| Summary: | editing images in other programs (e.g.: gimp) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Applications] digikam | Reporter: | Dennis Gnad <bluedrago> |
| Component: | Portability-Interroperability | Assignee: | Digikam Developers <digikam-bugs-null> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | wishlist | CC: | caulier.gilles, kgmail, languitar |
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version: | 0.9.0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | unspecified | ||
| OS: | Other | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | 6.3.0 | |
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
|
Description
Dennis Gnad
2006-06-20 23:49:06 UTC
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 23:49, Dennis Gnad wrote:
>
> -> when editing in another program not supporting the database
> stuff of digikam, it gets first copied to a temporary file ->
> that temporary file is then opened in the other program (like
> gimp, or anything else)
> -> digikam shows a question dialog "is the editing finished?"
> which offers "yes, copy it back" and "cancel"(which deletes the
> temporary file)
> -> if "yes" is chosen, digikam will copy the image back with
> another name like DSC_xxxx_2.jpg (then maybe a new "version" of
> the image) and add the tags,date,exif,iptc informations which it
> should definately have, as it is valueable for the database
I think, versioning (in terms of "image X is derived from image Y")
would be very fine. But your workflow seems to be too difficult.
It should be sufficient to be able to copy meta data from one image
to an other, either in terms of only adding missing fields, or
overwriting existing as well.
Heiner
Just a remark : a program like Gimp witch support like an hell metadata is a same for a photograph (:=))) Gilles > I think, versioning (in terms of "image X is derived from image Y")
> would be very fine. But your workflow seems to be too difficult.
> It should be sufficient to be able to copy meta data from one image
> to an other, either in terms of only adding missing fields, or
> overwriting existing as well.
Yeah to be able to copy metadata and stuff would be really helpful too. (and removing metadata, because on some cameras, if you use a manual lens, it saves wrong exif information (f1, 0mm etc.)
But I was talking about how other programs could be used on the images in digikam in a little bit easier way, so you don't have to separately copy the metadata by hand afterwards, and you can't forget to do it.
I anyway wasn't talking about how the versioning system could work, I don't exactly have a clue, but your idea seems really interesting, so you could have like a tree view that shows images, and new images which are made from the original? That sounds nice! Good idea!
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 22:18, Dennis Gnad wrote: > > But I was talking about how other programs could be used on the > images in digikam in a little bit easier way, so you don't have > to separately copy the metadata by hand afterwards, and you can't > forget to do it. Well, I fear, it would be difficult to monitor, wether the external program is still running. And what happens, when you close digikam in the meanwhile? > I anyway wasn't talking about how the versioning system could > work, I don't exactly have a clue, but your idea seems really > interesting, so you could have like a tree view that shows > images, and new images which are made from the original? That > sounds nice! Good idea! Yes, something like this. I don't know, how easy it would be, but I can imagine, that such a genealogy of images would be really cool. I often have different versions of an image. The original file, a somehow enhanced image, an other one cropped and resized for the web, one printed, ... Heiner > Well, I fear, it would be difficult to monitor, wether the external > program is still running. And what happens, when you close digikam > in the meanwhile? It doesn't has to be monitored if the external program is running or not. Digikam will offer you a dialog. And, if digikam is closed, the image stays at it's place (somewhere in the homedir) and digikam will ask to import it again, at the next time it starts up, it then would have to save which picture was the original one it came from > I often have different versions of an image. The original file, a > somehow enhanced image, an other one cropped and resized for the > web, one printed, ... Yeah, me too! And sometimes even a subdirectory which has batch-process-scaled images.. -- Maybe all that stuff with external programs doesnt has to be done, when the picture can be added as a "sub-picture" of another, and then will maybe also get the same date,exif,etc. from the picture it belongs to? Looks related to 115597 *** Bug 245765 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 115597 *** Fixed with bug #115507 |