digiKam › digikam-users

File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

Classic

List

Threaded

19 messages Options

tosca

File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

I just noticed after having produced a JPEG file using the batch tool converter, that the resulting file weight was different in Digikam (290,5Kb) than in Nautilus (297,5Kb).

This discrepancy is important when one needs to use pictures of the best quality but with a maximum weight (to participate in a contest, for example).

Where does it come from? and could it be fixed?

Marie-Noëlle

Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle, mes reportages sur Jingoo

Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes sur FB, et mon compte Twitter.

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

Daniel Bauer-2

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

if you use the same compression then it might be because the program
adds some metadata (processed with... or the like). Or it's simply
because you used different compression...?

Am 20.01.2014 22:03, schrieb Marie-Noëlle Augendre:

> I just noticed after having produced a JPEG file using the batch tool
> converter, that the resulting file weight was different in Digikam
> (290,5Kb) than in Nautilus (297,5Kb).
> This discrepancy is important when one needs to use pictures of the best
> quality but with a maximum weight (to participate in a contest, for
> example).
> Where does it come from? and could it be fixed?
>
> Marie-Noëlle
>
> --
> <http://marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos/>
> Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle
> <http://marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos/>, mes reportages sur Jingoo
> <http://www.jingoo.com/mnaugendre/>
> Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes
> <http://www.facebook.com/PhotographeEnCevennes> sur FB, et mon compte
> Twitter <http://twitter.com/MNAugendre>.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>

--
Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Barcelona
professional photography: http://www.daniel-bauer.com
google+: https://plus.google.com/109534388657020287386
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

Gilles Caulier-4

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

Hi Marie Noelle,

This is certainly compression setup.

digiKam has a common settings panel for saving image :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/digikam/12057207215/

For JPEG, you have quality. Set it to 100 to have the best result.

2nd setting is Choma sub-sampling. Set to None, as explained in tool
tip from my screenshot.

Best

Gilles Caulier

2014/1/20 Daniel Bauer <[hidden email]>:

> if you use the same compression then it might be because the program adds
> some metadata (processed with... or the like). Or it's simply because you
> used different compression...?
>
>
> Am 20.01.2014 22:03, schrieb Marie-Noëlle Augendre:
>>
>> I just noticed after having produced a JPEG file using the batch tool
>> converter, that the resulting file weight was different in Digikam
>> (290,5Kb) than in Nautilus (297,5Kb).
>> This discrepancy is important when one needs to use pictures of the best
>> quality but with a maximum weight (to participate in a contest, for
>> example).
>> Where does it come from? and could it be fixed?
>>
>> Marie-Noëlle
>>
>> --
>> <http://marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos/>
>>
>> Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle
>> <http://marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos/>, mes reportages sur Jingoo
>> <http://www.jingoo.com/mnaugendre/>
>>
>> Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes
>> <http://www.facebook.com/PhotographeEnCevennes> sur FB, et mon compte
>> Twitter <http://twitter.com/MNAugendre>.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Digikam-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Barcelona
> professional photography: http://www.daniel-bauer.com
> google+: https://plus.google.com/109534388657020287386
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Martin Gerner

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

In reply to this post by tosca

I assume that you mean that the same file seems to have two different
file sizes? This is likely due to different definitions of what a
"kilobyte" is.

The symbol "k" technically represents 1000, but in computer science
often means 1024 (2^10). 1024 should technically be called "Ki".

My guess would be that your file has a size of around 297490 bytes. This
would be 297.5 kilobyte using a 1000-byte kilobyte, or 290.5 kilobyte
using a 1024-byte kilobyte

You should find out how large the kilobytes in your contest is - 1000 or
1024 bytes. :)

Coincidentally, my version of Digikam (3.5) seems to use the correct
units - looking at the properties of one photo, I can see that its size
is 2.8 MiB (2.8 * 1024 * 1024 bytes). What version are you using?

