2.5 - flickr export doesn't work?

[Dr. Martin Senftleben]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

since the update to 2.5 the flickr uploader doesn't seem to work. Is
that already known, and if so (or if not), is there a remedy to this
problem?
I start the upload, and after some time it tells me that there was an
error, but not what kind. The message (translated from German):
"An error occured: unknown error. Cannot continue."

Hope somebody can help.

Regards
Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk8L9ZYACgkQUmmuY48ByEgH+ACgq7/NTDCfd9kf7jWgIbUwF6Wa
gsAAoJn7V+W37PfF8vk2sm3fdm7LFHky
=Hr9E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dr. Martin Senftleben]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

since there was no reaction, I would like to ask once again. is there
nobody else having this problem? Am i the only one?

Thanks for any reply!

Martin

Am 10.01.2012 09:23, schrieb Dr. Martin Senftleben:

> Hi,
>
> since the update to 2.5 the flickr uploader doesn't seem to work.
> Is that already known, and if so (or if not), is there a remedy to
> this problem? I start the upload, and after some time it tells me
> that there was an error, but not what kind. The message (translated
> from German): "An error occured: unknown error. Cannot continue."
>
> Hope somebody can help.
>
> Regards Martin
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk8PTu0ACgkQUmmuY48ByEidswCguuy4HhW5dzgSzoS/Etgz23PY
yh8AoINRqyQGQ6Ass6LhpsPmfhCPJ4cJ
=YT6P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Anders Lund]

On Torsdag den 12. januar 2012, Dr. Martin Senftleben wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> since there was no reaction, I would like to ask once again. is there
> nobody else having this problem? Am i the only one?
>
> Thanks for any reply!
>
> Martin
>
> Am 10.01.2012 09:23, schrieb Dr. Martin Senftleben:
> > Hi,
> >
> > since the update to 2.5 the flickr uploader doesn't seem to work.
> > Is that already known, and if so (or if not), is there a remedy to
> > this problem? I start the upload, and after some time it tells me
> > that there was an error, but not what kind. The message (translated
> > from German): "An error occured: unknown error. Cannot continue."
> >
> > Hope somebody can help.
> >
> > Regards Martin

 I succesfully used flickr export with digikam 2.5 and kipi-plugins 2.5

--
Anders
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Me too. Work fine here. I use current code from git/master (next 2.6)

Gilles Caulier

2012/1/12 Anders Lund <[hidden email]>:

> On Torsdag den 12. januar 2012, Dr. Martin Senftleben wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> since there was no reaction, I would like to ask once again. is there
>> nobody else having this problem? Am i the only one?
>>
>> Thanks for any reply!
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> Am 10.01.2012 09:23, schrieb Dr. Martin Senftleben:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > since the update to 2.5 the flickr uploader doesn't seem to work.
>> > Is that already known, and if so (or if not), is there a remedy to
>> > this problem? I start the upload, and after some time it tells me
>> > that there was an error, but not what kind. The message (translated
>> > from German): "An error occured: unknown error. Cannot continue."
>> >
>> > Hope somebody can help.
>> >
>> > Regards Martin
>  I succesfully used flickr export with digikam 2.5 and kipi-plugins 2.5
>
> --
> Anders
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dr. Martin Senftleben]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

thanks for the feedback. I have version 2.5 from Philip Johnsson's
ppa. kipi as well.
Hmm... I obviously needed this feedback, because it made me to look
closer... ;-)
I found that the files were too large (it would be nice if the plugin
would give that information as feedback, then I would have found the
problem right away; e.g. it could just check the file size when
reading in the file data and tell: sorry, too big for flickr. That
saves also the time of trying to upload the files). Anyway: the ones I
wanted to upload were all over 50 MB, and flickr has a limit of 20 MB
per file for pro users and 15 MB for ordinary users.
This gigantic file size never came to my attention. I had transformed
jpgs to png, which caused a size increase of more than 10 times. Wow!
And when I reduce this png, they become about 15 MB in size, while the
originals are 5-6 MB. Very strange, but I guess not. I probably will
never understand the mechanics behind this, even though I know that it
has to do with colour tables or so.

