The current functionality is so simplistic it’s getting to the point of ridiculousness. It needs to follow similar to Ancestry or other competitor software.
For example, we should be able to link the actual person in the photo by their faces in the picture in Roots Magic, so we have a record of who is in the picture - pretty basic. Especially for the primary picture in RM vs the whole picture.
In RM you have to type out who is who in the description field - like the old days when you just write in pencil on the back of the picture. I think RM can do better.
We should be able to add meta data to the picture while in Microsoft have that meta data update in RM when you drag the picture into Roots magic. So, you do not need to add the data twice.
This is similar to what happens in Ancestry as most people know if you add the media data in Ancestry and then use tree share to bring the picture into Roots Magic the metadata follows suit. But the problem is if you had used tree share previously, it will duplicate any previous picture. This is ridiculous.
The user should be able to control how the media is shared between RM and Ancestry.
RM needs a complete refresh to be able to deal with media, eliminate the duplicates and use standard current technology process that is available in other genealogy software.
Look at the functionality in FH7 or Ancestry for media as a guide - that would be a good start.
RM is a good software, but media in RM is only going to get worse if RM does not keep up with the industry standard processes.
Thanks - For me there are a few things in RM that should work better for media
Not sure what I’m doing wrong but it seems when I use Tree Share it will duplicate the media files in Ancestry Memories gallery. Especially when I only the picture once in RM. I have to go into Ancestry and delete the duplicates…… or limit the use of Tree Share.
If I add meta data to my picture in Microsoft Explorer (i.e. title, date, description etc.) when you drag and drop into RM that data does not get added to the data fields in RM. You need to retype it in the fields. In FH7 if you did a drag and drop media data fields would automatically be filled out (i.e. title date description etc.) and therefore you are only typing in the meta data once, at the original media file.
RM does not have a direct media linking process like FH7 and Ancestry. When I have a media picture, I should be able to tag the individuals to identify them and have it automatically save the picture to the individual’s media section. This is really great when there is a large group picture.
RM will not let you tag a person’s face to use as the main image in a chart etc. Both Ancestry and FH7 has this capability.
The interesting thing, not sure if you came across this, but if you first add the media to Ancestry and complete the meta data in Ancestry - when you Tree Share the meta data fields in RM get completed. The downside I came across when you Tree Share again it will duplicate the media files in RM (So I don’t want that workflow!).
I do like RM, but IMO the media process seems like an area RM could improve on with its functionality.
I believe the request for functionality, to partition individuals from out of a collective group photo, has been previously requested. Personally, I don’t see much regular use for such photo features in my collection of images. I’d suggest someone would get better results using a photo-centric program to do these occasional tasks, then do a capture of that produced output. RootsMagic is essentially a collection of thumbnails with links to external image files, anyway. Do the desired extra steps externally, then link them to RM. For Ancestry, it’s their bread and butter and it’s users can bring down those enhanced images into RM. Don’t know about FH7, but this program’s authors are well-aware of their competition and the features they offer.
So far, the way the media is done is working for me. I struggled with whether it was best to include the media with the program or link to media outside the program. I still like it inside, but that was a design decision. I found I was putting more information on the RM media than I needed to as that information was already part of the linked photo or document.
Outside of RM, as my age is catching up with me, I have thousands of photos and videos to leave the family. I put them on a database that will exist after I am gone, but I have narrowed my input to essentials of who is on the photo, where it was taken and when. I used to add more Meta data, but will anyone in the future in my family care I took this with my Canon F-60 with various values; or will they be happy to know who, what, when, where, and why. These can be on the linked photo.
The concern I have is keeping the outside fields linked to RM, and RM itself in a state that someone 30 years from now can access. Some in my family remind me of what happened with FamilyEdge and other genealogy software, so they ask why I think RM will still be around.
I agree with you. But I like keeping it separate helps in dups and long-term legacy for future generations.
One of the areas I was hoping could be improved is when I add the meta data to the picture in Explorer, for example the title, date, and a comment, it is carried over to RM when you drag and drop. For example, title in Explorer carries over to caption in RM, date carries over to the date field, the comment carries over to the description field. This would help eliminate the double inputting of meta data i.e. once in Explorer and once in RM. Just my thoughts.