Importing Tags from Images

[Marco Tedaldi]

Hello

I'm using digikam since a longer time. My setup is a bit special,
because I'm mounting my home directory over NFS.
I know, that one should not have the sqlite database on an nfs share. It
has worked for me most of the time. And when the database died, I could
always just build a new one since all my tags and data was stored in the
images anyway.

This time I wanted to make it better. After the update to version 4 had
failed I had left it for a while. Now I just set up an account on my
mysql server for digikam and let it use it. Import has run and Imported
my almost 50000 images.
The only problem is, that not a single tag has been imported. When I
open the images in another editor, I can see, that the tags are there,
but digikam does not show them (not on the image itself nor in the
overview).

I'm a bit lost now. Who knows a way to feed the tags, that are stored in
the images, back into the digikam database?

best regards

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

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
> Hello
>
> I'm using digikam since a longer time. My setup is a bit special,
> because I'm mounting my home directory over NFS.
> I know, that one should not have the sqlite database on an nfs
> share. It has worked for me most of the time. And when the
> database died, I could always just build a new one since all my
> tags and data was stored in the images anyway.
>

I know it is not recommended, but there is nothing wrong with it. I
used it over a couple of years without any problem. If your
network/server is reliable you will not loose any data. besides of
that, a backup on the server will let you loose only one day work (and
backing up a single server is easier than backing up several clients).

I only switched to a local copy because my server was to slow (an old
P-III with 400 MHz on a 100MBit network). Now I sync the photo folder
from server to local HD on login and backwards on logout.

> This time I wanted to make it better. After the update to version 4
> had failed I had left it for a while. Now I just set up an account
> on my mysql server for digikam and let it use it. Import has run
> and Imported my almost 50000 images.
> The only problem is, that not a single tag has been imported. When
> I open the images in another editor, I can see, that the tags are
> there, but digikam does not show them (not on the image itself nor
> in the overview).
>
> I'm a bit lost now. Who knows a way to feed the tags, that are
> stored in the images, back into the digikam database?

There is an option to reread metadata from pictures (but only for
selected photos or one album).

Martin

>
> best regards
>
> Marco Tedaldi
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Marco Tedaldi]

Hi Martin

Am 06.03.2011 16:20, schrieb Martin (KDE):

> Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
>> Hello
>>
>> I'm using digikam since a longer time. My setup is a bit special,
>> because I'm mounting my home directory over NFS.
>> I know, that one should not have the sqlite database on an nfs
>> share. It has worked for me most of the time. And when the
>> database died, I could always just build a new one since all my
>> tags and data was stored in the images anyway
> I know it is not recommended, but there is nothing wrong with it. I
> used it over a couple of years without any problem. If your
> network/server is reliable you will not loose any data. besides of
> that, a backup on the server will let you loose only one day work (and
> backing up a single server is easier than backing up several clients).
>
> I only switched to a local copy because my server was to slow (an old
> P-III with 400 MHz on a 100MBit network). Now I sync the photo folder
> from server to local HD on login and backwards on logout.
>

Nice Idea. But my client only has 160GB of disk space. That's not enough
for all my images. Speed of the network is not that big of an issue
since I could yous rsync and only sync the changed images.

>> This time I wanted to make it better. After the update to version 4
>> had failed I had left it for a while. Now I just set up an account
>> on my mysql server for digikam and let it use it. Import has run
>> and Imported my almost 50000 images.
>> The only problem is, that not a single tag has been imported. When
>> I open the images in another editor, I can see, that the tags are
>> there, but digikam does not show them (not on the image itself nor
>> in the overview).
>>
>> I'm a bit lost now. Who knows a way to feed the tags, that are
>> stored in the images, back into the digikam database?
>
> There is an option to reread metadata from pictures (but only for
> selected photos or one album).
>

Tried it. It did nothing :-(

I took a bit a deeper look into it. The Keywords are stored in iptc. If
I take a look at the metadata of the image in digikam, I see that the
keywords are there.

Re-Importing the metadata does not help.

