https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142056--- Comment #39 from DGardner <dkde gardnersworld org> 2009-06-09 19:48:19 ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> > If I change a file, I don't edit, save new version, edit new version,
> > save newer version, edit newer version, etc. until I have a the single
> > image that I'm after.
>
> But some families do. Our does, although each edit usually starts off original
> from the original image.
Sorry. I am not arguing against the existing use case--it is as valid
as any other. I am arguing that there are other use cases that will not
be met by the proposed solution for that use case, so the feature will
not be particularly useful to *me*.
Whether or not my use cases are typical, I cannot say, but I doubt they
are particularly unusual. Their acceptance also depends on what the
target audience for digiKam is, both now and in the future. Does it
intend to compete for attention from those who might use Picasa or
Lightroom or both, or something else entirely?
While solutions can be kept simple in the short term, it might not be
possible to enhance those solutions in the future if the developers
have backed themselves into a corner by not considering where the
feature might ultimately be going. I've done it often enough myself in
the past to be very wary of it nowadays and I think that this feature
has the potential to cause trouble later if not thought through very
carefully now. Where will it be in five years' time?
> > That really does not work well for JPEG images, where each save is going
> > to degrade the quality.
>
> That is why Gilles declared that png is better, and png seems to be the most
> likely candidate, not jpg.
Can the Exif/IPTC/XMP metadata be maintained in the PNG?
> > More typically, I am not aiming for a single "current" version of
> > a file.
>
> It's hard to say how typical your use case is. Shall I pester the F-Spot list
> for users who actually use this feature? I think that they'd gladly help.
I, for one, would welcome any extra information on use cases.
> >[...] it is not very useful
> > unless it can track a "tree" of image versions and allow several nodes in
> > the tree to be visible "current" images.
>
> Although our usage method is in fact a tree (several different mods all
> starting from the original image), there are few enough nodes that storing them
> in a linear fashion is acceptable.
I don't really understand what you mean by "storing in a linear fashion"
in this context or trees of edits. (Oh, and I mean "not very useful to me".)
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel
Locked
