Use Nfo Files for Photos

[CasaAtardecer 27]

Hello friend,

I realize that this forum topic is about the original source for photo metadata and how Emby might make use of it.

On a slightly tangential note, can someone please tell me why NFO files are exclusively used for videos and an NFO file cannot be used for photo?

Is it the file type extension that tells Emby to read the NFO, if present.

Ta!

[Luke 42077]

@CasaAtardecerbecause the majority of metadata can be stored inside the photo.

And also it is normal for users to have tens of thousands of photos, or even more. Having to read and write that many nfo files would not perform well.

[CasaAtardecer 27]

Hello friend,

Thank you for your reply.

I was attempting to learn a little bit more about the workings of Emby in asking the question and your answer, while appreciated, does not get to the place where I was aiming.

Please let me rephrase my question:

Other than the patently obvious logistical impediments to using NFOs for photos, whose embedded metadata is no different from videos, is the file extension the key to how Emby displays the media and whether it reads metadata from the NFO (if present), the embedded tags, or scrapped online databases?

Does this question more clearly describe what I am trying to discern?

Ta!

[Luke 42077]

Quote

is the file extension the key to how Emby displays the media and whether it reads metadata from the NFO (if present), the embedded tags, or scrapped online databases?

yes nfo is handled differently for different media types.

you are correct that videos support the same embedded metadata, but hardly anyone does that, so that's where nfo becomes useful. For photos though, pretty much everyone uses embedded metadata.

[CasaAtardecer 27]

Hello friend,

Thank you for confirming that the media file extension triggers Emby’s response.

I have been searching for a way to communicate to my subscribers to our family photo albums all the details about the photos.

Unfortunately, photos must be added manually to Collections (I call them Albums) because there is no embedded tag for Collections. Also, photos do not get a Details view and they do not yet (if ever) have a Caption overlay in slideshow mode.

All that photo embedded detail has only just recently been available as an Overview Show Field tag in Grid views in the smart TV apps.

Until photos get more dev attention time, my hack has been to create mini-slideshows of photos, grouped into my own mini-albums (you call them Collections), create the NFO so the Details can be shared, and upload them to Emby as video.

It is not an optimal method for sharing photos, but it works until the FR for photos are looked at.

Cheers!

[ebr 16169]

17 hours ago, CasaAtardecer said:

Unfortunately, photos must be added manually to Collections (I call them Albums)

Why not just use folders?

[CasaAtardecer 27]

10 hours ago, ebr said:

Why not just use folders?

Hello friend,

Thank you for your interest and for your question.

Using Folders in lieu of Collections is not an option for the creation of an "Album" of photos for at least seven distinctly challenging reasons:

1) The vast majority of serious photo archives are organized into folders by "date taken" (i.e., year, month, date) and the date upon which a photo is taken is almost never the "theme" for a photo ALBUM, unless the date itself is somehow the primary subject of a collection of photos.

2) The Emby Folder tab in the Home Video & Photo library displays the user's media organization folder structure, which would require the folder structure to be completely reorganized and renamed to act as a substitute for Emby Collections.

3) Suppose a photo album is intended to showcase a particular person, place, or subject matter, then all the photos on that album's theme would have to be gathered together into a single folder. If a photo should happen to showcase more than a single person, place, or subject matter, and one wanted to use the same photo in another album, then all such photos would have to be duplicated and gathered together into any number of additional folders, to achieve the same results that already exist in Collections without any unnecessary duplication. The vast majority of photo archivists abhor duplication for a great many reasons that I will not bother describing here.

4) The grid view of folders has no option or setting to "Group By" media type, so photos and videos are lumped together without any means to tell them apart. The user cannot know whether a media item is a photo or a video unless the media item is selected. I suppose one could use a separate folder for photos and a separate folder for videos; however, in this digital age, an online digital Album of media will fundamentally contain both photos and videos that the vast majority of users would want to browse and play entirely within the same Album, without having to navigate back and forth. The duplication problem in wanting to use the same photo AND video in more than one Album is now completely ridiculous.

5) With the very recent addition of the overview tag in the show fields 3-dot settings customization of grid views, the metadata for photos can finally see the light of day in the Emby Roku app; however, like I said before, the highly customizable, metadata-rich grid view of folders still does not have a "Group By" option, whereas there is a "Group By" option in Collections, should the user want to browse a specific Collection's photos or play the same Collection's videos.

6) The grid view of folders is locked in the horizontal, rectangular shape of a "file folder" icon, regardless of the media type. In contrast, the shape of the media items in Collections have the vertical, movie poster shape that everyone has come to expect from online streaming of video media and from photos taken by mobile phones. This is a minor annoyance that does not really factor into anybody's calculus, except when considering using folders in lieu of Collections for photos.

7) Because photos do not have a details view, the only way to see any photo metadata is in a grid view and this metadata is severely truncated and restricted for many, many very good reasons, that I will not debate. That being said, the only viable alternative method to seeing my photo metadata, given the current state of development in Emby photo libraries, is to manufacture a mini-slideshow video and use an NFO. My hack in converting a series of photos into mini-movies opens the door to the video details page, where I can display as much photo detail in the overview as I want to share, and the user can navigate to other Collections from the video details page. Like I said before, not an optimal solution, but there really is no other viable alternative at present, and may never be.

I hope this explanation and these examples answer your question as to why the use of folders is just not a viable alternative to Collections.

Cheers!