Well, thanks, also for a very fantastic software!!

Martin

Am 12.01.2012 22:47, schrieb Gilles Caulier:

> Me too. Work fine here. I use current code from git/master (next
> 2.6)
>
> Gilles Caulier
>
> 2012/1/12 Anders Lund <[hidden email]>:
>> On Torsdag den 12. januar 2012, Dr. Martin Senftleben wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> since there was no reaction, I would like to ask once again. is
>>> there nobody else having this problem? Am i the only one?
>>>
>>> Thanks for any reply!
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Am 10.01.2012 09:23, schrieb Dr. Martin Senftleben:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> since the update to 2.5 the flickr uploader doesn't seem to
>>>> work. Is that already known, and if so (or if not), is there
>>>> a remedy to this problem? I start the upload, and after some
>>>> time it tells me that there was an error, but not what kind.
>>>> The message (translated from German): "An error occured:
>>>> unknown error. Cannot continue."
>>>>
>>>> Hope somebody can help.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Martin
>> I succesfully used flickr export with digikam 2.5 and
>> kipi-plugins 2.5
>>
>> -- Anders _______________________________________________
>> Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email]
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
> _______________________________________________ Digikam-users
> mailing list [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>
>

- --
Herzliche Grüße!

Martin Senftleben

P.s.: Ein Anhang lässt sich nicht öffnen? Hier gibt's Infos dazu:
http://www.drmartinus.de/pgpindex.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk8P68gACgkQUmmuY48ByEhqvACeODGwi9qQaQV4QnA3eDMVC4eV
0fAAnjE4CZDVKvTbBAa6kj83mVNV6qGD
=n1IQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Andrew Goodbody]

On 13/01/12 08:31, Dr. Martin Senftleben wrote:
> This gigantic file size never came to my attention. I had transformed
> jpgs to png, which caused a size increase of more than 10 times. Wow!
> And when I reduce this png, they become about 15 MB in size, while the
> originals are 5-6 MB. Very strange, but I guess not. I probably will
> never understand the mechanics behind this, even though I know that it
> has to do with colour tables or so.

I have to ask why you converted jpg files to png?

jpg is a lossy format which means that some image information is simply
not preserved in the file, it has been lost. When a jpg file is used to
recreate an image the lost information cannot be recreated exactly, it
is replaced with something that will hopefully look about right. png is
a lossless format so no information is lost in the file, images can be
recreated exactly. However converting jpg to png simply locks in place
and preserves the recreated image complete with the replacement
information that is only an imitation of the original. It cannot ever
exactly recreate the original image information as that was lost when
the jpg was created.
The lossy compression used by jpg allows it to create a smaller file
size in comparison to png which is lossless ie png simply stores more
data and so is bigger.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Philip Johnsson]

Good that you solved the reason. If you file a bug report on the issue in digikams bugzilla I bet that the develops can add that checking file size feature.

Happy digikaming!

/Philip

On Jan 13, 2012 9:33 AM, "Dr. Martin Senftleben" <[hidden email]> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

thanks for the feedback. I have version 2.5 from Philip Johnsson's
ppa. kipi as well.
Hmm... I obviously needed this feedback, because it made me to look
closer... ;-)
I found that the files were too large (it would be nice if the plugin
would give that information as feedback, then I would have found the
problem right away; e.g. it could just check the file size when
reading in the file data and tell: sorry, too big for flickr. That
saves also the time of trying to upload the files). Anyway: the ones I
wanted to upload were all over 50 MB, and flickr has a limit of 20 MB
per file for pro users and 15 MB for ordinary users.
This gigantic file size never came to my attention. I had transformed
jpgs to png, which caused a size increase of more than 10 times. Wow!
And when I reduce this png, they become about 15 MB in size, while the
originals are 5-6 MB. Very strange, but I guess not. I probably will
never understand the mechanics behind this, even though I know that it
has to do with colour tables or so.

Well, thanks, also for a very fantastic software!!

