Rating based on quality or content? Ideas, comments?
Locked
 
|
While rating pictures I always struggle to be consistent, mainly because
I am struggling whether to rate the picture for it's quality or it's content. In particular considering that the quantity of digital images have increased drastically the last few years, making the differentiation of quality and content less acute - there is normally a quite good quality picture that also represents the situation or motive it is intended to capture. However, earlier years albums have fewer pictures, of sometimes quite poor quality to be frank, but the rarer the picture and content, the more precious in a way, so I'd like to rate "content" as high, while rating "quality" as poor. Does anyone else recognize this, and if so, how do you deal with it? Now, I could probably do a separate tag structure for this, but it would be ideal to have two separate star-ratings, and e.g. pass through the collection, using C-[1-5] for quality rating and (maybe) M-[1-5] for content rating. I am looking forward to hear fellow Digikam users opinions and ideas! Cheers! -- Johnny _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Rating based on quality or content? Ideas, comments?
|
|
on Friday 11 February 2011, Johnny wrote:
> While rating pictures I always struggle to be consistent, mainly because > I am struggling whether to rate the picture for it's quality or it's > content. > > In particular considering that the quantity of digital images have > increased drastically the last few years, making the differentiation of > quality and content less acute - there is normally a quite good quality > picture that also represents the situation or motive it is intended to > capture. However, earlier years albums have fewer pictures, of sometimes > quite poor quality to be frank, but the rarer the picture and content, > the more precious in a way, so I'd like to rate "content" as high, while > rating "quality" as poor. > > Does anyone else recognize this, and if so, how do you deal with it? > > Now, I could probably do a separate tag structure for this, but it would > be ideal to have two separate star-ratings, and e.g. pass through the > collection, using C-[1-5] for quality rating and (maybe) M-[1-5] for > content rating. > > I am looking forward to hear fellow Digikam users opinions and ideas! > I try and rate on content, and delete if quality is insufficient. So for me, there would no need to go back every so often to adjust the 'quality' tags (which is what your system would require). Also, a borderline quality that is kept, has value, so wouldn't be deleted anyway, why complicate things with two ratings (I'm not a professional, so no problems related to selling pictures)? Remco _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Rating based on quality or content? Ideas, comments?
|
|
In digiKam 2.0.0, i introduce Color Label Tags. With this, you can use
it in your workflow to indentify quickly good and bad items. Look there for details : https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152424 Gilles Caulier 2011/2/11 Remco Viëtor <[hidden email]>: > on Friday 11 February 2011, Johnny wrote: >> While rating pictures I always struggle to be consistent, mainly because >> I am struggling whether to rate the picture for it's quality or it's >> content. >> >> In particular considering that the quantity of digital images have >> increased drastically the last few years, making the differentiation of >> quality and content less acute - there is normally a quite good quality >> picture that also represents the situation or motive it is intended to >> capture. However, earlier years albums have fewer pictures, of sometimes >> quite poor quality to be frank, but the rarer the picture and content, >> the more precious in a way, so I'd like to rate "content" as high, while >> rating "quality" as poor. >> >> Does anyone else recognize this, and if so, how do you deal with it? >> >> Now, I could probably do a separate tag structure for this, but it would >> be ideal to have two separate star-ratings, and e.g. pass through the >> collection, using C-[1-5] for quality rating and (maybe) M-[1-5] for >> content rating. >> >> I am looking forward to hear fellow Digikam users opinions and ideas! >> > > I try and rate on content, and delete if quality is insufficient. So for me, > there would no need to go back every so often to adjust the 'quality' tags > (which is what your system would require). Also, a borderline quality that is > kept, has value, so wouldn't be deleted anyway, why complicate things with two > ratings (I'm not a professional, so no problems related to selling pictures)? > > Remco > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Remco Viëtor
Remco Viëtor <[hidden email]> writes:
> > I try and rate on content, and delete if quality is insufficient. I have some scanned photos managed in Digikam as well, e.g. a photo of my great-grandfather as a child, however the quality is pretty bad. Rather, compared to some of the latest diving pictures I took last vacation with great macro and vivid colors (after some touh-up in Gimp), the quality could be said to be horrible. However, diving photos (and other recently taken pictures), I have loads of, while old (e.g. family) picutes, I have very few. > So for me, there would no need to go back every so often to adjust the > 'quality' tags (which is what your system would require). No, on the contrary. My great-grandfathers photo would simply rate 1 on quality, but 5 on content. However, the diving pictures would rate 3-5 on quality, and 1-3 on content (except that close-up of the mandible of the great white maybe...) > Also, a borderline quality that is kept, has value, so wouldn't be > deleted anyway, why complicate things with two ratings Agree, but even if it is not deleted, it is not easily identifiable. I sometimes want to see my pictures with precious content (e.g. reunions) and at other times with great quality (e.g. showing off :)), and sometimes both (for printing that family album). > (I'm not a professional, so no problems related to selling pictures) Concur! Thinking about it, it is similar to a risk register; one one axis you have the probability, and on the other the consequency. For pictures this analogy would be quality - content, where pictures in the lower left corners are candidates for deletion and the upper right ones are for the albums. Quality | Few lucky | Awesome pics shots | here | | | | | Crap Precious | Here pics here +----------------------- Content Sorry, I am going off on a tangent here... -- Johnny _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gilles Caulier-4
