Inconsistent watermark sizes depending on pictures ratio

[tosca]

Hi,

I use the add watermark in big batches of pictures. But the watermark size doesn't seem to be consistent with the picture ratio: it appears much less big in portrait than landscape orientated pictures, as if its size were related to the width of the picture, instead of the largest dimension.

As a result, I have to separate the pictures in different queues and use different size percentages in order to get resulting watermarks with more or less the same size on the final pictures.

Could you please modify this behaviour so it can be used much more easily.

Thanks,

Marie-Noëlle

--

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Hi Marie Noelle, and Happy new year...

This is fully relevant of this entry ?

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250642

Best

Gilles Caulier

2017-01-16 11:35 GMT+01:00 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>:

Hi,

I use the add watermark in big batches of pictures. But the watermark size doesn't seem to be consistent with the picture ratio: it appears much less big in portrait than landscape orientated pictures, as if its size were related to the width of the picture, instead of the largest dimension.

As a result, I have to separate the pictures in different queues and use different size percentages in order to get resulting watermarks with more or less the same size on the final pictures.

Could you please modify this behaviour so it can be used much more easily.

Thanks,

Marie-Noëlle

--

[tosca]

Hi Gilles, and happy new year to you too. ;-)

My problem doesn't seem to be the same as the one you pointed me too: I have no orientation problem for the pictures themselves (their orientation is good all along my workflow starting from the memory card import phase).

My issue concerns the size of the watermark, depending on the picture landscape/portrait 'orientation' (there might be another less confusing word, but I cannot find it at the moment). I'm currently setting up a Flickr gallery here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mnaugendre with pictures that are resized to 1024px. If you browse the gallery, you'll see that the watermark remains - more or less - the same size for portrait pictures as for landscape pictures.

But to achieve this result, I had to use the watermark at 20% for landscape pictures, and at 40% for portrait pictures. So, for each selection I want to upload to Flickr, I need to separate the pictures in two batches, and apply two different set of rules.

By the way, I had no such problem with my Piwigo gallery http://www.marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos as the pictures here are uploaded without a watermark, that is applied on the fly by Piwigo itself.

Hope this will clarify the issue.

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-16 12:23 GMT+01:00 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>:

Hi Marie Noelle, and Happy new year...

This is fully relevant of this entry ?

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250642

Best

Gilles Caulier

2017-01-16 11:35 GMT+01:00 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>:

Hi,

I use the add watermark in big batches of pictures. But the watermark size doesn't seem to be consistent with the picture ratio: it appears much less big in portrait than landscape orientated pictures, as if its size were related to the width of the picture, instead of the largest dimension.

As a result, I have to separate the pictures in different queues and use different size percentages in order to get resulting watermarks with more or less the same size on the final pictures.

Could you please modify this behaviour so it can be used much more easily.

Thanks,

Marie-Noëlle

--

--

[Martin Burnicki-2]

Hi,

Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:

> Hi Gilles, and happy new year to you too. ;-)
>
> My problem doesn't seem to be the same as the one you pointed me too: I
> have no orientation problem for the pictures themselves (their
> orientation is good all along my workflow starting from the memory card
> import phase).
>
> My issue concerns the size of the watermark, depending on the picture
> landscape/portrait 'orientation' (there might be another less confusing
> word, but I cannot find it at the moment). I'm currently setting up a
> Flickr gallery here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mnaugendre with
> pictures that are resized to 1024px. If you browse the gallery, you'll
> see that the watermark remains - more or less - the same size for
> portrait pictures as for landscape pictures.
>
> But to achieve this result, I had to use the watermark at 20% for
> landscape pictures, and at 40% for portrait pictures. So, for each
> selection I want to upload to Flickr, I need to separate the pictures in
> two batches, and apply two different set of rules.
>
> By the way, I had no such problem with my Piwigo gallery
> http://www.marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos as the pictures here are
> uploaded without a watermark, that is applied on the fly by Piwigo itself.