It seems that it is a problem related to the mysql backend. I've opened
a bug and found, that there are similar problems with the migration tool
when migrating from sqlite to mysql.
Also, there seems to be a problem if you're not giving the database user
full privileges on your whole database server but only on the used
database :-(

Sadly, it seems that the mysql backend in 1.4 is just broken :-(

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

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:

> Hi Martin
>
> Am 06.03.2011 16:20, schrieb Martin (KDE):
> > Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> I'm using digikam since a longer time. My setup is a bit
> >> special, because I'm mounting my home directory over NFS.
> >> I know, that one should not have the sqlite database on an nfs
> >> share. It has worked for me most of the time. And when the
> >> database died, I could always just build a new one since all my
> >> tags and data was stored in the images anyway
> >
> > I know it is not recommended, but there is nothing wrong with it.
> > I used it over a couple of years without any problem. If your
> > network/server is reliable you will not loose any data. besides
> > of that, a backup on the server will let you loose only one day
> > work (and backing up a single server is easier than backing up
> > several clients).
> >
> > I only switched to a local copy because my server was to slow (an
> > old P-III with 400 MHz on a 100MBit network). Now I sync the
> > photo folder from server to local HD on login and backwards on
> > logout.
>
> Nice Idea. But my client only has 160GB of disk space. That's not
> enough for all my images. Speed of the network is not that big of
> an issue since I could yous rsync and only sync the changed
> images.

My clients have 160GB hard disks as well, I sync the DB only (and some
pictures located in the users picture folder). Generally I have two
photo folders: one global and one user owned. The user one is synced
the global one is provided via NFS. digikam DB is located in the user
photo folder (with this synced as well).

>
> >> This time I wanted to make it better. After the update to
> >> version 4 had failed I had left it for a while. Now I just set
> >> up an account on my mysql server for digikam and let it use it.
> >> Import has run and Imported my almost 50000 images.
> >> The only problem is, that not a single tag has been imported.
> >> When I open the images in another editor, I can see, that the
> >> tags are there, but digikam does not show them (not on the
> >> image itself nor in the overview).
> >>
> >> I'm a bit lost now. Who knows a way to feed the tags, that are
> >> stored in the images, back into the digikam database?
> >
> > There is an option to reread metadata from pictures (but only for
> > selected photos or one album).
>
> Tried it. It did nothing :-(
>
> I took a bit a deeper look into it. The Keywords are stored in
> iptc. If I take a look at the metadata of the image in digikam, I
> see that the keywords are there.
>
> Re-Importing the metadata does not help.

I never tried it, I usually go the other way around. But a few years
ago I move my photos from one folder to another and all tags were
imported correctly.

As I am using raw photos allot, I can not store metadata into files
(even if it were possible, I don't like the idea - sidecar files are
the way to go here).

>
> It seems that it is a problem related to the mysql backend. I've
> opened a bug and found, that there are similar problems with the
> migration tool when migrating from sqlite to mysql.
> Also, there seems to be a problem if you're not giving the database
> user full privileges on your whole database server but only on the
> used database :-(

I don't like the idea to use a database server for this. I had many
little problems with akonadi (uses mysql server embeded). With every
new version of mysql there were other problems. I can not see any
advantage that mysql brings. I will stay with sqlite. Easy to back up
and I can move it wherever I want.

>
> Sadly, it seems that the mysql backend in 1.4 is just broken :-(

1.4 is pretty old, isn't it? Can you update to 1.8? May be the DB
problems are solved.

Martin

>
> Marco
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Marco Tedaldi]

Hello Martin

Am 06.03.2011 19:56, schrieb Martin (KDE):
> Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:

>> Nice Idea. But my client only has 160GB of disk space. That's not
>> enough for all my images. Speed of the network is not that big of
>> an issue since I could yous rsync and only sync the changed
>> images.
>
> My clients have 160GB hard disks as well, I sync the DB only (and some
> pictures located in the users picture folder). Generally I have two
> photo folders: one global and one user owned. The user one is synced
> the global one is provided via NFS. digikam DB is located in the user
> photo folder (with this synced as well).
>

Oh, now I get it. That's a really neat Idea! Will have to try it.

