Author Topic: Location Created versus Location Shown  (Read 3910 times)

TomS

  • New Members
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Location Created versus Location Shown
« on: December 01, 2015, 09:25:13 PM »
I indexed some new raw files last night and the first thing I attempted to do was to assign a location to them. I used the map panel and experienced some of the issues that I've been reading about on this forum. Fortunately, since I had read that topic I knew that I could get the blank map to redraw itself if I switched back and forth among map views. For me, what worked was selecting satelite view. After that, the the other views worked fine.

However, that's not the subject of this post. After getting the map visible I managed to place a marker on the map and created a location from that point. The lookup functionality worked well and I then applied that location to several of my files. It appears that the metadata fields that got populated were the ITPC extension LocationShown tags. I would prefer to have the LocationCreated tags populated. Is there some way to configure IMatch to do that automatically? I did read what I could find in the help file about using the map panel and other location functionality but was unable to find a way to configure what metadata gets written when a location is assigned.


Mario

  • IMatch Developer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31580
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2015, 09:52:21 PM »
IMatch fills the standard location tags, which makes it compatible with other software out there.
Location Created cannot be filled by in the map panel at this time.

If you need this and you think others as well, add a feature request.

Tip: Use a Metadata Template to copy the standard coordinates into your preferred location tags.

TomS

  • New Members
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2015, 10:45:05 PM »
That's too bad. I'm afraid I don't understand that logic. How would it impact compatibility with other software to write the appropriate data in the appropriate metadata tags? If other software wants to ignore that data, they can, but it should not result in any sort of incompatibility. Why can't IMatch just write the location information to both location bags if you expect other software vendors to look for it in the location shown tags? What harm would it do?

If a camera is equipped with GPS (mine is not) and stores coordinates at the time it takes a picture, those coordinates are of the location at which the image was created, not necessarily at the location shown in the image. IMatch has the ability to create location information based on GPS coordinates recorded by the camera. To not put that location information in the correct metadata tags seems silly to me. The standard is very clear about the purpose for having a location created and a location shown. It seems like in this case you are allowing other software developers to dictate standards that are in direct conflict with the actual standards. This is why standards never seem to get implemented. I guess you could call it developer peer pressure.

sinus

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • IMatch-User since 2001 (IMatch 3.6)
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2015, 11:36:55 PM »
Maybe I do not understand this, but can you not simply use the tip of Mario and use a metadata-template to get what you want?

But as I wrote, I do not fully understand this, because I do not work yet with location-stuff.
Best wishes from Switzerland! :-)
Markus

jch2103

  • Oldtimer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2015, 12:39:07 AM »
However, that's not the subject of this post. After getting the map visible I managed to place a marker on the map and created a location from that point. The lookup functionality worked well and I then applied that location to several of my files. It appears that the metadata fields that got populated were the ITPC extension LocationShown tags. I would prefer to have the LocationCreated tags populated. Is there some way to configure IMatch to do that automatically? I did read what I could find in the help file about using the map panel and other location functionality but was unable to find a way to configure what metadata gets written when a location is assigned.

I can't speak for other camera models, but using a GPS with a Nikon D90 or D600 will result in the EXIF GPS fields being filled in; IMatch will map these fields to other location fields specified by the Metadata Working Group. The same thing happens when you use the IMatch Map functions. You may want to check the Browser metadata layout to see all of the location fields that are filled in when you use the IMatch map tagging function. (In my case, I don't use IPTC fields, so I don't see IPTC LocationShown metadata for my images.) You may have already seen the Metadata Working Group Guidelines (Location section): http://www.metadataworkinggroup.org/pdf/mwg_guidance.pdf. Note that the GeoSetter program http://www.geosetter.de/en/ offers the ability to add image direction data to your images (some GPS units will do this automatically, although not mine).

As Mario and other have suggested, a metadata template should give you the ability to map location metadata to desired metadata fields. And as Mario suggested, you may want to make a feature request to add location shown coordinates and/or image direction to the Map panel.
John

TomS

  • New Members
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2015, 05:14:14 AM »
Thanks for the feedback. I wrote my reply out of frustration. I'm sorry if it was unfair. I'm not sure why I'm so hung up on this issue. I guess I'm just being stubborn. I felt like the proper place to put the location information is in the IPTC location created fields but I will have to rethink that. I just went back to the MWG guidelines and feel that I need to revise my opinion. The MWG acknowledges that there is a lot of confusion surrounding this issue and they have proposed that it be addressed by using an algorithm that would, in most cases, put that location data in the location shown fields when it is added to an image after photo creation. However, they also suggest that when GPS coordinates are supplied by automated means at the time the image is captured (usually by the camera), then it should be stored in the location created fields. This means that in order to be compliant with the MWG guidelines, IMatch would need to write data to the location created fields when that data is obtained by looking it up using GPS coordinates that were written to the file by the camera. I don't know if IMatch does this or not but it seems like it would present a challenge to know for sure where any GPS coordinates came from without some help from the owner of the file.