Just a thought:

Could be problem be depending on whether the image is really stored as
portrait or landscape, with exif info "normal", instead of being always
stored as landscape, with only exif info saying "normal" or "rotate to
portrait"?

Martin

[Ahmed FathI]

Hi , All

Marie , I made some code modifications and produced this following results , This is  what you wanted I think , am I right ?

Here I attach  6 photos :

Two original photos :  one portrait and one landscape
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them before the modification , clearly showing the problem
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them after the modification , giving a much better results

LandScapePortraitFix.zip

Is that it ?

Thanks,
Ahmed

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Marie Noelle, Martin,

Ahmed Fathi provide a patch in bugzilla file : 

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250642

... with screenshot of results before and after to apply patch. Please take a look and comment in bugzilla.

Thanks in advance

Gilles Caulier

2017-01-19 13:29 GMT+01:00 Martin Burnicki <[hidden email]>:

Hi,

Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:
> Hi Gilles, and happy new year to you too. ;-)
>
> My problem doesn't seem to be the same as the one you pointed me too: I
> have no orientation problem for the pictures themselves (their
> orientation is good all along my workflow starting from the memory card
> import phase).
>
> My issue concerns the size of the watermark, depending on the picture
> landscape/portrait 'orientation' (there might be another less confusing
> word, but I cannot find it at the moment). I'm currently setting up a
> Flickr gallery here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mnaugendre with
> pictures that are resized to 1024px. If you browse the gallery, you'll
> see that the watermark remains - more or less - the same size for
> portrait pictures as for landscape pictures.
>
> But to achieve this result, I had to use the watermark at 20% for
> landscape pictures, and at 40% for portrait pictures. So, for each
> selection I want to upload to Flickr, I need to separate the pictures in
> two batches, and apply two different set of rules.
>
> By the way, I had no such problem with my Piwigo gallery
> http://www.marie-noelle-augendre.com/photos as the pictures here are
> uploaded without a watermark, that is applied on the fly by Piwigo itself.

Just a thought:

Could be problem be depending on whether the image is really stored as
portrait or landscape, with exif info "normal", instead of being always
stored as landscape, with only exif info saying "normal" or "rotate to
portrait"?

Martin

[tosca]

Hi Ahmed,

I just checked your pictures, and the size issue seems to be fixed with your modification.

As for the watermark place, I had no such issue ... perhaps because I put the watermark in the left-down corner and you calculate its position from here?

Anyway, things are fine for me, and I'll wait for the fix in next Digikam version.

Thanks for having solved this so quickly. :-)

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-19 13:45 GMT+01:00 Ahmed FathI <[hidden email]>:

Hi , All

Marie , I made some code modifications and produced this following results ,
This is  what you wanted I think , am I right ?

Here I attach  6 photos :

Two original photos :  one portrait and one landscape
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them before the
modification , clearly showing the problem
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them after the
modification , giving a much better results

LandScapePortraitFix.zip
<http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/file/n4693115/LandScapePortraitFix.zip>

Is that it ?

Thanks,
Ahmed



--
View this message in context: http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/Inconsistent-watermark-sizes-depending-on-pictures-ratio-tp4692920p4693115.html
Sent from the digikam-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

[tosca]

Hi Martin,

I don't know how these things are registered. From my point of view, everything is automatic, I never have to rotate photos at any moment of my workflow. But I know for sure that other programs (such as Piwigo) have no problem to render the 'normal' result I'm expecting.

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-19 13:29 GMT+01:00 Martin Burnicki <[hidden email]>:

Just a thought:

Could be problem be depending on whether the image is really stored as
portrait or landscape, with exif info "normal", instead of being always
stored as landscape, with only exif info saying "normal" or "rotate to
portrait"?

Martin

--

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Hi Marie Noelle,

No need to wait offcial linux distro packaging. I just update digiKam 5.5.0 pre version of AppImage bundle here :

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzeiVr-byqt5Y0tIRWVWelRJenM

You can test last patch from Ahmed now as well. AppImage is a stand alone executable, which do not install anything on your system and do not require admin right. It can be used in parallel with your official digiKam.