>>
>>>> This time I wanted to make it better. After the update to
>>>> version 4 had failed I had left it for a while. Now I just set
>>>> up an account on my mysql server for digikam and let it use it.
>>>> Import has run and Imported my almost 50000 images.
>>>> The only problem is, that not a single tag has been imported.
>>>> When I open the images in another editor, I can see, that the
>>>> tags are there, but digikam does not show them (not on the
>>>> image itself nor in the overview).
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit lost now. Who knows a way to feed the tags, that are
>>>> stored in the images, back into the digikam database?
>>>
>>> There is an option to reread metadata from pictures (but only for
>>> selected photos or one album).
>>
>> Tried it. It did nothing :-(
>>
>> I took a bit a deeper look into it. The Keywords are stored in
>> iptc. If I take a look at the metadata of the image in digikam, I
>> see that the keywords are there.
>>
>> Re-Importing the metadata does not help.
>
> I never tried it, I usually go the other way around. But a few years
> ago I move my photos from one folder to another and all tags were
> imported correctly.
>

I've killed my sqlite files not for the first time. It always worked
without any problems.

> As I am using raw photos allot, I can not store metadata into files
> (even if it were possible, I don't like the idea - sidecar files are
> the way to go here).
>
yeah. Like darktable is doing. I like this idea as well. The heavily
cluttered image directories are just a cosmetic issue I think.

>>
>> It seems that it is a problem related to the mysql backend. I've
>> opened a bug and found, that there are similar problems with the
>> migration tool when migrating from sqlite to mysql.
>> Also, there seems to be a problem if you're not giving the database
>> user full privileges on your whole database server but only on the
>> used database :-(
>
> I don't like the idea to use a database server for this. I had many
> little problems with akonadi (uses mysql server embeded). With every
> new version of mysql there were other problems. I can not see any
> advantage that mysql brings. I will stay with sqlite. Easy to back up
> and I can move it wherever I want.
>

I like databases. they are fast and convenient. And there are good tools
around to keep them sane .-)
Ok... mysqldump is not as nice as just copying a file around, and MySQL
is notorious for problems when updating from one version to another, but
beside that? :-)
SQL works over the network and only the data, that is needed is moved
over the connection. So there are benefits. And as soon as digikam
becomes multi-user-aware I can see quite some benefits in a real SQL
database (yeah, I know, they say that MySQL isn't a "real" SQL-Database :-))

>>
>> Sadly, it seems that the mysql backend in 1.4 is just broken :-(
>
> 1.4 is pretty old, isn't it? Can you update to 1.8? May be the DB
> problems are solved.
>
Could be. The bug reports are still open.
1.4 is the version which is packaged with ubuntu 10.10. And just update
to 1.8 seems a bit "windows like" to me... I'll take a look at the
changelogs!
Adding another ppa? why not, there are already a few :-)
I'll give it a try.

cu

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

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
> Hello Martin
>

> >>
> >> Tried it. It did nothing :-(
> >>
> >> I took a bit a deeper look into it. The Keywords are stored in
> >> iptc. If I take a look at the metadata of the image in digikam,
> >> I see that the keywords are there.
> >>
> >> Re-Importing the metadata does not help.
> >
> > I never tried it, I usually go the other way around. But a few
> > years ago I move my photos from one folder to another and all
> > tags were imported correctly.
>
> I've killed my sqlite files not for the first time. It always
> worked without any problems.
>
> > As I am using raw photos allot, I can not store metadata into
> > files (even if it were possible, I don't like the idea - sidecar
> > files are the way to go here).
>
> yeah. Like darktable is doing. I like this idea as well. The
> heavily cluttered image directories are just a cosmetic issue I
> think.

I like darktable for doing my raw stuff. There are some minor things
missing, but the UI and most of the tools are great.

One point I don't like with sidecar files: you have to copy two files
for every photo. But I hope digikam takes care of this. most of the
time I organize my photos with digikam.

