Anyone use Lightroom plugin Any Vision?

I sort of stopped keywording my photos because I assumed Lightroom would eventually update with vision API which would get 90% of the keywords I'd have done, and probably 50% more than I would have considered. Basically, it's the future

I randomly came across http://www.johnrellis.​com/lightroom/anyvisio​n.htm which uses Google and seems good. They mention some alternatives on the page there, although this one seems like it'd be the best.

Anyone use it? Any thoughts?

kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #18446827
I sort of stopped keywording my photos because I assumed Lightroom would eventually update with vision API which would get 90% of the keywords I'd have done, and probably 50% more than I would have considered. Basically, it's the future

I randomly came across http://www.johnrellis.​com/lightroom/anyvisio​n.htm which uses Google and seems good. They mention some alternatives on the page there, although this one seems like it'd be the best.

Anyone use it? Any thoughts?

There is absolutely NO WAY would I let a piece of software key-word my images for me. How would it be able to differentiate between photographs of racing motorbikes at Cadwell Park, Oulton Park or Donington Park, when all there is in the photo is a bike on tarmac with some Armco in the background. And it would have absolutely no idea what the actual meeting was.

John, don't you put that sort of info in the file title?

Personally, I've seen some of these keywording programs in use on certain websites. I think for stock photography it could be useful for coming up with words that you wouldn't have thought of, but too often they come up with words that aren't relevant. In that sense they are going to be a mixed blessing.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18446889
John, don't you put that sort of info in the file title?

Personally, I've seen some of these keywording programs in use on certain websites. I think for stock photography it could be useful for coming up with words that you wouldn't have thought of, but too often they come up with words that aren't relevant. In that sense they are going to be a mixed blessing.

Why would you put that info in the file name, that's not where you are going to look for it when searching, that is info for keywords, especially in Lr, where you may be building smart collections based on keyword filters. In my case it is aircraft at airshows, so very similar, I would probably be copying variations of the location and subject details to the Title and Caption fields. Using Lr I don't really care that much about the filename or directory location of the actual files, since that is not how I'm looking for my images. Things like general location though are actually not that hard to add as keywords, since if you are shooting at a single general location you can bulk add those keywords during the Lr import process.

My exported JPEG file names on the other hand are likely to have the descriptive info in the filenames too, since I usually use "{Title} {Caption} {Copy name} {Original number Suffix}" as my filename pattern on export. It works well as long as I have given the image at least a title, so that the caption and copy name can be blank, as any empty fields are ignored. If you leave them all blank you just get the original number suffix as the filename, which I try to avoid. I find this very useful when uploading images to the lab I use for printing, because of the way Lr you can use virtual copies for different crops etc.

So locally I just store the original RAW files, or .PSD's where I needed to work using layers, and view images either in Lr or Bridge (I now automatically save xmp files too). All of these simply keep the in camera file name. I then export final output files, usually Q80 JPEG's, as and when required for a specific use. The output files get long descriptive filenames to make uploading to labs etc easier.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18446986
Why would you put that info in the file name, that's not where you are going to look for it when searching, that is info for keywords, especially in Lr, where you may be building smart collections based on keyword filters. In my case it is aircraft at airshows, so very similar, I would probably be copying variations of the location and subject details to the Title and Caption fields. Using Lr I don't really care that much about the filename or directory location of the actual files, since that is not how I'm looking for my images. Things like general location though are actually not that hard to add as keywords, since if you are shooting at a single general location you can bulk add those keywords during the Lr import process.

My exported JPEG file names on the other hand are likely to have the descriptive info in the filenames too, since I usually use "{Title} {Caption} {Copy name} {Original number Suffix}" as my filename pattern on export. It works well as long as I have given the image at least a title, so that the caption and copy name can be blank, as any empty fields are ignored. If you leave them all blank you just get the original number suffix as the filename, which I try to avoid. I find this very useful when uploading images to the lab I use for printing, because of the way Lr you can use virtual copies for different crops etc.

So locally I just store the original RAW files, or .PSD's where I needed to work using layers, and view images either in Lr or Bridge (I now automatically save xmp files too). All of these simply keep the in camera file name. I then export final output files, usually Q80 JPEG's, as and when required for a specific use. The output files get long descriptive filenames to make uploading to labs etc easier.

Alan

I meant "folder names". When I import images from a shoot I name the folder for the shoot. I can never remember what day I shot something, but I know where I was and what I was shooting.