So, with all that said, I still believe it would be useful for IMatch to allow users to decide to which fields automatically generated location data is written. I had already created a feature request for this but my reasoning may now be a little different. I still think it would be a good enhancement.

In the meantime, perhaps somebody can help me to understand how one would use a metadata template to accomplish this. If I understand correctly, using metadata templates would require me to first apply the location to the files so that the location information populates the location shown fields and then apply the template to the same files. I'm assuming that the template would have to look for the location information in the location shown fields and then write it to the location created fields. Is that how it would work?

If I'm mistaken about how Mario's suggestion to use metadata templates would work, please explain it to me.

Thanks!

sinus

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • IMatch-User since 2001 (IMatch 3.6)
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2015, 01:47:41 PM »
Tom, I am not (still not) in this GPS-stuff.  ;D

Can you not upload a small image and write which tag should be where?

But maybe I do simply not see the problems, what are here in this subject.
Best wishes from Switzerland! :-)
Markus

Mario

  • IMatch Developer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31580
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2015, 01:57:54 PM »
Quote
In the meantime, perhaps somebody can help me to understand how one would use a metadata template to accomplish this. If I understand correctly, using metadata templates would require me to first apply the location to the files so that the location information populates the location shown fields and then apply the template to the same files. I'm assuming that the template would have to look for the location information in the location shown fields and then write it to the location created fields. Is that how it would work?

Metadata Templates can copy data between arbitrary tags. If your files contain no GPS data at import time, you first need to set GPS data in the Map panel or Metadata Panel. Then you can run your MD template which copies this data somewhere else.

If your files already contain GPS data on import (e.g., in the EXIF record) you can run your MD template automatically during import.

Tip: Create a Favorite for your MD template. Then you can run quickly it via a mouse click or a keyboard shortcut.

TomS

  • New Members
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2015, 05:12:52 PM »
Tom, I am not (still not) in this GPS-stuff.  ;D

Can you not upload a small image and write which tag should be where?

But maybe I do simply not see the problems, what are here in this subject.

sinus,

The data I'm concerned about isn't the GPS coordinate data, it's the textual location data that can be retrieved automatically by using GPS coordinates. I'll try to explain as briefly as possible.

Most of my raw files have no GPS data in them to begin with. One of the first things I like to do after importing raw files is to tag them with location data. When I first started doing this, the programs I used didn't offer "geotagging" functionality so I would type the location data into the appropriate metadata fields of the selected files. I actually had more efficient ways to apply this data to multiple files but that is not relevant to this discussion. My point is that at some point I would have to type this information manually in order to get it into my files. When I did this, I had to decide which metadata tags to put that data in. There are at least 3 different sets of location tags that are commonly supported by most DAM applications. Without getting into too much detail about where these tags are stored and how they are mapped to xmp tags,  the 3 sets are the Photoshop XMP City, State, and Country tags and the two IPTC extension location tag sets, which are referred to as "location created" and "location shown". All of these tags are mapped to xmp tags. So, if you want to include textual information in your metadata such as Newark, New Jersey, United States, you have to decide where to put that data. The IPTC offers guidelines to help us distinguish between the location created and location shown and they are pretty clear about that. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Now, along comes geotagging. With geotagging, users can now open a map and select a point on that map and the application will identify that point using GPS coordinates. Those coordinates can then be stored in the file itself but that is not where it ends. Using lookup functionality, we can send out GPS coordinates and retrieve textual location information for that spot on the map from various sources such as Google. The issue now becomes, where do we want to store that textual location data? Right now, IMatch makes that decision for us. It stores it in the IPTC extension "location shown" set of fields. I'm not sure about whether or not it also puts it in the Photoshop XMP fields as well but where it does not put it is in the "location created" fields. This may not seem like a big deal because you can control what point you select in the map panel so you can select the point of the location shown, but, what if your camera creates the GPS coordinates? IMatch offers functionality that will take those GPS coordinates that are automatically created by a camera at the time of image capture and creates a location from those coordinates. In doing so, it looks up that textual location information that I'm interested in. Now if I apply that location data to a file, IMatch will write the data to the location shown fields and not to the location created fields. I believe this will result in some inaccurate data being written to some files' metadata fields.