>
> >> It seems that it is a problem related to the mysql backend. I've
> >> opened a bug and found, that there are similar problems with the
> >> migration tool when migrating from sqlite to mysql.
> >> Also, there seems to be a problem if you're not giving the
> >> database user full privileges on your whole database server but
> >> only on the used database :-(
> >
> > I don't like the idea to use a database server for this. I had
> > many little problems with akonadi (uses mysql server embeded).
> > With every new version of mysql there were other problems. I can
> > not see any advantage that mysql brings. I will stay with
> > sqlite. Easy to back up and I can move it wherever I want.
>
> I like databases. they are fast and convenient. And there are good
> tools around to keep them sane .-)
> Ok... mysqldump is not as nice as just copying a file around, and
> MySQL is notorious for problems when updating from one version to
> another, but beside that? :-)
> SQL works over the network and only the data, that is needed is
> moved over the connection. So there are benefits. And as soon as
> digikam becomes multi-user-aware I can see quite some benefits in
> a real SQL database (yeah, I know, they say that MySQL isn't a
> "real" SQL-Database :-))

Yeah, I use database server where I need them, but with photos this is
different. I need the photos anyway, so there is no benefit in using a
dedicated DB server. And sharing my settings is a little bit
difficult. I have private photos nobody else shall see my metadata
for, I have semi private ones my family can see my metadata and I have
public ones. With this you have to implement a permission system or
something like a multi database backend into digikam.

To my point of view, sharing metadata via sidecar files is easier to
handle than via DB.

Greetings

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

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2011/3/7 Martin (KDE) <[hidden email]>:

> Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
>> Hello Martin
>>
>
>> >>
>> >> Tried it. It did nothing :-(
>> >>
>> >> I took a bit a deeper look into it. The Keywords are stored in
>> >> iptc. If I take a look at the metadata of the image in digikam,
>> >> I see that the keywords are there.
>> >>
>> >> Re-Importing the metadata does not help.
>> >
>> > I never tried it, I usually go the other way around. But a few
>> > years ago I move my photos from one folder to another and all
>> > tags were imported correctly.
>>
>> I've killed my sqlite files not for the first time. It always
>> worked without any problems.
>>
>> > As I am using raw photos allot, I can not store metadata into
>> > files (even if it were possible, I don't like the idea - sidecar
>> > files are the way to go here).
>>
>> yeah. Like darktable is doing. I like this idea as well. The
>> heavily cluttered image directories are just a cosmetic issue I
>> think.
>
> I like darktable for doing my raw stuff. There are some minor things
> missing, but the UI and most of the tools are great.
>
> One point I don't like with sidecar files: you have to copy two files
> for every photo. But I hope digikam takes care of this. most of the
> time I organize my photos with digikam.
>
>>
>> >> It seems that it is a problem related to the mysql backend. I've
>> >> opened a bug and found, that there are similar problems with the
>> >> migration tool when migrating from sqlite to mysql.
>> >> Also, there seems to be a problem if you're not giving the
>> >> database user full privileges on your whole database server but
>> >> only on the used database :-(
>> >
>> > I don't like the idea to use a database server for this. I had
>> > many little problems with akonadi (uses mysql server embeded).
>> > With every new version of mysql there were other problems. I can
>> > not see any advantage that mysql brings. I will stay with
>> > sqlite. Easy to back up and I can move it wherever I want.
>>
>> I like databases. they are fast and convenient. And there are good
>> tools around to keep them sane .-)
>> Ok... mysqldump is not as nice as just copying a file around, and
>> MySQL is notorious for problems when updating from one version to
>> another, but beside that? :-)
>> SQL works over the network and only the data, that is needed is
>> moved over the connection. So there are benefits. And as soon as
>> digikam becomes multi-user-aware I can see quite some benefits in
>> a real SQL database (yeah, I know, they say that MySQL isn't a
>> "real" SQL-Database :-))
>
> Yeah, I use database server where I need them, but with photos this is
> different. I need the photos anyway, so there is no benefit in using a
> dedicated DB server. And sharing my settings is a little bit
> difficult. I have private photos nobody else shall see my metadata
> for, I have semi private ones my family can see my metadata and I have
> public ones. With this you have to implement a permission system or
> something like a multi database backend into digikam.
>
> To my point of view, sharing metadata via sidecar files is easier to
> handle than via DB.

But it's really slower than a DB to search and play with items into a
photo management software.