Just download the file, make it as executable, and start it. It will use your current digiKam settings from your home directory. 

Very simple and very powerfull... AppImage will run on all Linux. It have been compiled under Centos 6, but OpenSuse, Debian, etc are supported.

Best

Gilles

2017-01-21 15:37 GMT+01:00 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>:

Hi Ahmed,

I just checked your pictures, and the size issue seems to be fixed with your modification.

As for the watermark place, I had no such issue ... perhaps because I put the watermark in the left-down corner and you calculate its position from here?

Anyway, things are fine for me, and I'll wait for the fix in next Digikam version.

Thanks for having solved this so quickly. :-)

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-19 13:45 GMT+01:00 Ahmed FathI <[hidden email]>:

Hi , All

Marie , I made some code modifications and produced this following results ,
This is  what you wanted I think , am I right ?

Here I attach  6 photos :

Two original photos :  one portrait and one landscape
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them before the
modification , clearly showing the problem
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them after the
modification , giving a much better results

LandScapePortraitFix.zip
<http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/file/n4693115/LandScapePortraitFix.zip>

Is that it ?

Thanks,
Ahmed



--
View this message in context: http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/Inconsistent-watermark-sizes-depending-on-pictures-ratio-tp4692920p4693115.html
Sent from the digikam-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

[tosca]

Just tested with AppImage, as advised by Gilles. But the result is not good : see here two pictures that have been treated by the same queue, with a 20% watermark in the left-down corner and both margins at 2%; in the portrait picture, the watermark seems to be twice as big as in the landscape one, instead of being - more or less - the same size.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0cWw2WWNIelQzajg/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0VVpLTTBkc251Slk/view?usp=sharing

And the pictures selection (to put pictures in the queue) works differently from the 'installed' Digikam: instead of selecting the head group picture only, it appears to select all the pictures belonging to the group. That's rather annoying.

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-21 15:43 GMT+01:00 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>:

Hi Marie Noelle,

No need to wait offcial linux distro packaging. I just update digiKam 5.5.0 pre version of AppImage bundle here :

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzeiVr-byqt5Y0tIRWVWelRJenM

You can test last patch from Ahmed now as well. AppImage is a stand alone executable, which do not install anything on your system and do not require admin right. It can be used in parallel with your official digiKam.

Just download the file, make it as executable, and start it. It will use your current digiKam settings from your home directory. 

Very simple and very powerfull... AppImage will run on all Linux. It have been compiled under Centos 6, but OpenSuse, Debian, etc are supported.

Best

Gilles

2017-01-21 15:37 GMT+01:00 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>:

Hi Ahmed,

I just checked your pictures, and the size issue seems to be fixed with your modification.

As for the watermark place, I had no such issue ... perhaps because I put the watermark in the left-down corner and you calculate its position from here?

Anyway, things are fine for me, and I'll wait for the fix in next Digikam version.

Thanks for having solved this so quickly. :-)

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-19 13:45 GMT+01:00 Ahmed FathI <[hidden email]>:

Hi , All

Marie , I made some code modifications and produced this following results ,
This is  what you wanted I think , am I right ?

Here I attach  6 photos :

Two original photos :  one portrait and one landscape
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them before the
modification , clearly showing the problem
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them after the
modification , giving a much better results

LandScapePortraitFix.zip
<http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/file/n4693115/LandScapePortraitFix.zip>

Is that it ?

Thanks,
Ahmed



--
View this message in context: http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/Inconsistent-watermark-sizes-depending-on-pictures-ratio-tp4692920p4693115.html
Sent from the digikam-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

--

[Simon Frei]

I can't say anything about the watermarking, but the grouping behaviour that you describe is actually a feature. When groups are collapsed all operations are applied to all group members. If you want to apply operations (e.g. add to queue) to only specific images of a group, you need to expand groups and explicitly set those groups.
If this is a really big problem in your workflow, please describe why and how your workflow works. I don't have time right now, but I will look into it.

