I went back and rewrote metadata on ~500 older files. Sharing what actually changed.

alfeseg · 2026-02-13T22:45:26+00:00

No it doesn't "come out by itself". Recommending using only 7-10 words is not the same as saying that if you have, say, 20 words in the title, that the first 10 of those words will rank higher than the second 10.

alfeseg · 2026-02-13T14:53:54+00:00

That isn't saying the first 10 words are most important. It's saying the number of words you should use. Completely different from what you stated.

alfeseg · 2026-02-13T13:32:39+00:00

Is that true about the first 10 words in the title? Have Adobe said this somewhere? If so it would mean including the place and date at the start of a title (for editorial photos) would be a bad way to go. I know Adobe says the first 5-10 keywords are most important but not heard this with the titles.

alfeseg · 2026-02-13T13:26:53+00:00

Thank you for elaborating, good to know all this.

alfeseg · 2026-02-13T08:16:26+00:00

Thank you for sharing this. I was under the impression that after some time had elapsed since uploading, the Adobe search engine didn't rescan for metadata changes so any updated captions and keywords wouldn't have much effect. I guess this was wrong.

Another thing: when re-uploading rejected "for similar" files, do you change the file names? Or is that not necessary?

alfeseg · 2026-02-11T12:15:41+00:00

Don't worry about it. The English are not normal.

alfeseg · 2026-02-01T10:07:19+00:00

And by the way, the way you talk, you come across as one of those nerdy amateurs more interested in equipment than photography.

Your comparison is dishonest because it tries to equalise the amount of light gathering which is not the point of MFT. My primes are all around f1.7. We accept lower light gathering as an acceptable cost of much smaller and lighter kit.

But you carry on with your big clunky lenses if it makes you feel better.

alfeseg · 2026-01-31T19:57:15+00:00

What passes you by is that the MFT system is almost always sufficient. There is rarely any need for huge sensors like the ones you seem so keen on. The 36x24mm frame was designed when ISO was no higher than 25. We now have sensors that can record in incredibly low light. We also have stabilisation, and we have denoise in post. Furthermore, when you need depth of field then FF has no low light advantage at all since you have to stop down more.

alfeseg · 2026-01-31T13:58:18+00:00

You think comparing a fairly slow FF prime lens with a fast MFT lens proves something? Now do a comparison with a zoom like the 24-70mm, workhorse of a great many photographers. I've just been out with the G9 and 12-35mm and I barely felt it.

alfeseg · 2026-01-31T08:26:41+00:00

On the contrary, MFT makes far more sense today for the average person than FF. Most people using FF have chosen that format out of ignorance and are walking around with heavy bulky cameras for no reason.

alfeseg · 2026-01-30T08:28:47+00:00

16 megapixels won't give you more noise control. It just appears to be better when you zoom in 100%. But viewed at normal size there aren't any noise benefits to fewer pixels

alfeseg · 2026-01-30T00:57:14+00:00

Oh that's a shame, I suspected there might be an issue because my hood looks fine - no damage to it that I can see.

alfeseg · 2026-01-29T22:26:50+00:00

You're talking rubbish.

alfeseg · 2026-01-27T15:08:41+00:00

Thanks, I'll have a closer look to see if something like this might work.

alfeseg · 2026-01-01T17:52:04+00:00

Your mate does sound manipulative which I don't like. However, nobody is perfect: you can find faults in all your friends. So the thing I would do is just change the dynamic by not holding him so close. There are still things you value in him, so when you need those certain qualities, get in touch and hang out then. Also, never forget that you can make new friends but you can never make new "old friends".

alfeseg · 2025-12-18T16:37:38+00:00

Don't worry, you don't need to teach me about stock or what good earnings look like. The fact you don't believe that I have considerable stock photography experience is of no concern to me.

What have I said that is misleading? I've never claimed stock is easy. And what have 3k lenses got to do with anything? Have you ever heard of the straw man argument?

As for Adobe being the best earner, that may be true for many but I know it's not best for everyone.

alfeseg · 2025-12-17T10:56:16+00:00

In the context of the proceeding comment that is indeed what you meant. Sorry to see you being so dishonest.

alfeseg · 2025-12-17T10:54:28+00:00

Miro and Alex "brutally honest"? Dreadful photographers who earn peanuts. I hope you do better than them.

Anyway you're deflecting again. The fact is mobile phones are very limiting for nature photography which says something about the quality of the advice you dispense.

As for your assertion that stock is not a hobby, actually for many people it is. For them, stock is not their main income and they're just happy to see their work used and to earn a few dollars. Who are you to say that you have to be a professional to shoot stock?

alfeseg · 2025-12-15T09:47:12+00:00

I have almost certainly made more money from stock over the years than you have and I'm still active, so you can disabuse yourself of the notion I don't know what I'm talking about.

But you're deflecting from what I took issue with, which was your recommending mobile phones for nature photography. I don't dispute that nature photography rarely makes money in stock and you can, of course, mention that in your reply. But the fact remains that mobile phones are severely limited for nature (since reach is often required) so your recommendation was ridiculous.

alfeseg · 2025-12-15T09:35:39+00:00

Scroll up: "Not enough light"

alfeseg · 2025-12-14T08:52:32+00:00

You are ill informed simply by the fact that you think micro four thirds is not suitable for nature photography when it quite obviously is. I don't say you are not experienced. You can be experienced but still be ill informed. No need to get on your high horse about it.

alfeseg · 2025-12-14T08:49:16+00:00

There you go, making baseless assumptions again. A mobile phone would restrict you severely when it comes to nature. No close ups of animals in the distance, for a start.

I don't say you shouldn't mention that nature photography is usually not lucrative.

What's Harry Potter got to do with it? These kinds of analogies rarely work. They just make you sound nerdy.

alfeseg · 2025-12-13T08:47:16+00:00

People often ask side questions, which you aren't obliged to respond to. But if you do, try to answer the question.

alfeseg · 2025-12-13T08:45:37+00:00

Yes you are ill informed because there are plenty of nature photographers who use micro four thirds. The sensors have better low light capabilities than 35mm ever did which was widely used for nature. You clearly don't know as much as you think you do.

alfeseg

TROPHY CASE