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> writes:
> In digiKam 2.0.0, i introduce Color Label Tags. With this, you can use > it in your workflow to indentify quickly good and bad items. > > Look there for details : > > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152424 > This looks interesting indeed, but it is not exactly what I envisioned. Having thought a few seconds more, maybe a scheme with custom ratings could be useful? I jotted down a reply to Viëtor, but that seems to have gotten stuck somewhere, but I like the idea of something number based. If any number of custom rating criterias could be used (i.e. in the database have several rating tables on different citeria and allow switching between), and use a custom accelerator key for different ratings, like the C-u (this could possibly already be done with 2.0 by assigning keys?). One could then create unions and/or cuts of different ratings, i.e. as my preference would be simply content and quality something like: quality | Show-off Lucky/Great | photos shots | | | | | Awful Memorable | shots shots +------------------------ content E.g. lower left are candidates for the bin, upper right will go in the photo-book for printing. Again, I am rambling, but this seemed a good idea at the time... -- Johnny _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Rating based on quality or content? Ideas, comments?
|
|
To the OP: great topic here! I have the same goals (uniform rating
across years of albums) and same problems (my photography skills improve and quantity goes up, changing the thresholds). I have a rare shot of a pygmy owl in the wild that may be the only picture I ever get of said creature in my lifetime, but it's camera-shake blurred with poor light. Then I have a stunning picture with beautiful vivid color of an.. ugh.. robin. How to rate these? :-) > One could then create unions and/or cuts of different ratings, i.e. as > my preference would be simply content and quality something like: > > quality > > | Show-off Lucky/Great > | photos shots > | > | > | > | > | Awful Memorable > | shots shots > +------------------------ > content > > E.g. lower left are candidates for the bin, upper right will go in the > photo-book for printing. > > Again, I am rambling, but this seemed a good idea at the time... So I for one like the idea of maybe two rating fields that would be fairly common to all, i.e. quality and content ratings. The above graph is 2D, so the lower left ratings are 1/1; lower right 1/5, upper right 5/5, etc. But then for those who want other criterion beyond the common quality/content ratings, the ability to have custom rating fields would be neat. It would be like a tag that could be assigned a value, perhaps with customizable number of degradations. Sounds like this would be an interesting feature. The problem with tags is that they are inherently binary, either the photo has the tag or not. You could do a poor-man's version by making tags content1, content2, etc. The only problem is that it's not as easy to filter by a threshold like the star rating, and you would need to OR all tags you want to display. JDR _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Johnny
I also set out to do the same thing early on, using tags. This was because I was getting a lot of poor shots of rare birds. I wanted to flag them as good shots, because they were worth keeping, but wanted a sub score to rate them to find the best of them.
The colour labels should help a lot, and I'd try them when they become available rather than suggest alternatives. It's good to hear others have the same workflow, and that it's being addressed. -------------------------- Sent using BlackBerry ----- Original Message ----- From: Johnny <[hidden email]> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the power of open source <[hidden email]> Sent: Sat Feb 12 08:59:41 2011 Subject: [Digikam-users] Re: Rating based on quality or content? Ideas, comments? Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> writes: > In digiKam 2.0.0, i introduce Color Label Tags. With this, you can use > it in your workflow to indentify quickly good and bad items. > > Look there for details : > > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152424 > This looks interesting indeed, but it is not exactly what I envisioned. Having thought a few seconds more, maybe a scheme with custom ratings could be useful? I jotted down a reply to Viëtor, but that seems to have gotten stuck somewhere, but I like the idea of something number based. If any number of custom rating criterias could be used (i.e. in the database have several rating tables on different citeria and allow switching between), and use a custom accelerator key for different ratings, like the C-u (this could possibly already be done with 2.0 by assigning keys?). One could then create unions and/or cuts of different ratings, i.e. as my preference would be simply content and quality something like: quality | Show-off Lucky/Great | photos shots | | | | | Awful Memorable | shots shots +------------------------ content E.g. lower left are candidates for the bin, upper right will go in the photo-book for printing. Again, I am rambling, but this seemed a good idea at the time... -- Johnny _______________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Rating based on quality or content? Ideas, comments?