-- Martin

On 20/01/14 21:03, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:

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

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

tosca

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

Hi Martin,

Obviously, my explanation wasn't clear enough as you appear to be the only one to have understood what I meant. ;-)

2014/1/20 Martin Gerner <[hidden email]>

I assume that you mean that the same file seems to have two different
file sizes? This is likely due to different definitions of what a
"kilobyte" is.

The symbol "k" technically represents 1000, but in computer science
often means 1024 (2^10). 1024 should technically be called "Ki".

Have known this for more than 30 years, you know. :D

My guess would be that your file has a size of around 297490 bytes. This
would be 297.5 kilobyte using a 1000-byte kilobyte, or 290.5 kilobyte
using a 1024-byte kilobyte

You should find out how large the kilobytes in your contest is - 1000 or
1024 bytes. :)

May I should have tried to load the biggest one, and risk to be eliminated...

Coincidentally, my version of Digikam (3.5) seems to use the correct
units - looking at the properties of one photo, I can see that its size
is 2.8 MiB (2.8 * 1024 * 1024 bytes). What version are you using?

-- Martin

I'm using 3.5 too.

Marie-Noëlle

Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle, mes reportages sur Jingoo

Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes sur FB, et mon compte Twitter.

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

tosca

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

In reply to this post by Gilles Caulier-4

Hi Gilles,

In fact, the choice is not mine: I was requested to upload a picture with the largest dimension equal to 1024px, and picture weight less than 300Ko. So I had to run the JPEG conversion several times, decreasing the quality every time, in order to satisfy the maximum weight.
And once I had succeeded in going below 300Ko, I discovered when uploading that it was still too much...

2014/1/20 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>

Hi Marie Noelle,

This is certainly compression setup.

digiKam has a common settings panel for saving image :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/digikam/12057207215/

For JPEG, you have quality. Set it to 100 to have the best result.

2nd setting is Choma sub-sampling. Set to None, as explained in tool
tip from my screenshot.

I had no idea there were other parameters than the usual quality slider. Thanks for the information, but I don't know what I'm going to do with it! :D

Marie-Noëlle

Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle, mes reportages sur Jingoo

Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes sur FB, et mon compte Twitter.

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

tosca

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

In reply to this post by Daniel Bauer-2

It's the very same JPEG file, but Digikam and Nautilus displayed different information... unless it is the same information displaye differently.

Marie-Noëlle

2014/1/20 Daniel Bauer <[hidden email]>

if you use the same compression then it might be because the program adds some metadata (processed with... or the like). Or it's simply because you used different compression...?

Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle, mes reportages sur Jingoo

Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes sur FB, et mon compte Twitter.

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

tosca

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

In reply to this post by Gilles Caulier-4

2014/1/20 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>

digiKam has a common settings panel for saving image :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/digikam/12057207215/

Is it also used by the batch tool manager? Because I don't use the editing function in Digikam.

For JPEG, you have quality. Set it to 100 to have the best result.

Not an option in that case.

In fact, I almost only use JPEG conversion to publish pictures on the net; so; I need to apply some compression.

2nd setting is Choma sub-sampling. Set to None, as explained in tool
tip from my screenshot.

Why is it you have some tool tip here, and there is none in my Digikam version (3.5)?

Marie-Noëlle

Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle, mes reportages sur Jingoo

Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes sur FB, et mon compte Twitter.

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

Gilles Caulier-4

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

2014/1/20 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>

2014/1/20 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>

digiKam has a common settings panel for saving image :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/digikam/12057207215/

Is it also used by the batch tool manager? Because I don't use the editing function in Digikam.

yes BQM use these settings.

For JPEG, you have quality. Set it to 100 to have the best result.

Not an option in that case.
In fact, I almost only use JPEG conversion to publish pictures on the net; so; I need to apply some compression.

2nd setting is Choma sub-sampling. Set to None, as explained in tool
tip from my screenshot.