According to the IPTC guidelines, the location created fields are intended to store that location where the image was created, which in most cases is where the camera is located at the time of image capture. If your camera records GPS coordinates when it takes a picture than that location is actually the location created, not necessarily the location shown. You could be taking a picture of the island of St. Eustatius from the island of Saba. In this case, the island of Saba is the location created and the island of St. Eustatius is the location shown. If my camera records GPS coordinates for the island of Saba and then IMatch uses those coordinates to lookup location information and then stores that information in the location shown fields, then I now have inaccurate data in those fields.

All I really hoped for was to be able to tell IMatch what fields in which to store that location data. I don't really care where it puts the GPS coordinates. When I geotag files, I would prefer to mark the location created in the map panel so that if I do use a camera in the future (or my cell phone now) that creates GPS data then I will know that the coordinates I've stored in my files consistently represent the location created. I suppose that I could just mark the location shown in the map panel and then adjust any GPS coordinates that may be generated automatically by a camera to indicate the location shown but then that defeats the purpose of having software that can automate this process and if, eventually, all my cameras generate GPS coordinates then I'd have to start adjusting all of them if I want my metadata to be accurate based on standards.

I realize that my logic may not concur with that of others but it is logical to me. I am certainly open to others' opinions on this subject.

I hope this helps to answer some of your questions.


sinus

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • IMatch-User since 2001 (IMatch 3.6)
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2015, 06:17:22 PM »
Hi Tom

Thanks a lot for your long answer.
I guess, I see your point.

That location created can differ from location shown, seems logical. If I stay in the city of Bern (Switzerland) and take pictures from the mountains, then this image is created in Bern, but shows the location of for example Interlaken (mountain Jungfrau). So this is not the same. Of course  a wedding photographer will have this problem seldom, while a nature-photographer will have it often.

But as I said, at the moment I cannot say a lot, because I do not know much about this problem. Finally, since you made a FR, this will not go forget.
If I have time, I will also try to look into this, and when the 5.5 - version is out and some time is over, maybe Mario will also have more time, for looking into this, but of course, I have not clue about his working-guidelines. But your FR is for sure a good thing.

Best wishes from Switzerland! :-)
Markus

jch2103

  • Oldtimer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2015, 07:29:52 PM »
I believe I understand what you're trying to accomplish. I'm not sure there's any product out there that does what you want (e.g., Adobe will show you metadata for Location Shown, but doesn't give you any way to add or edit is!). However, I think there's a way to do what you want now in IMatch, though not in the Map panel.

I suspect that for most images, the Location Created and the Location Shown text fields will be the same, so special updates may be limited to just those images where these two sets of values differ. I'd recommend 1) making a custom metadata panel that includes both sets of locations fields and then 2) making a Metadata Template that copies values from the Location Created fields to the Location Shown fields (for images where both sets of values are the same). You can use the Default panel as the basis for making a custom panel.

This doesn't do exactly what you're seeking, but it should give you something to work with in the meantime. Let us know if you need some help on any of this. One issue you'll need to resolve if you haven't already is exactly which set of XMP Location Shown fields you'll need to use. As Mario has said many time, and as I can agree, metadata is a mess!
John

Ferdinand

  • 100 years since I was shot and a war was started
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1670
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2015, 11:26:59 PM »
I understand the problem, at least in conceptual terms.  I use a GPS logger when in open country and that's always going to record location taken / created.  But there are times when that doesn't refect what the image is showing.  I've realised that, but decided to live with it.  It's not worth the trouble to try to find an alternative solution for the relatively small proportion of times that this happens.  After all, are we photographers, or metadata nerds?  (Some may say that I'm the latter, but I do try to be the former.)  If you find a program that will easily let you do this, please let us know.

[edited because I had former and latter reversed.]
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 12:07:47 PM by Ferdinand »

Mario

  • IMatch Developer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31580
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2015, 07:35:34 AM »
When I recall it correctly, Geo-Setter has an interactive way. You drag an arrow from the camera location on the map to "where it points at", and this is recorded in location shown.

I had thought about implementing something similar for IMatch at some point. But as it often is, too many other things to do. But, as usual, I'm open to requests. If there is a sufficient number of users who needs this to be implemented, I will look at this again. It should be doable with OpenLayers in a cross-provider way. I want the map panel remain independent and support all vendors, not hard-linking it with Google.

I'm not really sure if we need to add all GPS specialties into IMatch. The free and very capable Geo-Setter application concentrates on GPS functionality, and it works great in conjunction with IMatch.

jch2103

  • Oldtimer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2015, 08:37:08 PM »
When I recall it correctly, Geo-Setter has an interactive way. You drag an arrow from the camera location on the map to "where it points at", and this is recorded in location shown.

