linking instead of copying

Stupid question: is there some way to link photos instead of copying them?

(I would like to have a bunch of what might be called virtual albums, so
that the same picture can appear in several albums without actually
occupying disk space with multiple copies)

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

D. R. Evans said the following at 12/27/2007 11:27 AM :
> Stupid question: is there some way to link photos instead of copying them?
>
> (I would like to have a bunch of what might be called virtual albums, so
> that the same picture can appear in several albums without actually
> occupying disk space with multiple copies)

I guess I should take the silence as meaning "there is no way to do this"
:-( One can always do it outside digikam I suppose,  but it just seems a
mite clumsy to switch to konqueror for this one task.

  Doc



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

[Yan Seiner]

D. R. Evans wrote:

> D. R. Evans said the following at 12/27/2007 11:27 AM :
>  
>> Stupid question: is there some way to link photos instead of copying them?
>>
>> (I would like to have a bunch of what might be called virtual albums, so
>> that the same picture can appear in several albums without actually
>> occupying disk space with multiple copies)
>>    
>
> I guess I should take the silence as meaning "there is no way to do this"
> :-( One can always do it outside digikam I suppose,  but it just seems a
> mite clumsy to switch to konqueror for this one task.
>
>   Doc
>  

You can script digikam.  I'd bring up konq and use hardlinks. (Actually
I'd most likely build an xdialog thingie to do that.)

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

[Arnd Baecker]

Hi,

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, D. R. Evans wrote:

> D. R. Evans said the following at 12/27/2007 11:27 AM :
> > Stupid question: is there some way to link photos instead of copying them?
> >
> > (I would like to have a bunch of what might be called virtual albums, so
> > that the same picture can appear in several albums without actually
> > occupying disk space with multiple copies)
>
> I guess I should take the silence as meaning "there is no way to do this"
> :-(

Well, sometimes it just means, that your mail has fallen through
the cracks ... ;-)

> One can always do it outside digikam I suppose,  but it just seems a
> mite clumsy to switch to konqueror for this one task.

To get virtual albums the concept of tags is the
way to go in digikam:
Just assign a tag to all images which should appear in a
virtual album under that name and access it via the "Tags"
sidebar on the left.

See the manual for further explanation
http://docs.kde.org/development/en/extragear-graphics/digikam/using-kapp.html#using-mytagsview

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

[Eddie Armstrong]

Arnd Baecker wrote:
> To get virtual albums the concept of tags is the
> way to go in digikam:
In my view, *all* albums in Digikam should be virtual.
If someone wishes to delete/move etc an original file they should have
to do so  *specifically* , acting on files/folders not albums. I think
the album concept is confusing and suspect many users have inadvertently
acted on their original files.
This would give the most versatility and more security for your original
photos/images
Eddie
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2008/1/4, Eddie Armstrong <[hidden email]>:

Arnd Baecker wrote:
> To get virtual albums the concept of tags is the
> way to go in digikam:
In my view, *all* albums in Digikam should be virtual.
If someone wishes to delete/move etc an original file they should have
to do so  *specifically* , acting on files/folders not albums. I think
the album concept is confusing and suspect many users have inadvertently
acted on their original files.

No. Virtual albums and Physical album concept become a long reflexion between developpers and users.

Image are stored on HDD. This is the reallity. Some users like to know where images are stored on the disk.

Virtual albums help user to class/sort images coming from different physical albums.

If you want to have all album virtual, well use only virtual folders... (or use Kphotoalbum... But personally i hate to have all pictures without to know where i can find it really)
 

Unforget that it's your personal viewpoint and not a general vision witch can be applied to all photograph.