Martin

Am 12.01.2012 22:47, schrieb Gilles Caulier:
> Me too. Work fine here. I use current code from git/master (next
> 2.6)
>
> Gilles Caulier
>
> 2012/1/12 Anders Lund <[hidden email]>:
>> On Torsdag den 12. januar 2012, Dr. Martin Senftleben wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> since there was no reaction, I would like to ask once again. is
>>> there nobody else having this problem? Am i the only one?
>>>
>>> Thanks for any reply!
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Am 10.01.2012 09:23, schrieb Dr. Martin Senftleben:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> since the update to 2.5 the flickr uploader doesn't seem to
>>>> work. Is that already known, and if so (or if not), is there
>>>> a remedy to this problem? I start the upload, and after some
>>>> time it tells me that there was an error, but not what kind.
>>>> The message (translated from German): "An error occured:
>>>> unknown error. Cannot continue."
>>>>
>>>> Hope somebody can help.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Martin
>> I succesfully used flickr export with digikam 2.5 and
>> kipi-plugins 2.5
>>
>> -- Anders _______________________________________________
>> Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email]
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
> _______________________________________________ Digikam-users
> mailing list [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>
>

- --
Herzliche Grüße!

Martin Senftleben

P.s.: Ein Anhang lässt sich nicht öffnen? Hier gibt's Infos dazu:
http://www.drmartinus.de/pgpindex.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk8P68gACgkQUmmuY48ByEhqvACeODGwi9qQaQV4QnA3eDMVC4eV
0fAAnjE4CZDVKvTbBAa6kj83mVNV6qGD
=n1IQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Dr. Martin Senftleben]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Am 13.01.2012 10:25, schrieb Andrew Goodbody:

> On 13/01/12 08:31, Dr. Martin Senftleben wrote:
>> This gigantic file size never came to my attention. I had
>> transformed jpgs to png, which caused a size increase of more
>> than 10 times. Wow! And when I reduce this png, they become about
>> 15 MB in size, while the originals are 5-6 MB. Very strange, but
>> I guess not. I probably will never understand the mechanics
>> behind this, even though I know that it has to do with colour
>> tables or so.
>
> I have to ask why you converted jpg files to png?

I'm not sure if that's a rhetorical question. Anyway, I was doing some
changes on the images, and didn't want to lose more info due to the
jpg-compression.
I think of it this way (maybe I'm wrong): every time I change a jpg
image, some info of the origional gets lost and the image cannot ever
be put in the original state by just reverting the changes, because it
drops the original info and adds in some new based on the changes.
But (that's what I think) when I change a png image, I can get the
original state back by reverting the changes.
I knew that png makes the files bigger, but I still do not understand
how the jpg can become 10 times bigger by converting it to png. Even
the raw images of the same picture are less than half the size of the
png file.
I'll probably never fully understand the mysteries behind this,
because I can't even see the difference. I'll probably stick to jpg
even though some information is not stored in the file. Why don't
camera manufacturers use a non-lossy format that produces smaller
images than the raw images? Or isn't that possible at all?

Regards

Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk8QOBIACgkQUmmuY48ByEgvVACgmhLX9R6+VjowzXhR40zzRIFc
LGoAn3var6xNtGLOt/P32f/R8fkMmlBV
=8a2u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[tosca]

Well ... I guess that to produce something smaller, you'll have to loose something.
As for myself, I keep derawtized pictures as TIFF files, and use these TIFF to create JPG only when I need to publish or export them. I consider JPEG good enough only for exchanging with others, not to keep for myself.

Marie-Noëlle

2012/1/13 Dr. Martin Senftleben <[hidden email]>

Why don't
camera manufacturers use a non-lossy format that produces smaller
images than the raw images? Or isn't that possible at all?

Regards

Martin

--
Mes dernières photos sont dans ma galerie.
Retrouvez-moi aussi sur mon blog.
Et parcourez les Cévennes à ma façon avec Cévennes Plurielles,


_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Remco Viëtor]

On Friday 13 January 2012 14:56:42 Dr. Martin Senftleben wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 13.01.2012 10:25, schrieb Andrew Goodbody:
...

