Do you use photo tags?

[Tom Hildreth]

For the past year I have been going to the considerable trouble of adding photo tags to my scanned images uploaded to Photobucket. My vague sense was that this would make finding the photos easier for anyone doing an internet search for a subject related to the tag I applied. For example, I tagged a picture "1953 Ford", before I uploaded it to Photobucket. But I'm not sure it works in the way I hoped.

I find it odd that Photobucket does not have a search by tag capability visible when you first log on. If tags are so valuable and handy to use, why is this so? Also, I cannot locate any of the hundreds of photos to which I have applied tags when using any search engine, selecting images, and typing in my tag data. Instead, I see the Photoshop people claiming tags will help me find my own images from within Photoshop.  That's not the kind of visibility I was after-I want something that can be found from a search engine such as Google, Yahoo, or any of the many others.

My question is do you use tags, and if so how are they an advantage to you? Thanx.

[radiophoto]

I use tags on flickr, which are external and very useful; but I haven't tried to install them on the image itself, didn't even know there was such a capability.

[sandeha]

I only use Photobucket for storage and linking so I've never used the tags there.  In Flickr I tag every shot, and if you try a free account there I think you'd find their tags working the way you want them to.

[Alan Gage]

I use Flickr and, as the others have said, tag everything I upload. I do it more for me than anyone else. I add the keywords before I upload so I can search my computer as well if I'm looking for something in the future.

As for visibility, I get a quite a few hits on my photos from people searching Yahoo and Google.

I don't know how Photobucket uses tags but from what you posted one other time it doesn't sound like they put them to good use.

Alan

[LarryD]

Tag you are it.

[Pete Hobbis]

This discussion post on Flickr suggests that some uploading methods let you convert keywords in the EXIF data into Flickr tags automatically. They mention Lightroom; I have no experience of that.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157623020103294/?search=jpg+tags


It seems that 'photo' is one of the most popular tags on Flickr, though as one poster says 'one of the least useful'. Apparently when Flickr started, a much larger fraction of what was posted was drawings and clippings from the web (tagged 'snagged'). Some people still put 'unfound' on pictures they actually took themselves.

[Tom Hildreth]

Radiophoto-these are external to the image file, my apologies for the confusion. I have also been filling in the "file info" portion of the JPEG in PSE 6. I have about half the info preloaded, but must type in one line, then it gets pasted in the subject section of "file info".

Larry- Who it? Me it? Tag you back. Then as kids, when that part of the game was over, all those not it, or still in hiding were granted safe passage with the shout, "Allee allee infree!"  Or that's the way it was in Western Mass 50 years ago.

I got into this tagging thing because a couple of years ago I was getting the impression it was important, maybe the wave of the future for photo ID'ing.  This doesn't seem to be the case, and if the few responses (which I appreciate BTW) are any indication, not that many people are using tags.

Pete-I've seen some lengthy discussions on EXIF data and how best to use it. In particular, one aviation site was requesting photographers include EXIF data so that less experienced shooters could see what worked well in regards to shutter speed, f-stop, lens make and ID and so on. I can see this as a valuable thing under these circumstances.  I'm shooting film and scanning the images, so EXIF doesn't exist. (Say that five times quickly).

Thanks all for the replies, and keep 'em coming if you use tags. I'm still looking for info on how and why to use them.  Especially applications outside the many I see regarding  social networking and IDing faces within a photo.

[Pete Hobbis]

Something else I came across on Flickr was 'machine tags'. These seem to be tags entered manually as Flickr tags (so are not included in the image file), for use by some system outside Flickr. I didn't spend a lot of time on it, but I understood that the tag has three parts: the first identifies the system that might use the tag (I think); the second is the name of the tag, and the third is the tag's value. The example I came across was something like 'geo:lat:123456' , which gives the latitude of the place photographed.

[Alan Gage]

I'm still looking for info on how and why to use them.  Especially applications outside the many I see regarding  social networking and IDing faces within a photo.

It would seem that if you want someone to find your pictures in their searches there's no other way for them to do it. So if that's what you want to happen it should be reason enough to add keywords to your photos. How else are they supposed to find it? Maybe I'm just not understanding your question correctly.

For me though the biggest benefit to keywording is in my personal database. If I want to find I picture of a Blue Flag Iris that I took in Ft. Defiance State Park all I have to do is type in "Iris, Ft. Defiance" and Bridge will find it in moments. Or if I want to see all the photos I've taken in Ft. Defiance because they want new shots for their flyer I can pull them all up in a couple minutes. Way easier than any other way of trying to locate them.

It's kind of an art in itself, adding the right keywords so that they will come up in many different searches. The more keywords that match the search criteria the higher your photo will be in the list. I got serious about it for a while but decided that I didn't really care that much. Now I just add enough keywords that they'll hopefully benefit me in future searches and maybe help others find my stuff.

Here's one of my Flickr shots, you can see the "tags" on the right side-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7935459@N05/4259171929/

The state and county always go in mine as well as the specific location. Then the time of year, month, some info about what's actually in the picture, and whatever else I think might help.

And I'd think if you were serious about trying to lead people to your photos it would do you good to try Flickr. From what you've said about Photobucket and keywords before it doesn't sound like getting your photo out there is a top priority for them. Plus, I've never heard anybody mention searching Photobucket for an image they wanted. I hear it about Flickr all the time though.