Cheers,
Simon

On 22/01/17 15:20, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:

Just tested with AppImage, as advised by Gilles. But the result is not good : see here two pictures that have been treated by the same queue, with a 20% watermark in the left-down corner and both margins at 2%; in the portrait picture, the watermark seems to be twice as big as in the landscape one, instead of being - more or less - the same size.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0cWw2WWNIelQzajg/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0VVpLTTBkc251Slk/view?usp=sharing

And the pictures selection (to put pictures in the queue) works differently from the 'installed' Digikam: instead of selecting the head group picture only, it appears to select all the pictures belonging to the group. That's rather annoying.

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-21 15:43 GMT+01:00 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>:

Hi Marie Noelle,

No need to wait offcial linux distro packaging. I just update digiKam 5.5.0 pre version of AppImage bundle here :

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzeiVr-byqt5Y0tIRWVWelRJenM

You can test last patch from Ahmed now as well. AppImage is a stand alone executable, which do not install anything on your system and do not require admin right. It can be used in parallel with your official digiKam.

Just download the file, make it as executable, and start it. It will use your current digiKam settings from your home directory. 

Very simple and very powerfull... AppImage will run on all Linux. It have been compiled under Centos 6, but OpenSuse, Debian, etc are supported.

Best

Gilles

2017-01-21 15:37 GMT+01:00 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>:

Hi Ahmed,

I just checked your pictures, and the size issue seems to be fixed with your modification.

As for the watermark place, I had no such issue ... perhaps because I put the watermark in the left-down corner and you calculate its position from here?

Anyway, things are fine for me, and I'll wait for the fix in next Digikam version.

Thanks for having solved this so quickly. :-)

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-19 13:45 GMT+01:00 Ahmed FathI <[hidden email]>:

Hi , All

Marie , I made some code modifications and produced this following results ,
This is  what you wanted I think , am I right ?

Here I attach  6 photos :

Two original photos :  one portrait and one landscape
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them before the
modification , clearly showing the problem
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them after the
modification , giving a much better results

LandScapePortraitFix.zip
<http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/file/n4693115/LandScapePortraitFix.zip>

Is that it ?

Thanks,
Ahmed



--
View this message in context: http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/Inconsistent-watermark-sizes-depending-on-pictures-ratio-tp4692920p4693115.html
Sent from the digikam-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

--

[tosca]

The big problem is this is a full change of behaviour.
For years, I have adopted a workflow that worked with 'past' Digikam, and now it won't work anymore!

All my pictures are grouped 'under' the TIFF format, that qualifies as the 'mother' picture: the original raw, the JPEGs that have been created from the TIFF (itself created in Darktable) and possibly other TIFF versions in case I made several different developments.

Each time I needed to produce a JPEG, usually for online publication, a new photobook, or storing on mobile devices, I only had to select the TIFFs, and run whatever workflow I wanted to use in the BQM.

Selecting whole groups might be fine for managing metadata, but I can't see any relevancy when it comes to resizing, converting to JPEG(!), watermarking, exporting and such.

Please provide some kind of option, especially when using the batch queue manager, so we can have choice between selecting only the top picture, or the whole group.

Thanks in advance,

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-22 18:28 GMT+01:00 Simon Frei <[hidden email]>:

I can't say anything about the watermarking, but the grouping behaviour that you describe is actually a feature. When groups are collapsed all operations are applied to all group members. If you want to apply operations (e.g. add to queue) to only specific images of a group, you need to expand groups and explicitly set those groups.
If this is a really big problem in your workflow, please describe why and how your workflow works. I don't have time right now, but I will look into it.

Cheers,
Simon

On 22/01/17 15:20, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:

Just tested with AppImage, as advised by Gilles. But the result is not good : see here two pictures that have been treated by the same queue, with a 20% watermark in the left-down corner and both margins at 2%; in the portrait picture, the watermark seems to be twice as big as in the landscape one, instead of being - more or less - the same size.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0cWw2WWNIelQzajg/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0VVpLTTBkc251Slk/view?usp=sharing

And the pictures selection (to put pictures in the queue) works differently from the 'installed' Digikam: instead of selecting the head group picture only, it appears to select all the pictures belonging to the group. That's rather annoying.