Gilles Caulier

This would give the most versatility and more security for your original
photos/images
Eddie
_______________________________________________
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

[Eddie Armstrong]

Gilles Caulier wrote:
>
> Image are stored on HDD. This is the reallity. Some users like to know
> where images are stored on the disk.
Hello Gilles
These are  'folders' or 'directories' - why add another name for what
already exists? Also an 'Album' in terms of photos etc implies an
arranged collection of chosen photos - not al that are on your HDD.
If Digikam wants people to access their HDD directly then I feel they
should use standard nomenclature and not add a level of obfuscation.
>
> Virtual albums help user to class/sort images coming from different
> physical albums.
>
Precisely - the physical 'albums' (folders),should be protected but
accessible
> If you want to have all album virtual, well use only virtual folders..
So whats wrong with links or aliases?
>  
> Unforget that it's your personal viewpoint and not a general vision
> witch can be applied to all photograph.
As I said 'In my view' - I know *now* what an album is in Digikam terms,
but I didn't when I started and  would rather know when I am accessing
my folders directly, and have my programs at least use standard names
for things and would rather the term 'Album' was used in it's
traditional sense.
I don't however, expect Digikam to change.
It is just my view :-)
Eddie

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

[Eddie Armstrong]

Eddie Armstrong wrote:
>> If you want to have all album virtual, well use only virtual folders..
>>    
> So whats wrong with links or aliases?
>  
I thought this might not make sense - what I meant was, delete a
reference to an object (a link) and have to delete the object itself
(the file/ directory) specifically.

I don't think you should expose your files to the ambiguity of calling
actual 'directories' something else- it is easy to forget what an
'album' is - especially when other programs - and the rest of the world
- uses this term differently.

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

[Gerhard Kulzer-3]

Am Friday 04 January 2008 schrieb Eddie Armstrong:

> Eddie Armstrong wrote:
> >> If you want to have all album virtual, well use only virtual folders..
> >
> > So whats wrong with links or aliases?
>
> I thought this might not make sense - what I meant was, delete a
> reference to an object (a link) and have to delete the object itself
> (the file/ directory) specifically.
>
> I don't think you should expose your files to the ambiguity of calling
> actual 'directories' something else- it is easy to forget what an
> 'album' is - especially when other programs - and the rest of the world
> - uses this term differently.
>
> Eddie
> _______________________________________________

Gilles and Eddie,
I propose to add a statement to the welcome page (Album root) that makes clear
that Albums are a representation of folders. This is the page that is
probably read by everyone starting to work with digiKam.

"digiKam is a photo management program for the K Desktop Environment. It is
designed to import, organize, improve and export your digital photographs on
your computer.
You are currently in the Album view mode of digiKam. The Albums are the real
containers where your files are stored, they are identical with the folders
on disk."

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

[Gilles Caulier-4]

2008/1/5, Gerhard Kulzer <[hidden email]>:

Am Friday 04 January 2008 schrieb Eddie Armstrong:

> Eddie Armstrong wrote:
> >> If you want to have all album virtual, well use only virtual folders..
> >
> > So whats wrong with links or aliases?
>
> I thought this might not make sense - what I meant was, delete a
> reference to an object (a link) and have to delete the object itself
> (the file/ directory) specifically.
>
> I don't think you should expose your files to the ambiguity of calling
> actual 'directories' something else- it is easy to forget what an
> 'album' is - especially when other programs - and the rest of the world
> - uses this term differently.
>
> Eddie
> _______________________________________________

Gilles and Eddie,
I propose to add a statement to the welcome page (Album root) that makes clear
that Albums are a representation of folders. This is the page that is
probably read by everyone starting to work with digiKam.

"digiKam is a photo management program for the K Desktop Environment. It is
designed to import, organize, improve and export your digital photographs on
your computer.
You are currently in the Album view mode of digiKam. The Albums are the real
containers where your files are stored, they are identical with the folders
on disk."

Fine for me Gerhard

Gilles

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

[Chris Green]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:04:53AM +0100, Gerhard Kulzer wrote:

> Am Friday 04 January 2008 schrieb Eddie Armstrong:
> > Eddie Armstrong wrote:
> > >> If you want to have all album virtual, well use only virtual folders..
> > >
> > > So whats wrong with links or aliases?
> >
> > I thought this might not make sense - what I meant was, delete a
> > reference to an object (a link) and have to delete the object itself
> > (the file/ directory) specifically.
> >
> > I don't think you should expose your files to the ambiguity of calling
> > actual 'directories' something else- it is easy to forget what an
> > 'album' is - especially when other programs - and the rest of the world
> > - uses this term differently.
> >
> > Eddie
> > _______________________________________________
>
> Gilles and Eddie,
> I propose to add a statement to the welcome page (Album root) that makes clear
> that Albums are a representation of folders. This is the page that is
> probably read by everyone starting to work with digiKam.
>

I was always very clear that this was so, it was a *major* plus for
me, it makes so much more sense when the program's way of showing
things reflects reality on the computer.

