Xmp sidecar files following the file convention filename.raw, filename.xmp for raw files and embedded metadata for formats that support it. People migrating between software occasionally have issues and hickups so it’s worth ensuring that your current sofware as well as any one you plan to move to follows the most widely supported standards correctly. Be extra careful with small projects such as viewers and taggers that may not have metadata correctness as a first priority or may have their own interpretation of things.
I can’t see many reasons for using a custom or non standard sidecar file for metadata. xmp being xml could be parsed into pretty much any other format if required.
If you tag before export most software will propagate the metadata to exported files. To save work you basically have to tag the raw files and do this before edit or at least before export.
Edits are basically not compatible between software. There’s no real hope of being able to transfer edits between software with high enough fidelity.
Raw files are rarely something you pass around so having to supply xmp sidecars in those cases shouldn’t be a huge issue.
Yes, we likely are.
However, when a learning curve is “steep”, it rises quickly – which actually means that one learns fast, which is the opposite of what we both likely meant.
I am fully aware that so many people now use this expression wrongly that one may argue its expressed meaning has become contrary to its literal meaning (hence the smiley ) – but I still sometimes try to maintain some logic in language usage.
(In my country the act of making a conscious evaluation of something, typically literary or film critic, has lately been commonly expressed in media by “to give [it] dice throw [e.g. 5]” …! I’m about to puke every time I hear it. )
In addition, storing processing instructions in xmp should never cause problems when using namespaces, as other programs are supposed to ignore xml tags they don’t understand (namespaces are there to prevent name clashes).
That also means that small variations in naming of the sidecars shouldn’t be a huge issue, as long as it’s clear for the receiving party which sidecar goes with which raw.
Yes. To me, in practical terms a steep learning curve means the learning process moves more slowly, not faster (i.e., time isn’t constant on the graph, it slows down as the curve rises). But that’s mostly semantics – We’re all basically expressing a similar concept, I think.
In embodied psychology an interesting topic is what relations there are between our bodies and the physical world and with language and mental concepts. Is our future “in front of us” or is it, as Quechuans in Peru consider it, “behind” us? Behind because it is, contrary to the past, unknown and something we cant “see”…
If we were talking about the “learning slope”, I definitely would envision things to go slower the steeper it is. But now we are talking about the “learning curve”. A curve in this respect is in my mind something abstract - expressing a function. And what are the axis? Level of knowledge/skill is for me a natural Y-axis, and can there be something else than time on the X-axis as we’re talking about “learning” which is process with duration? And what else can we then read out of a “steep learning curve” than quick learning?
At least here in the US, “steep learning curve” is a colloquialism for “its going to be difficult.” I don’t think there is a specific speed attached to this phrase, it the connotation is that it’ll be “slow.” Your reasoning here is amusing though.
I think what is usually meant by the phrase “a steep learning curve” is referring to climbing a steep hill, i.e., slow and difficult. Not like plotting a learning curve on a graph, where it meant your learning is increasing quickly.
Definitely – 's/time/progress/' which typically slows down as the difficulty increases. But as others have pointed out the vernacular “steep learning curve” is usually meant (in my experience) to indicate increased difficulty, not faster progress.
Exactly, even in Italy. In my head I have always associated the metaphor with the big mountain stages in cycling races, so the steeper it is (up or down) the more difficult it is.
My experience is different. Wrong naming means you’re failing at your job of delivering correct files. If someone ever ask for xmp files don’t deliver sidecars that don’t match the basename.xmp formula. It will be useless for them. Most wont spend the time renaming your files, in their mind you’ve delivered the wrong things.
I really respect Bruce Williams for doing his research when he doesn’t understand something. He would write to AP and get a very detailed answer back before trying to then educate his viewers. Instead of saying, “I don’t understand this, so it must be too complicated for all the users out there” , he would try and get a better understanding of it from the dev and then try and educate the users.
Yes, same in Canada and the UK. Looking at it from a purely practical angle, if something is difficult to learn, can it ever be quicker than something easier to learn? If not, then “steep” can only mean difficult surely.
I unwittingly threw this thread off-topic by using a jargony phrase. Sorry about that. But if it is interesting and/or amusing to you all, then I retract that apology
Other programs do use other conventions. I’ve seen json files, binary files, non-standard xml files, and irregularly named xmp files. It’s really a wild west.
Only a very scant few things are actually interchangeably standardized in xmp. If memory serves, mostly rating and keywords.
I’ve been using DT for 9 years or so. It is my only DAM too.
It works for me. Even I messed up a few times.
It would be nice if there is an option to connect to a centralized DB and multiple computers can share preferences and assets. But again - even if such functionality was there at the end I use 1 computer most of the time.
So it currently fulfills my needs.
Maybe my needs will change in the future - who knows.
Is a “quantum leap” a substantial change – or the least kind of change in the whole universe that we’re able to identify?
I’ve myself learned so much, both dt/processing/photo and lots of other things from the discussions in this forum, that I tend to consider it a learned gathering.
You’re welcome (- but are you in reality a little condescending?). I hope you will take the time to entertain yourself with this wikipedia article on what “learning curve”, misused by the general public, means in professional terms. Some quotes:
" The common expression “a steep learning curve” is a misnomer … In fact, the gradient of the curve has nothing to do with the overall difficulty of an activity, but expresses the expected rate of change of learning speed over time."
Doesn’t “progress” imply a comparison between two states over time - or did I misunderstand you?
You’re introducing a new factor: Scale. Scale is of course important for a human traversing slopes in nature, whether climbing mountains or stepping up on the sidewalk from the street, but doesn’t actually influence steepness.
Sorry for spending time on this off-topic.
Edit: For some reason text was posted prior to my intentions, so I’ve completed it.
) – but I still sometimes try to maintain some logic in language usage.
)