|
|
In reply to this post by Johnny
2011/2/11 Johnny <[hidden email]>:
> Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> writes: > >> In digiKam 2.0.0, i introduce Color Label Tags. With this, you can use >> it in your workflow to indentify quickly good and bad items. >> >> Look there for details : >> >> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152424 >> > This looks interesting indeed, but it is not exactly what I > envisioned. Having thought a few seconds more, maybe a scheme with > custom ratings could be useful? Perhaps are you talking about Pick Label Tags (similar than LightRoom, Aperture and Bibble. There is an entry in bugzilla : https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=241847 When Color Labels will be done (90% complete), i will implement Pick Labels in digiKam 2.0.0 I jotted down a reply to Viëtor, but > that seems to have gotten stuck somewhere, but I like the idea of > something number based. If any number of custom rating criterias could > be used (i.e. in the database have several rating tables on different > citeria and allow switching between), and use a custom accelerator key > for different ratings, like the C-u (this could possibly already be done > with 2.0 by assigning keys?). > Yes. I implemented Tags Keyboard Shortcuts since 2.0.0 beta2 Gilles Caulier _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> writes:
> Perhaps are you talking about Pick Label Tags (similar than LightRoom, > Aperture and Bibble. No, I think this is a different concept. JD Rogers <[hidden email]> writes: > So I for one like the idea of maybe two rating fields that would be > fairly common to all, i.e. quality and content ratings. The above > graph is 2D, so the lower left ratings are 1/1; lower right 1/5, upper > right 5/5, etc. But then for those who want other criterion beyond the > common quality/content ratings, the ability to have custom rating > fields would be neat. It would be like a tag that could be assigned a > value, perhaps with customizable number of degradations. > > Sounds like this would be an interesting feature. The problem with > tags is that they are inherently binary, either the photo has the tag > or not. You could do a poor-man's version by making tags content1, > content2, etc. The only problem is that it's not as easy to filter by > a threshold like the star rating, and you would need to OR all tags > you want to display. > anyhow, a linear tag with a user-defined tag name (e.g. quality, content or whatever is in the raters mind). If one would generalise all tags to 2D, normal tags have a lower bound of 0 and an upper bound of 1 (i.e. binary as today), and star ratings have a lower bound of 0 and upper of 5. If tags had customistable lower and upper bounds, with a default of being binary, any tag could be set as with a custom span, and 2D, 3D or any other -D sets could be flexibly selected. E.g. a photo of my garden could be tagged "nature 2/5", while the shot from the amazons is tagged "nature 5/5"; a picture of a car in the street may be rated "cars 1/3" while that of an F1 car in the pit stop "cars 3/3" (as an example of flexible use only, not to be seen as a suggestion!). That would be great for generalisation, however the only use I can see personally is to differentiate quality and content rating, so two linear tags (star ratings) would suffice. -- Johnny _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
Hello everyone,
Please, when implementing these ideas keep in mind that our photos don't stay just in our digikam libraries, but sometimes they go also in Lightroom and Aperture (...) libraries, since there is people (like me) working with other people or with different OSes... I'd really like that any metadata I added to a set of shots using Digikam will ben visible also with other software, so we don't marginalize ourselves. At the moment the situation is really nice: at least on a friend's of mine Aperture (didn't try other software) you can see every information you added using digikam, and it's cool. Please, keep in mind this need, and don't implement too incompatible metadata... regards gerlos -- "Fairy tales are more than true, not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten." G. K. Chesterton <http://gerlos.altervista.org> gerlos +- - - > gnu/linux registred user #311588 _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
Re: Linear tags (was: Rating based on quality or content? Ideas, comments?)
|
|
2011/2/12 gerlos <[hidden email]>:
> Hello everyone, > Please, when implementing these ideas keep in mind that our photos don't stay just in our digikam libraries, but sometimes they go also in Lightroom and Aperture (...) libraries, since there is people (like me) working with other people or with different OSes... > > I'd really like that any metadata I added to a set of shots using Digikam will ben visible also with other software, so we don't marginalize ourselves. > At the moment the situation is really nice: at least on a friend's of mine Aperture (didn't try other software) you can see every information you added using digikam, and it's cool. > Please, keep in mind this need, and don't implement too incompatible metadata... Sure, this is a priority. But we need to know where these softwares store these information. Typicially it's in XMP namespace, but where and which encoding ? As i have Aperture installed on my macbook, i can check it for Apple, but i cannot test with all photo management softwares. it's a good help for digiKam team if users can send images with right tags set in metadata, to check import into digiKam. For the export (digiKam to another software), it's another story. But in all case, we have now a clean implementation which is easy to adjust for all case... Gilles Caulier _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
«
Return to digikam-users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |