On the album page images get the Exif-ImageDescription (if available)instead of the title (IPTC-Headline or XMP-Title) or filename. This is not correct because the Exif-ImageDescription is similar to the IPTC-Caption and not the title of an image.

Best regards,
Christoph

??? The priority of retrieving the data will cause it to use the IPTC data in preferenc to the EXIF data.

Also, please review the EXIF specification.

Okay, I think I have to discribe it more precisely:
Let's say I have an image with NO IPTC-Headline, but with "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam sit amet mi erat, ac iaculis velit. Maecenas tempus viverra quam nec consectetur" in the IPTC-Caption and the Exif-ImageDescription, like Photoshop or iTag write it.
Instead of taking the plain filename like "image001" because of the missing IPTC-Headline from image001.jpg, zenphoto shows "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam sit amet mi erat, ac iaculis velit. Maecenas tempus viverra quam nec consectetur" as name of the image on the album page next to the gallery- an album-name.
If the Exif-ImageDescription is empty, zenphoto shows the filename, which is the behaviour I expect even if the Exif-ImageDescription is filled.

Best regards, sorry for my bad english and thanks for your reply,
Christoph

I can reproduce this and have to agree actually.

Hello again,
will it be fixed or is there a workaround?

Best regards,
Christoph

As I have mentioned before the EXIF field [i]ImageDescription[/i] is specified for the image title. Please see the EXIF specification section [i]D. Other Tags[/i].

ImageDescription
A character string giving the [b]title[/b] [emphisis mine] of the image. It may be a comment such as "1988 company picnic" or the like.

Zenphoto will obey this specification so there is nothing to fix.

If your images are created with [i]ImageDescription[/i] set to "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam sit amet mi erat, ac iaculis velit. Maecenas tempus viverra quam nec consectetur" then that is the intended title of the image accordig to specification.

The "workaround" is to fix the EXIF [i]ImageDescription[/i], override it with the IPTC [i]objectName[/i] or [i]imageHeadline[/i] tag, or change the description in Zenphoto. You can also use the xmpMetadata plugin and make an XMP sidecar file to set the image title.

BTW, I know nothing of iTag, but Photoshop does implement to the specifications.

Okay, thanks for your detailed reply! I have also some images which were tagged with photoshop elements, where the Exif-ImageDescription contains the same informations as the IPTC-Caption. Many programs synchronize those two fields, and independently of what the exif specifications says, I think it would be better if zenphoto would only use the IPTC-Headline or the filename, because the Exif-ImageDescription is more a describtion than a plain title. When people enter longer descriptions in Photoshop or iTag or whatever, it will always look messed up when Zenphoto uses this as a title.
A description is not a title, so the Exif-ImageDescription should not be used even if the specification falsely uses the word title for it. Maybe just my opinion, but most programs handle it like this and it would be a cleaner and more logical behaviour for me.

Best regards and thank you for your great work,
Christoph

I have posted about this before, and there seams to be a lot of confusion about this, apparently the specs say as its setup but I like many other do not agree with it.

I have a very simple solution for the people who do not agree.

http://www.zenphoto.org/support/topic.php?id=7341

Scroll down until you find my suggestion of change in class-image.php

Change it for your personal install and that should fix this.

So just find EXIFDescription and change it to displayname

Thank you and best regards,

Christoph

Okay, I have changed 'EXIFDescription' to 'displayname' but nothing changed. I also updated the metadata - without success. Do I have to run the installation again or what can be the fault?
Btw.: I think that the behaviour of treating the EXIFDescription as title is definitively an error. Title should be more understood as a describing subtitle to the image here. Every application I know uses it as pendant to the IPTC-Caption and not as headline or image-title.

Best regards,
Christoph

So, now you are the expert? I caution you to actually read the specification. There are a number of examples even of the use of imageDescription--all of which are consistent with a title not a textual description.

Anyway, unless you enjoy beating your head against a wall I suggest you drop this. Zenphoto will implement the specification. I really do not know what "applications you know", but your argument is much the same as saying "everyone I know thinks...." In the middle ages "everywone" knew that the earth was flat. But guess what, that did not make it so.

I am no expert at all, but an interested user who tries to use his own head and who contributed his personal opinion (which I share with many other people who see it the same way)in order to support your software, which I like very much - as I said before. You said yourself that Photoshop does implement to the specifications - Adobe Photoshop Elements is one of the "applications I know" by the way ...
You are "Chief Developer" and can do whatever you want, but I see no reason for behaving like a primary school teacher when people who are interested in the development of your (really excellent) work give you a constructive feedback.
I really don't know what's your problem, but I'm not very interested in communicating on such a level.

Have a nice day,
Christoph

My collegue may be a little rough sounding sometimes but he really got the point that we are following the official standard and its specification (as we try with everything actually). If programs think they don't have to follow that that is really not our concern. That is what standards are for. Photoshop does it right.

Btw, he already did implement some functions in the development nightly build where you can set some fields to ignore.

My problem is that if standards are not followed then nothing interoperates. You have exactly proved this point with your issue. My other problem is that you seem not willing to understand that we will not change our decision to operate according to the standard. You have been offered work-arounds but seem either unable or unwilling to implement them.

Your decision ist absolutely okay for me; I just wanted to express my opinion and didn't expect such an immature behavior. Seems like you just understand what you are willing to understand. Instead of that I would have been completely satisfied with a normal, objective explaination.
However you solved this issue - ZenPhoto is an great piece of work and I think there is no need to react in such a way. I can understand your decision, but the issue I described also cannot be denied - even Acrylian agreed in hin second posting ("I can reproduce this and have to agree actually").
The "EXIFDescription-to-displayname-workaround" didn't work for me, an I do not want to remove the headline (! ;-)) for every single image. Should I use 'objectName' instead of description?

Regards,
Christoph

[i]even Acrylian agreed in hin second posting ("I can reproduce this and have to agree actually").[/i]
Yes, but to clarify at that time I did not look at the exif specification at all. I normally use just the main window in Photoshop's image info and that all works correctly. I am rarely taking photos so I rarely think of exif I admit. (btw, the showcase entries titles are all generate via meta data added using Photoshop).

[i]didn't expect such an immature behavior[/i]
As my collegue is away for some days just shortly. We often deal with users who insist on what they think must be even if we tell them otherwise why it is not. Sometimes we can take it calm and sometimes we can't..:-)

The "EXIFDescription-to-displayname-workaround" I posted for you works just fine, I use it personally. Try and make a new folder with images and see the results, It will probably not fix the images your previously have and refreshing metadata will probably not work. I personally think you are overreacting on this subject, as an easy solution has been offered for your personal setup.

Thank your very much for your advice! I'm absolutely satisfied with the solution and totally relaxed ;-). I also have no personal problem with Stephen and I have great respect for his work, but in principle I don't think that one has to accept every kind of bad behaviour just because the internet is an anonymous place.
But enough - I thank you all and maybe we're a little bit friendlier the next time we meet ;-)!

Best regards,
Christoph