> >
> > I have to ask why you converted jpg files to png?
>
> I'm not sure if that's a rhetorical question. Anyway, I was doing some
> changes on the images, and didn't want to lose more info due to the
> jpg-compression.
> I think of it this way (maybe I'm wrong): every time I change a jpg
> image, some info of the origional gets lost and the image cannot ever
> be put in the original state by just reverting the changes, because it
> drops the original info and adds in some new based on the changes.
> But (that's what I think) when I change a png image, I can get the
> original state back by reverting the changes.

Not quite sure about that, as you will still have rounding errors (as PNG uses
8 or 16 bits per colour channel).

> I knew that png makes the files bigger, but I still do not understand
> how the jpg can become 10 times bigger by converting it to png.

One reason is that png images can have an alpha (transparency) channel. The
other is that jpeg (depending on settings when saving) can throw away a lot of
information.

> Even
> the raw images of the same picture are less than half the size of the
> png file.

A raw file has 12 (or 14) bits/pixel.  An 8-bit/channel png image has 24/32  
bits/pixel (the higher value of each pair if there's an alpha channel).

Also, a raw file has no or less colour space information embedded. And, (part
of) the metadata might be decoded and stored in a more readable format (maker
data notably), not to mention the metadata you added (and that is stored as
text/XML, like tags, captions, titles, use rights, ...) But those things
shouldn't add all that much, compared to the increase in bits/pixel (which
doubles the information to be stored)

> I'll probably never fully understand the mysteries behind this,
> because I can't even see the difference. I'll probably stick to jpg
> even though some information is not stored in the file. Why don't
> camera manufacturers use a non-lossy format that produces smaller
> images than the raw images? Or isn't that possible at all?

They could use a lossless compression algorithm (and I think some do), but
then again, that takes time and processing power, both of which are in short
supply inside a camera.

Remco
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Andrew Goodbody]

On 13/01/12 13:56, Dr. Martin Senftleben wrote:
> Am 13.01.2012 10:25, schrieb Andrew Goodbody:
>> I have to ask why you converted jpg files to png?
>
> I'm not sure if that's a rhetorical question. Anyway, I was doing some
> changes on the images, and didn't want to lose more info due to the
> jpg-compression.

No, not a rhetorical question. If you have a choice and you want to edit
photos then it is best to start with raw files. Otherwise a lossless
format such as tiff or png is better than jpg to start from.

> I think of it this way (maybe I'm wrong): every time I change a jpg
> image, some info of the origional gets lost and the image cannot ever
> be put in the original state by just reverting the changes, because it
> drops the original info and adds in some new based on the changes.
> But (that's what I think) when I change a png image, I can get the
> original state back by reverting the changes.

Yes, you will lose more information every time you re-save a jpg file.
However there is no way that I know of to revert edit changes made to a
png image without keeping a copy of the original file. In both png and
jpg any edits permanently affect the image data that is saved, it is
just with png the saving process does not cause a loss of data but with
jpg it does.

> I knew that png makes the files bigger, but I still do not understand
> how the jpg can become 10 times bigger by converting it to png. Even
> the raw images of the same picture are less than half the size of the
> png file.
> I'll probably never fully understand the mysteries behind this,
> because I can't even see the difference. I'll probably stick to jpg
> even though some information is not stored in the file. Why don't
> camera manufacturers use a non-lossy format that produces smaller
> images than the raw images? Or isn't that possible at all?

Sticking with jpg is probably just fine for you if you are not noticing
any difference in quality. You may like to read this link
http://dptnt.com/2012/01/does-saving-a-jpeg-multiple-times-reduce-image-quality/
Raw files, like most formats, are compressed. Converting to another
format, from raw, will require de-mosaicing which will actually increase
the amount of data that needs to be stored. So getting a lossless format
to be smaller than raw would be quite a challenge.
jpg is the fallback because it can be used as it is, everywhere.

>
> Regards
>
> Martin

Andrew
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users