I'm not sure if this is what the OP is looking for. GeoSetter does allow setting camera direction metadata, but it doesn't handle setting Location Shown text fields. Perhaps TomS will weigh in again regarding more specifics.
John

TomS

  • New Members
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2015, 11:04:51 PM »
Hi John,

All I really wanted to do was to be able to streamline my workflow by writing metadata to the location created fields instead of or in addition to location shown fields at the same time that I assign locations and GPS coordinates to my files. You are right that I was not looking to put directional information in my files, at least not now. Who knows, maybe that will be something that makes sense in the future though.

I do appreciate your feedback. I have to say that I'm a little surprised that this isn't something that more people are concerned about. Location data seems to be something that most people do care about, as evidenced by the amount of applications that are now doing geotagging. My feeling is that if I'm going to go through the effort of creating location data and writing it to my files then I want to put it in the correct places. With the huge amount of GPS enabled devices spewing out photographs these days, I would think that in most cases the locations associated with those GPS coordinates belong in the location created fields not necessarily the location shown fields, yet nobody seems to be putting it there.

After thinking a lot more about this, I do understand why people would be more concerned about the location shown than the location created but that still doesn't make it correct to put location created data in location shown fields just because it's convenient to do so. This discussion has helped me to reconsider what I've been doing and I may change my practices because of it.

Thanks again!

jch2103

  • Oldtimer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2015, 01:07:08 AM »
With the huge amount of GPS enabled devices spewing out photographs these days, I would think that in most cases the locations associated with those GPS coordinates belong in the location created fields not necessarily the location shown fields, yet nobody seems to be putting it there.

My experience so far with location fields is that the official names don't necessarily correspond with what one thinks they should represent (likewise for date/time metadata fields). This is further complicated by the metadata mapping that IMatch does to comply with Metadata Working Group recommendations. And then to quote the MWG recommendations regarding location (page 47), "It is possible to map Exif GPS data to these new [XMP Location Shown] properties. However, any transformation guidance is beyond the scope of the MWG guidelines at this time.[emphasis added]" In other words, it sounds like every man and woman for him/her self.

Until all this gets straightened out by someone, the best practice might be to follow what Mario's done with some additions if you want to track Location Shown:

  • Create a custom metadata layout. 
  • Add the EXIF GPS fields to record any GPS coordinates (i.e., location created). This isn't strictly necessary of you use photos with embedded GPS data or if you add GPS coordinate with the Map panel or other tool. 
  • Use the metadata fields/tags Mario has employed in the Default metadata panel to show location created (use the Reverse Geocode function in the Metadata panel to assign Location Created text based on the GPS coordinates). These tags are Composite\Country, Composite\State/Province, Composite\City and Composite\Location.
  • Add the XMP Location Shown metadata fields/tags to your custom metadata panel layout: XMP IPTC Extension\Location Shown Country, XMP IPTC Extension\Location Shown Province State, XMP IPTC Extension\Location Shown City, XMP IPTC Extension\Location Shown Sublocation.

I've attached a copy of my (current) current Custom Metadata Template with these XMP Location Shown fields added. Just unzip it and import it using the Edit Layouts button in the Metadata panel.  I noticed that the Location Shown tags were already populated with copies of my Location Created text fields, so apparently they're already being mapped that way. That does suggest the possibility that 1) no additional work is needed to have default location text copied to these fields, but 2) any text added for Location Shown might be overwritten if the Location Created text is changed for some reason. I haven't tested to see what happens in such circumstances.

Hope this helps.


[attachment deleted by admin]
John

TomS

  • New Members
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2015, 01:40:49 AM »
John,

I think you got this reversed.

With the huge amount of GPS enabled devices spewing out photographs these days, I would think that in most cases the locations associated with those GPS coordinates belong in the location created fields not necessarily the location shown fields, yet nobody seems to be putting it there.
  • Use the metadata fields/tags Mario has employed in the Default metadata panel to show location created (use the Reverse Geocode function in the Metadata panel to assign Location Created text based on the GPS coordinates). These tags are Composite\Country, Composite\State/Province, Composite\City and Composite\Location.

The fields/tags that Mario has employed will assign the values to the Location Shown fields not the Location Created.

Quote
I noticed that the Location Shown tags were already populated with copies of my Location Created text fields, so apparently they're already being mapped that way.

They would have been populated by IMatch by default if you had assigned them to your files using the map panel.

I will need to look at your metadata template to see what you are doing. I'm not sure how to see what is in your attachment. Do I need to import it into IMatch?