Why is it you have some tool tip here, and there is none in my Digikam version (3.5)?

SHIFT+F1 over widget = tooltip. It's true everywhere in digiKam (in all KDE Applications in fact)

Gilles Caulier

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

Jürgen Blumenschein

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

In reply to this post by tosca

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

Hallo Marie-Noëlle,

most probably ist's the difference between
kilo as 2^10=1024 (mostly abriviated with a capital "K" or "Ki")
or
kilo as 10^3=1000 (abriviated with a small "k"):
290,5 KiBytes * 1024 = 297472 Bytes
297472 in kilo as 1000 is 297,472 kBytes,
rounded by one digit: 297,5 kB

MfG
Jürgen Blumenschein

Am 20.01.2014 22:03, schrieb Marie-Noëlle Augendre:

> I just noticed after having produced a JPEG file using the batch
> tool converter, that the resulting file weight was different in
> Digikam (290,5Kb) than in Nautilus (297,5Kb). This discrepancy is
> important when one needs to use pictures of the best quality but
> with a maximum weight (to participate in a contest, for
> example). Where does it come from? and could it be fixed?
>
> Marie-Noëlle
>
> -- <http://marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos/> Retrouvez mon
> portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle
> <http://marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos/>, mes reportages sur
> Jingoo <http://www.jingoo.com/mnaugendre/> Et bien sûr la page
> Photographe en Cévennes
> <http://www.facebook.com/PhotographeEnCevennes> sur FB, et mon
> compte Twitter <http://twitter.com/MNAugendre>.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Digikam-users
> mailing list [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>

- --
Jürgen Blumenschein, eMail: [hidden email]
Homepage: http://huntington-info.eu/
Am Quartus 17
D-44149 Dortmund
Tel.: +49 231 7217321, Fax: +49 231 47690509
public key:
http://members.dokom.net/blumenschein/Juergen_Blumenschein_(0xC9358EBB)_public_key.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLeMz4ACgkQ7vXR4Mk1jrtmiACg1x83O4J8TslQ8RrAzGBmuIzq
078AoKVpl+TD043qmIk1IUHNMD+bTSyk
=vN9C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

tosca

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

I understand why it 'could' be different.

But the question remain: why two different file managing tools (in that case Digikam and Nautilus) don't apply the same rule on the same system? I don't find this very user-friendly. :-)

Marie-Noëlle

2014/1/21 Jürgen Blumenschein <[hidden email]>

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

Hallo Marie-Noëlle,

most probably ist's the difference between
kilo as 2^10=1024 (mostly abriviated with a capital "K" or "Ki")
or
kilo as 10^3=1000 (abriviated with a small "k"):
290,5 KiBytes * 1024 = 297472 Bytes
297472 in kilo as 1000 is 297,472 kBytes,
rounded by one digit: 297,5 kB

MfG
Jürgen Blumenschein

Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle, mes reportages sur Jingoo

Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes sur FB, et mon compte Twitter.

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

Gilles Caulier-4

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

2014/1/21 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>

I understand why it 'could' be different.
But the question remain: why two different file managing tools (in that case Digikam and Nautilus) don't apply the same rule on the same system? I don't find this very user-friendly. :-)

Nautilus is Gnome application, digiKam is KDE. 2 worlds, 2 teams... That the reality. Linux is not Apple or M$. There is no really a governance on the top to try to polish all GUI everywhere.

At least, in digiKam, i personalty coded image save settings widget, and i take a care to Photoshop and Gimp settings, and it's enough.

Note : i don't use Nautilus (and i will never use it), and to be honest, i don't care about this stuff, because i never use Gnome in this life. Perhaps i the next one, but not sure...

Gilles Caulier

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

Anders Lund

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

In reply to this post by tosca

Maybe a hint? ;)

290,5*1,024=297.475

Anders

On Mandag den 20. januar 2014 22:03:42, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:

> I just noticed after having produced a JPEG file using the batch tool

> converter, that the resulting file weight was different in Digikam

> (290,5Kb) than in Nautilus (297,5Kb).