Alan

[Tom Hildreth]

Alan,
You have a tremendous amount of tags associated with that image. Were these all entered by keyboard, and do you do this with a lot of your images? Do you have a secretary or assistant? (Sometimes I wish I had one, when it comes to collection administration).

Once I scan a transportation subject, it is given a file name related to the subject; such as "Ford_Custom_1953.tif."  In this way, it matches the method I have used for decades in filing my negatives and slides which runs Manufacturer, Model, sub variant, serial or registration number, location, date, notes. Thus I can search for that particular image by the file name, and this works well for more recent scans. In the case of an aircraft, I can search for "Ford_Trimotor_NC17225.tif", or if I have edited the file, "Ford_Trimotor_NC17225.jpg". I believe some people find my Photobucket images in this way, but that doesn't work with Photo.net, as they apply their own ID to the image.

I hear your recommendation on trying Flikr, and you may be right in that people may be able to locate a given image faster. But the decision to open up a third image hosting account is not made lightly. I have many hundreds, if not thousands, of linked images on photobucket and photonet, and as you can imagine it would be a difficult move, with broken links all over the place. In the meantime I'll be trying to find better ways to find my existing photobucket images. Maybe I'm overlooking something. It's like anything, once you are heavily invested in a scheme, change becomes more difficult. Rock and a hard place, all that.

Thanks for the input.

   

[Alan Gage]

Adding the tags is really no big deal. What makes it quick is batch editing.

Let's say I went to a car show and ended up with 100 digital shots I was going to save. Since they were all taken at the same venue I'd select all the images and type in the keywords that apply to all of them: car, truck, show, classic, july, estherville, iowa, emmet county, sweet corn days, restored, hot rod. I hit enter and those keywords are applied to all 100 images. From there I can fine tune it as much as I want. I can select all the images of Fords and apply "ford" as a keyword, then Chevy, then Dodge (to which I'd also add "mopar"). You could do the same for colors and decade (30's, 40's, 50's). 

The key is being able to apply the same keyword(s) to multiple images at the same time. It really slows down when you have to go one by one. But hopefully by the time you get to the point you're applying individual keywords to individual images there are only a handful left that need them.

All those keywords that I apply to my personal files are embedded in the EXIF data and Flickr automatically adds them on upload so there's no need to retype.

Since I use keywords to find my images in the future I don't have to rely on the filename to describe what's in the image. Instead the file name tells me the date and image number for the day so everything is stored in order of when it was taken.

Example: In the above scenario of the car show I'd select all 100 photos taken that day, click "batch rename", which I've already set up to use my structure (day/month/year/image number), and tell it to rename my files. It will rename the files as 07232009_001, 07232009_002, 07232009_003, etc. So that would be July 23rd, 2009 and then the image numbers from 001-100.

These are then kept in yearly folders, which have monthly folders inside them. So inside the folder for 2009 is 12 more folders, one for each month (09_01, 09_02, 09_03, etc). The images for each month are placed in these folders and because of the filenames they'll be in order from the first of the month to the last.

I like it that way because I never have to try and decide what "category" to put my images in. Is this a landscape or a shot of my dog? The keywords take care of it later if I need to search and it's nice having everything in chronological order. And with keywords you can be as generic or as specific in a search as you want. You could just do a generic search for "chevy" or narrow it down my searching for "chevy, red, 1953, coupe."

Not trying to say your way is bad or that mine is best, which I know it's not. Just outlining how I do it so you can see how keywords fit into my whole system.

Good luck,

Alan

[Tom Hildreth]

Thank you, Alan. It's good to know how others do it. You are using a digital camera in your example, and I can see the whole tagging process is more aligned with digital photography than scanning slides, photos and negs of various venues from over a time span of decades. This means single-image tagging is much more likely. I seldom get to talk to people face-to-face on this stuff, and I appreciate that you took the time to explain how things are done in your house.

I spent an hour last night plying through Photobucket's hard-to-find information, and they advise a tag is something you apply to identify PART of a photo. (Again, it's mostly people's heads they are talking about), so their use of tags doesn't likely doesn't apply to me. I don't know who it apllies to other than hormone-fired kids who want to point out Billy T 'cause he's just so cute!!!  Or, maybe some other part of the anatomy, 'cause it's so huge!

But, who is to say that they can't make a change in the future and tags then become visible to someone searching for a 1953 Ford. 'Cause it's so hot. 

[Alan Gage]

Yes, I can see where it would be much more inefficient when you're scanning, especially if you're scanning old negs/slides rather than recent ones you could lump together. But then again, scanning and editing in itself is pretty inefficient so a few keywords doesn't ad much time.

I just tried searching Photobucket and it appears you're right, it's hard/impossible to find what you're looking for unless it's in the images title. If you really want people who aren't specifically looking for your images to actually find your images I wouldn't wait on Photobucket in hopes they'll come around.

Alan

[Tom Hildreth]

I just tried to get on the Photobucket forums and after spending 20 minutes looking for them without any luck, I decided to try an internet search for "Photobucket forums" and came across this on the How To website:

on 10/21/2009 Photobucket closed their forums this year and fired most of their customer service staff. They had massive layoffs. Don't even bother to try getting help from them now. They rely on auto-response emails and when you do get a real person response they are clueless and no help at all. Guess Fox doesn't believe customer service is very important. It's a shame because the forums were really helpful not only for account problems, but lots of other computer issues as well.

In the TIPS AND WARNINGS section it says you can email the tech department. NO YOU CAN'T, you go to a customer service team that knows very little about how to solve problems. The only people who were good help were the forum administrators and they are gone now.