Why not contribute a patch

Agreed... this is a feature I'd love to see in Imagefield, but it should be added to Imagefield, not a separate module. Thanks for contributing this feature... can we figure out how to make it into a patch for Imagefield instead?

Or at least maybe just a better name. "ImageField+" sounds like an ImageField fork with better features. I was about to go off the deep end when I saw this. Perhaps ImageField Tokens would be a better name.

I have to agree that I wouldn't necessary want node-level tokens in ImageField directly, they're difficult to work with on the node level since they're not yet available when creating a new node.

Good point... so maybe as a separate module is fine, so those who want it can use it, and those who don't can skip it. Should have a different name definitely though. I was initially confused too, thinking it was a full fork of Imagefield, just to add some extra features.

I am wondering about this, "I have to agree that I wouldn't necessary want node-level tokens in ImageField directly, they're difficult to work with on the node level since they're not yet available when creating a new node."

Since tokens are generally replaced on output (that is the saved string contains the token which is replaced when the node is viewed) I do not see this as an issue.

Yes, this is a separate module, not a fork, out of necessity.

I choose the name because I liked the sound of it, I wanted something that tied it to ImageField but showed that it added new functionality. Clearly the naming I choose was too confusing, and if there ever was a time to change it, it would be now. If you have any suggestions, let me know.

"ImageField extras" - Doesn't really roll off the tongue.
"ImageField Node Tokens" - ditto...

Renamed to ImageField Tokens to reduce confusion.