> This discrepancy is important when one needs to use pictures of the best

> quality but with a maximum weight (to participate in a contest, for

> example).

> Where does it come from? and could it be fixed?

> Marie-Noëlle

Anders

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

tosca

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

In reply to this post by Gilles Caulier-4

2014/1/21 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>

Note : i don't use Nautilus (and i will never use it), and to be honest, i don't care about this stuff, because i never use Gnome in this life. Perhaps i the next one, but not sure...

Gilles Caulier

I don't use Gnome either, but Cinnamon is a Gnome's fork, and Nautilus comes with it; and I've always liked/used since my Linux debuts.

And though I use several KDE-base programs, I'll never use KDE in this life. :D

Marie-Noëlle

Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle, mes reportages sur Jingoo

Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes sur FB, et mon compte Twitter.

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

Jean-François Rabasse-2

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

In reply to this post by tosca

Hello,

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:

> I understand why it 'could' be different.
> But the question remain: why two different file managing tools (in that
> case Digikam and Nautilus) don't apply the same rule on the same system? I
> don't find this very user-friendly. :-)

Well, different tools don't apply the same rule because there's no
official common rule:-)
As Jürgen Blumenschein explained, these are two cultures.
In the common human culture, multiplier prefixes kilo, mega, etc., are 1000,
1000000, etc. because we, humans, use a base 10 numeral system.
In the computers world culture, base 2 numeral system, people often
translate quantities to the nearest power of 2 value.
Thus 1000 becomes 1024.
Noone is right or wrong, it's only two different conventions and
applications developers choose. Some will prefer to stay in computers
culture, some other will prefer to stick to the common culture.

However, in case you need accurate control on your files sizes, none
of these display conventions can be reliable and you should forget GUI
based tools that only give coarse approximations of files sizes.
(And also rounded values.)

Use accurate command line tools, e.g. the ls command :
ls -l DSCH3953.JPG
..... 5668148 Dec 21 08:19 DSCH3953.JPG
this file size is 5,668,148 bytes, no more, no less.

And, of course, avoid « human readable » flags :
ls -lh DSCH3953.JPG
..... 5.5M Dec 21 08:19 DSCH3953.JPG
or you'll get back into the same confusion.

The use case you evoqued, uploading files to a web service that fixes
an upper size limit, is common. Contests registrations, yes, and also
online photo print services that limit uploads.

The problem is that you won't always know if the required limit is
based on 1000 or 1024 for a kilo.
If your site says « Max is 300 K », it could be 300000 bytes
or 307200 bytes, depending on the convention used.

But this doesn't matter.
Build you file using the smallest value, here 300000. That way, you'll
be sure your upload won't be rejected, and for your image it will change
nothing.
(Typically for a 1024 pixels JPEG, you'll have to tweak quality around
87%, 90%, values.
If with, e.g. 88% quality, you get a file size of 301000 bytes, go done
to 87% quality, you'll get something around 290000 bytes and the two
images will be visually identical. With a difference of 1%, you won't
be able, with an images viewer, to guess which one is which one.)

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

tosca

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

2014/1/21 Jean-François Rabasse <[hidden email]>

Hello,

Thanks for your input.

But this doesn't matter.
Build you file using the smallest value, here 300000. That way, you'll
be sure your upload won't be rejected, and for your image it will change
nothing.
(Typically for a 1024 pixels JPEG, you'll have to tweak quality around
87%, 90%, values.
If with, e.g. 88% quality, you get a file size of 301000 bytes, go done
to 87% quality, you'll get something around 290000 bytes and the two
images will be visually identical. With a difference of 1%, you won't
be able, with an images viewer, to guess which one is which one.)