Edit: I figured out how to import your metadata template so you don't need to answer that question. I do have one question about it. Why does it have an immdl extension instead of an immdt extension?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 02:12:08 AM by TomS »

jch2103

  • Oldtimer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2015, 04:18:18 AM »
The fields/tags that Mario has employed will assign the values to the Location Shown fields not the Location Created.

What specific metadata tags are you referencing?

OK, I added the XMP Location Created tags to my custom layout. I see that the Composite location tags are indeed mapped to the XMP Location Shown tags rather than the XMP Location Created tags. Note that most users will have no idea that any of these XMP Location tags are being used. 

@Mario: Is this part of the ExifTool mapping? If so, perhaps I should ask Phil about it?


Quote
I do have one question about it. Why does it have an immdl extension instead of an immdt extension?

That (.immdl) is the extension IMatch creates when saving a metadata layout.

John

Mario

  • IMatch Developer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31580
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2015, 09:58:35 AM »
Use only XMP data. Don't use or update ExifTool composite tags.
We talked about this here in the community. Composite tags are an ExifTool specialty, and they are fuzzy usually.
Stick to XMP tags when you update data, and let IMatch / ExifTool perform the Metadata Working Group compliant mapping.
If you need to manually update legacy IPTC data, or the IPTC namespace in XMP, see the corresponding documentation of what data should go into which tags on the IPTC web site.

TomS

  • New Members
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2015, 01:59:44 PM »
Quote
That (.immdl) is the extension IMatch creates when saving a metadata layout.

My confusion about this was caused by the fact that when I attempted to import the template, IMatch automatically looked for "immdt" file extensions. I had to manually switch to "All Files (*.*)" in the Windows Open Dialog in order to be able to import an immdl file. Perhaps that is something the Mario needs to address.

Quote
@Mario: Is this part of the ExifTool mapping? If so, perhaps I should ask Phil about it?

I have looked at the MWG composite tag mappings that exiftool implements and there is no mention of Location Created in those, only Location Shown. The MWG Guidelines (version 2.0) do indicate that when location data is created manually after the image has been created that is most likely intended to be Location Shown information. I suppose this would lead to the composite mapping that Phil has come up with. I would suggest that you read the MWG Guidelines themselves. The sections on location data are not too difficult to understand. It is a good explanation of the existing tags and helps to illustrate why this issue is difficult for software developers to address.

Mario

  • IMatch Developer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31580
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2015, 03:07:44 PM »
I found the problem. In the French translation .immdl was accidentally used instead of the .immdt. A small typo, fixed for the 5.5.6.

michael60

  • New Members
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2015, 02:55:35 PM »
There's already a bug report on this topic (https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?topic=3865.msg26614#msg26614).

Looks like location matters when it's Christmas time.... :)

Of course I'm with Tom and still would appreciate a MWG compliant solution.

Erik

  • Sr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 286
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2015, 05:22:55 PM »
I know one of the problems with the metadata (not IMatch or any other software really) is that it wasn't that long ago that the fields were just Location and there wasn't really much distinction or use between Location Shown vs. Created.  This was perhaps when IPTC was the dominant metadata format.

I don't even recall if there was much clarity (or I chose to ignore it) between whether the Location fields were meant for what is shown or where it was created.  I think I always assumed the location fields were meant for what was shown, but with GPS and Geotagging, I felt like where the image was created made more sense. 

As a result of my use of a logger to geotag coordinates (and GeoSetter to assign the location fields from those coordinates), I've chosen to essentially tag the location shown fields as if they are the created fields.  I've not looked, but I suspect my location created fields are just empty.  I could (and may someday) go through and use the metadata template to map all the shown fields to the corresponding created fields, but then I should go through and delete all the location shown fields and potentially reassign them or at least verify they are correct (since many would be).

For my own use, I'm not sure it is worth getting too obsessive about distinguishing those two groups of fields.  My purpose in geotagging and marking location is to identify where I shot the photos anyway.  The photo itself often shows me what was photographed.  I'm a landscape photographer, so it isn't unusual for photos to show a different location than is in the location tags, but I'm ok with that.  If I'm shooting a mountain, than it gives me an idea of what types of locations I've shot the mountain from and the various perspectives.

I have been one to just use keywords when the location shown is important anyway. 

I realize we all have our methods of identifying things, but I am finding as I grow with IMatch 5 that there is such a thing as too much metadata.

Ferdinand

  • 100 years since I was shot and a war was started
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1670
Re: Location Created versus Location Shown
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2015, 09:50:07 PM »
For my own use, I'm not sure it is worth getting too obsessive about distinguishing those two groups of fields. ... I am finding as I grow with IMatch 5 that there is such a thing as too much metadata.

+1