with 2025?
 
How useful do you find Excire and what sort of subjects are you keywording?

I bought Excire 2023, and upgraded to 2024, but haven't upgraded to 2025, The review I watched on the 2025 version suggested there had been no real improvements in the keywording with this latest version

For my use, landscape and wildlife, I found the keywording useless, Nearly every landscape was simply identified as "Nature*" regardless of whether it was a mountain or a river. I seem to member it occasionally identfied something as "water". Many were only identified as "low contrast*". Images of frame filling birds or butterflies only received a keyword of "color*".

* I can't actually remember the exact keywords, but they were something like this.

It was very fast, and good at metadata searches, but the AI keywording was very disappointing.

As I suggested in my first sentence, I wonder if it works better with different subject matter. Have you found any keywordng improvements with 2025?
I've only tried the demo but my experience was similar in that its AI tagging was very generic and useless for what I was needing. Its search strings did seem quite good at bringing back photos that would match a description including landscape photos but it didn't seem to work well for finding specific people or objects so I couldn't see how to make it work for me where I'm just wanting to identify and tag photos.
 
I've only tried the demo but my experience was similar in that its AI tagging was very generic and useless for what I was needing. Its search strings did seem quite good at bringing back photos that would match a description including landscape photos but it didn't seem to work well for finding specific people or objects so I couldn't see how to make it work for me where I'm just wanting to identify and tag photos.
I've tried a few AI keywording programs, but not been impressed.

One managed to identify many birds down to species, but most were incorrect because it had obviously only been trained on American birds. Even then it wasn't very reliable.

No doubt this will improve, but a quick search through some of the micro photo libraries indicated that many of the bird photographs were wrongly identified. I actually emailed them about this and they confirmed they used AI to do the ID and relied on the photographer letting them know if the ID was incorrect.
 
I set myself a goal to start tagging this year. I upgraded my ACDSee software to Ultimate 2025 and already found it to be pretty intuitive. I now have two aims:

to stick at it from here on in and to go back over old images and tag as much as I can.

I also committed to continuing to record details of each roll of film I shoot and develop. I need to go back and put my older negs in order.
 
Back
Top