Except that for this particuliar picture I had to go down to 72% quality, and at that level, 1% could make a real difference, and moreover as it was a night picture that could real bad when it's compressed too much.

Marie-Noëlle

Retrouvez mon portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle, mes reportages sur Jingoo

Et bien sûr la page Photographe en Cévennes sur FB, et mon compte Twitter.

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

Jean-François Rabasse-2

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:

> Except that for this particuliar picture I had to go down to 72% quality,
> and at that level, 1% could make a real difference, and moreover as it was a
> night picture that could real bad when it's compressed too much.

Hmmm, not sure for a « real difference ».
You should do tests and see what happens.

(I've just done some, as I was curious to see the result. Took one of my
images, not exactly night but sunset with difficult light conditions,
1/25 sec, F/5.3, ISO 3200.
I've resized to 1024, as you mentionned earlier, and ran 3 compressions
with convert, quality 71%, 72%, 73%.
I got three identical images, more or less. I'm unable to say which one
is which one. But it could also depend on the image content.)

Anyway, if you really have the problem to fit under an imposed size limit,
there's no other way that tests and tries, and count the bytes. :)

Jean-François

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

jdd@dodin.org

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

Le 21/01/2014 19:39, Jean-François Rabasse a écrit :

> I've resized to 1024, as you mentionned earlier, and ran 3 compressions
> with convert, quality 71%, 72%, 73%.
> I got three identical images, more or less. I'm unable to say which one

don't be shy, continue, -1, then -1, that change nothing,

and finally you can get a zero length file...

jdd

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

Jürgen Blumenschein

Re: File weight different in Digikam than in other file management tools

In reply to this post by tosca

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

Hallo Marie-Noëlle,

so, if there is a *real limit* and You said: "In fact, the choice is
not mine: I was requested to upload a picture with the largest
dimension equal to 1024px, and picture weight less than 300K",
You don't have any other choice but *ask the requestor*, which kind
of kilo he meant!

MfG
Jürgen Blumenschein

Am 21.01.2014 18:54, schrieb Marie-Noëlle Augendre:

>
>
>
> 2014/1/21 Jean-François Rabasse <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
>
> But this doesn't matter. Build you file using the smallest value,
> here 300000. That way, you'll be sure your upload won't be
> rejected, and for your image it will change nothing. (Typically
> for a 1024 pixels JPEG, you'll have to tweak quality around 87%,
> 90%, values. If with, e.g. 88% quality, you get a file size of
> 301000 bytes, go done to 87% quality, you'll get something around
> 290000 bytes and the two images will be visually identical. With
> a difference of 1%, you won't be able, with an images viewer, to
> guess which one is which one.)
>
>
> Except that for this particuliar picture I had to go down to 72%
> quality, and at that level, 1% could make a real difference, and
> moreover as it was a night picture that could real bad when it's
> compressed too much.
>
> Marie-Noëlle
>
> -- <http://marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos/> Retrouvez mon
> portfolio et mes activités dans ma galerie personnelle
> <http://marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos/>, mes reportages sur
> Jingoo <http://www.jingoo.com/mnaugendre/> Et bien sûr la page
> Photographe en Cévennes
> <http://www.facebook.com/PhotographeEnCevennes> sur FB, et mon
> compte Twitter <http://twitter.com/MNAugendre>.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Digikam-users
> mailing list [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>

- --
Jürgen Blumenschein, eMail: [hidden email]
Homepage: http://huntington-info.eu/
Am Quartus 17
D-44149 Dortmund
Tel.: +49 231 7217321, Fax: +49 231 47690509
public key:
http://members.dokom.net/blumenschein/Juergen_Blumenschein_(0xC9358EBB)_public_key.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLfdc0ACgkQ7vXR4Mk1jrsZDQCg4VPv3FwEol9X/XWIsWjhIxq1
ZEAAn3y6h+3FTXPl32LRMXnWrynT05F8
=wbQ0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users