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-21 15:43 GMT+01:00 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>:

Hi Marie Noelle,

No need to wait offcial linux distro packaging. I just update digiKam 5.5.0 pre version of AppImage bundle here :

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzeiVr-byqt5Y0tIRWVWelRJenM

You can test last patch from Ahmed now as well. AppImage is a stand alone executable, which do not install anything on your system and do not require admin right. It can be used in parallel with your official digiKam.

Just download the file, make it as executable, and start it. It will use your current digiKam settings from your home directory. 

Very simple and very powerfull... AppImage will run on all Linux. It have been compiled under Centos 6, but OpenSuse, Debian, etc are supported.

Best

Gilles

2017-01-21 15:37 GMT+01:00 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>:

Hi Ahmed,

I just checked your pictures, and the size issue seems to be fixed with your modification.

As for the watermark place, I had no such issue ... perhaps because I put the watermark in the left-down corner and you calculate its position from here?

Anyway, things are fine for me, and I'll wait for the fix in next Digikam version.

Thanks for having solved this so quickly. :-)

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-19 13:45 GMT+01:00 Ahmed FathI <[hidden email]>:

Hi , All

Marie , I made some code modifications and produced this following results ,
This is  what you wanted I think , am I right ?

Here I attach  6 photos :

Two original photos :  one portrait and one landscape
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them before the
modification , clearly showing the problem
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them after the
modification , giving a much better results

LandScapePortraitFix.zip
<http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/file/n4693115/LandScapePortraitFix.zip>

Is that it ?

Thanks,
Ahmed



--
View this message in context: http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/Inconsistent-watermark-sizes-depending-on-pictures-ratio-tp4692920p4693115.html
Sent from the digikam-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

--

--

[Simon Frei]

I am aware it is. a big change in behaviour and for your use case, it definitely doesn't make sense. This change has been requested by users, but I agree, it has gone too far by making this the only behaviour. This should either be made configurable somehow.
I introduces these changes so I am happy to think of and implement a solution, but I have exams coming up. So I will only be able to do this after mid February. Your options are to live with it or switch back to 5.3.0 for the time being (or hope someone else will pick it up). I am sorry I can't provide any more timely assistance.

Cheers,
Simon

On 22/01/17 19:02, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:

The big problem is this is a full change of behaviour.
For years, I have adopted a workflow that worked with 'past' Digikam, and now it won't work anymore!

All my pictures are grouped 'under' the TIFF format, that qualifies as the 'mother' picture: the original raw, the JPEGs that have been created from the TIFF (itself created in Darktable) and possibly other TIFF versions in case I made several different developments.

Each time I needed to produce a JPEG, usually for online publication, a new photobook, or storing on mobile devices, I only had to select the TIFFs, and run whatever workflow I wanted to use in the BQM.

Selecting whole groups might be fine for managing metadata, but I can't see any relevancy when it comes to resizing, converting to JPEG(!), watermarking, exporting and such.

Please provide some kind of option, especially when using the batch queue manager, so we can have choice between selecting only the top picture, or the whole group.

Thanks in advance,

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-22 18:28 GMT+01:00 Simon Frei <[hidden email]>:

I can't say anything about the watermarking, but the grouping behaviour that you describe is actually a feature. When groups are collapsed all operations are applied to all group members. If you want to apply operations (e.g. add to queue) to only specific images of a group, you need to expand groups and explicitly set those groups.
If this is a really big problem in your workflow, please describe why and how your workflow works. I don't have time right now, but I will look into it.

Cheers,
Simon

On 22/01/17 15:20, Marie-Noëlle Augendre wrote:

Just tested with AppImage, as advised by Gilles. But the result is not good : see here two pictures that have been treated by the same queue, with a 20% watermark in the left-down corner and both margins at 2%; in the portrait picture, the watermark seems to be twice as big as in the landscape one, instead of being - more or less - the same size.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0cWw2WWNIelQzajg/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0VVpLTTBkc251Slk/view?usp=sharing

And the pictures selection (to put pictures in the queue) works differently from the 'installed' Digikam: instead of selecting the head group picture only, it appears to select all the pictures belonging to the group. That's rather annoying.

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-21 15:43 GMT+01:00 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>:

Hi Marie Noelle,

No need to wait offcial linux distro packaging. I just update digiKam 5.5.0 pre version of AppImage bundle here :

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzeiVr-byqt5Y0tIRWVWelRJenM

You can test last patch from Ahmed now as well. AppImage is a stand alone executable, which do not install anything on your system and do not require admin right. It can be used in parallel with your official digiKam.

Just download the file, make it as executable, and start it. It will use your current digiKam settings from your home directory. 

Very simple and very powerfull... AppImage will run on all Linux. It have been compiled under Centos 6, but OpenSuse, Debian, etc are supported.

Best

Gilles

2017-01-21 15:37 GMT+01:00 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>:

Hi Ahmed,

I just checked your pictures, and the size issue seems to be fixed with your modification.

As for the watermark place, I had no such issue ... perhaps because I put the watermark in the left-down corner and you calculate its position from here?

Anyway, things are fine for me, and I'll wait for the fix in next Digikam version.

Thanks for having solved this so quickly. :-)

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-19 13:45 GMT+01:00 Ahmed FathI <[hidden email]>:

Hi , All

Marie , I made some code modifications and produced this following results ,
This is  what you wanted I think , am I right ?

Here I attach  6 photos :

Two original photos :  one portrait and one landscape
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them before the
modification , clearly showing the problem
Two photos after running the batchQueueManager on both of them after the
modification , giving a much better results

LandScapePortraitFix.zip
<http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/file/n4693115/LandScapePortraitFix.zip>

Is that it ?

Thanks,
Ahmed



--
View this message in context: http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/Inconsistent-watermark-sizes-depending-on-pictures-ratio-tp4692920p4693115.html
Sent from the digikam-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

--

--

[tosca]

Thanks for your answer.
I won't be using Digikam a lot in the next few weeks: I've just finished the book of my last trip, and I'll fly for another one in three weeks... In the mean time, I'll pay extra care to the few pictures I'll need to export.

Cheers,

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-22 20:18 GMT+01:00 Simon Frei <[hidden email]>:

I am aware it is. a big change in behaviour and for your use case, it definitely doesn't make sense. This change has been requested by users, but I agree, it has gone too far by making this the only behaviour. This should either be made configurable somehow.
I introduces these changes so I am happy to think of and implement a solution, but I have exams coming up. So I will only be able to do this after mid February. Your options are to live with it or switch back to 5.3.0 for the time being (or hope someone else will pick it up). I am sorry I can't provide any more timely assistance.

Cheers,
Simon

--

[tosca]

Hi,

I'm currently testing the Android program Photo Mate R3, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tssystems.photomate3 to use on the go when I have only a 7" tablet with a wireless hard drive.

Interesting thing is there are two parameters to express the watermark size: one for the height and one for the width (both in percentages of the final image, as in Digikam). From what I see, the program evaluate both sizes, and use the biggest for each picture, so the watermark size is always consistent on a batch of pictures, however their orientation/size ratio are.

That's the behaviour I would like very much in Digikam.

Cheers,

Marie-Noëlle

2017-01-22 15:20 GMT+01:00 Marie-Noëlle Augendre <[hidden email]>:

Just tested with AppImage, as advised by Gilles. But the result is not good : see here two pictures that have been treated by the same queue, with a 20% watermark in the left-down corner and both margins at 2%; in the portrait picture, the watermark seems to be twice as big as in the landscape one, instead of being - more or less - the same size.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0cWw2WWNIelQzajg/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx05ZB5ljrd0VVpLTTBkc251Slk/view?usp=sharing

And the pictures selection (to put pictures in the queue) works differently from the 'installed' Digikam: instead of selecting the head group picture only, it appears to select all the pictures belonging to the group. That's rather annoying.

Marie-Noëlle

--

--