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

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Montag, 7. März 2011 schrieb Gilles Caulier:

> 2011/3/7 Martin (KDE) <[hidden email]>:
> > Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
> > Yeah, I use database server where I need them, but with photos
> > this is different. I need the photos anyway, so there is no
> > benefit in using a dedicated DB server. And sharing my settings
> > is a little bit difficult. I have private photos nobody else
> > shall see my metadata for, I have semi private ones my family
> > can see my metadata and I have public ones. With this you have
> > to implement a permission system or something like a multi
> > database backend into digikam.
> >
> > To my point of view, sharing metadata via sidecar files is easier
> > to handle than via DB.
>
> But it's really slower than a DB to search and play with items into
> a photo management software.

Yes, that is true. I don't want to get rid of a database. Only for
sharing data with other users I prefere sidecar files. At digikam
startup they should be read into the digikam database of course (as it
is right now with jpeg).

Martin

>
> Gilles Caulier
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Marco Tedaldi]

Am 07.03.2011 11:11, schrieb Gilles Caulier:

> 2011/3/7 Martin (KDE) <[hidden email]>:
>> Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
>>> I've killed my sqlite files not for the first time. It always
>>> worked without any problems.
>>>
>>>> As I am using raw photos allot, I can not store metadata into
>>>> files (even if it were possible, I don't like the idea - sidecar
>>>> files are the way to go here).
>>>
>>> yeah. Like darktable is doing. I like this idea as well. The
>>> heavily cluttered image directories are just a cosmetic issue I
>>> think.
>>
>> I like darktable for doing my raw stuff. There are some minor things
>> missing, but the UI and most of the tools are great.
>>

We're talking version 0.8 here actually. The goal is different than
digikam. I think these two tools could make a really great team for
photo management / raw workflow stuff!

>> One point I don't like with sidecar files: you have to copy two files
>> for every photo. But I hope digikam takes care of this. most of the
>> time I organize my photos with digikam.
>>
Yes. That's not really cool. On the other hand, it's really easy and
straight forward to handle!


>>> SQL works over the network and only the data, that is needed is
>>> moved over the connection. So there are benefits. And as soon as
>>> digikam becomes multi-user-aware I can see quite some benefits in
>>> a real SQL database (yeah, I know, they say that MySQL isn't a
>>> "real" SQL-Database :-))
>>
>> Yeah, I use database server where I need them, but with photos this is
>> different.

Yes and no. For me it's the desicion of an ugly workaround (symlink to
the sqlite file on my harddisk) and loosing the benefits of networked
computers entrirely... or letting my computer copy around my db files
every time. Or using a real database.
I wonder, what happens if I start digikam on more than one computer at
the same time with the Mysql backend...

>> I need the photos anyway, so there is no benefit in using a
>> dedicated DB server. And sharing my settings is a little bit
>> difficult. I have private photos nobody else shall see my metadata
>> for, I have semi private ones my family can see my metadata and I have
>> public ones. With this you have to implement a permission system or
>> something like a multi database backend into digikam.
>>
As long as sqlite and network shares don't mix (and I think they never
will... db-like files over network shares is just ugly!) there is a
strong point for the dedicated db for me.
At least as long as I have mysql running on my server anyway.


>> To my point of view, sharing metadata via sidecar files is easier to
>> handle than via DB.
>
> But it's really slower than a DB to search and play with items into a
> photo management software.
>
Yeah. Sidecars is like Metadata in the image. It is just a copy! The
tool should use the db for searches and stuff and do everything to keep
the metadata and the db synced.

But there is one point towards sqlite and against mysql with digikam:
With sqlite it works! :-/

best regards

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

[Marco Tedaldi]

Am 06.03.2011 19:56, schrieb Martin (KDE):
> Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
>
>>
>> Sadly, it seems that the mysql backend in 1.4 is just broken :-(
>
> 1.4 is pretty old, isn't it? Can you update to 1.8? May be the DB
> problems are solved.
>

I've tried 1.7 and 1.9 now (also emptied the database and made a new
import). The issue persists. Images are imported but the tags are not
imported. The tables, where the tags should be stored stay empty :-(

Only thin I can try now is to give digikam FULL access on ALL my
databases which seems something quite silly to do!

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