Assuming you can get your GPS data onto your Mac, there are some good software options for geocoding photos. I have previously written about the rather roundabout way in which GraphicConverter allows you to manually geocode your photos. HoudahGeo makes it much easier, as it is specifically designed for the task, and includes the ability to auto-geocode using timestamp matching (the same idea as e.g. RoboGEO on Windows).
(Disclosure: Houdah provided me with a free license for HoudahGeo.)
First, select your images (drag and drop, or use a thumbnail browser - you can select individual files or entire directories).
HoudahGeo will ask you for your camera's timezone, with optional error offset. (I set my camera to UTC time, just to keep things simple.) See about time for more information about GPSes and timezones.
Next you need to either get GPS data, or manually position the image(s)
For direct GPS download HoudahGeo supports Garmin, Magellan, and Wintec WBT-100/200/201 over USB and Bluetooth.
SIDEBAR: The state of GPS logger support on a Mac is rather sorry. HoudahGeo uses gpsbabel, which should mean that Globalsat DG-100 support is coming. Another alternative is to use BT747 GPS software, which can talk to iTrek/iBlue and Qstarz GPS models (and may eventually support other MTK chipset GPSes). END SIDEBAR
I did automatic geocoding, using a GPX file from my Qstarz BT-Q1000, downloaded/exported using BT747.
It did a match without any problems. In the final step, you can write to the photo EXIF (storing the GPS data within the photo's metadata), export to Google Earth, and upload to Flickr.
Although it is not highlighted, you can also do "reverse geocoding", to retrieve city, province, and country information. Unfortunately reverse geocoding is a bit of a black art - it got most of my photos right, but some it placed in an adjacent town. NOTE: This applies to the reverse coding only (City and Country), not to the GPS coordinates.
The Google Earth export provides a number of options, including exporting time-based tracks (something I usually have to do with GPSvisualizer.com - see example). As with most features in HoudahGeo, it appears you can only choose to export all of the images, rather than pick and choose.
The track display in Google Earth is fairly standard for this sort of software
(In case you're wondering, the area where I took the photos doesn't have high-res satellite imagery, which is why Google Earth is just showing a green blur.)
It can do Flickr uploading (with usual initial built-in authorisation step). The Flickr export is a bit underfeatured:
- there's no ability to set your own tags
- it will automatically set tags of HoudahGeo, geotagged, and the geo: lat/long machine tags
- if you have reverse geocoded your photos, there is no option to upload this information either as tags or description
- you can't upload selected images to Flickr, only all of them
- It's a little bit unclear what's happening with EXIF. Presumably it's only uploading the files to Flickr with the GPS info in their EXIF if you have already done this step in the software?
UPDATE 2008-01-02: Info from the author of HoudahGeo, Pierre Bernard
- When uploading to Flick, downsized JPEG copies of your images are
created. These images have GPS EXIF tags written to them. Also the
coordinates are sent as tags to Flickr.- USB support for Wintec is not available yet. It is planned for
HoudahGeo 1.4 to be released in the Macworld Expo timeframe
- HoudahGeo 1.4 should add support for serial devices
- "Pick & choose" for export is planned. It might make it into
HoudahGeo 1.4
- Flickr export will see enhancements in the future. I am still not
sure what direction to take it. Feedback is very welcome.
I will add more info about the EXIF export and about manually geocoding using a map or Google Earth later.
I am looking into adding geotagging to my digital photos and untimately importing them into iPhoto '09 and Aperture 2. I know that I must geotag the photo files BEFORE importing them into my iMac.
Have you had any experience with HoudaGeo and the new Qstarz BT Q1000 X logger? Will it / Does it operate / connect the same as the BT Q1000 that you wrote about above?
Have you tried the Qstarz BT Q1200? I like the longer logging time offered by the BT Q1000X over the Nano. However, the BT Q1200 (solar powered) unit looks interesting.
Thanks.
Posted by: Karl Anderson | February 25, 2009 at 12:33 PM