> "digiKam is a photo management program for the K Desktop Environment. It is
> designed to import, organize, improve and export your digital photographs on
> your computer.
> You are currently in the Album view mode of digiKam. The Albums are the real
> containers where your files are stored, they are identical with the folders
> on disk."
>
.... except they're directories!  :-)    For me 'folders' is a Windows
way of looking at things and continues the (stupid IMHO) pretence that
your computer's screen is remotely like a Desktop and a filing
cabinet.

Computers are *not* desks with drawers in and treating them as such
loses a lot of their power.

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

[Eddie Armstrong]

Chris G wrote:
> I was always very clear that this was so, it was a *major* plus for
> me, it makes so much more sense when the program's way of showing
> things reflects reality on the computer.
>  
>
by calling directories 'albums'
> .... except they're directories!  :-)    For me 'folders' is a Windows
> way of looking at things and continues the (stupid IMHO) pretence that
> your computer's screen is remotely like a Desktop and a filin
>  
I know - they were directories in DOS/Win before MS called them folders
- I think you just demonstrated another reason why they shouldn't be
called albums.
I know that this is ingrained in Digikam and seems immutable but (and
this is, it seems, only my opinion) calling directories 'Albums' is poor
usability.
When photographers deal with 'albums' in so many contexts it doesn't
make sense to add another one - especially when they could be called
directories and 'My Albums' used for Virtual albums.
Adding another Tab page to My Albums so we can see My Files (or
whatever), which is the files on the HDD and where My Albums was a
virtual representation of 'Albums' created by the user. Such albums may
well be the result of tag searches or otherwise defined - but this would
be a place to store e.g., family albums, albums of a shoot for
customers, albums for projects 'Wildlife ' etc.
Thus retaining the albums concept and clarifying when you are acting on
real files.
Anyway, it was just an idea - I think it more user-friendly, newbie
friendly, more professional and more accurately reflects the way people
think about these things.
Digikam is great and I look forward to the future of it but this will
always be an issue with me.
Eddie
 
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Eddie Armstrong]

Gerhard Kulzer wrote:

> I propose to add a statement to the welcome page (Album root) that makes clear
> that Albums are a representation of folders. This is the page that is
> probably read by everyone starting to work with digiKam.
>
> "digiKam is a photo management program for the K Desktop Environment. It is
> designed to import, organize, improve and export your digital photographs on
> your computer.
> You are currently in the Album view mode of digiKam. The Albums are the real
> containers where your files are stored, they are identical with the folders
> on disk."
>  

Gerhard
Obviously this would clarify the matter - and I accept Digikam uses
'albums' in it's own way - I would rather it used the word in the way
others used it.
The 'tags' view is more like albums except albums should be created by
the user  just as photo albums or scrap albums, portfolios etc are.
Having permanebt 'albums' in this sense would be a plus for Digikam, I feel.

Thanks for your response -  I am quite happy to let the matter drop -
but It will always be a little problem with Digikam for me.
Otherwise Digikam is becoming an excellent tool in Linux.
Eddie


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

[Gerhard Kulzer-3]

Am Saturday 05 January 2008 schrieb Eddie Armstrong:

> Gerhard Kulzer wrote:
> > I propose to add a statement to the welcome page (Album root) that makes
> > clear that Albums are a representation of folders. This is the page that
> > is probably read by everyone starting to work with digiKam.
> >
> > "digiKam is a photo management program for the K Desktop Environment. It
> > is designed to import, organize, improve and export your digital
> > photographs on your computer.
> > You are currently in the Album view mode of digiKam. The Albums are the
> > real containers where your files are stored, they are identical with the
> > folders on disk."
>
> Gerhard
> Obviously this would clarify the matter - and I accept Digikam uses
> 'albums' in it's own way - I would rather it used the word in the way
> others used it.

Your arguments against our current use of albums merit to be considered, in

particular in the long run. digiKam doesn't want to be different for the sake
of being different! It's true Albums are ingrained in digiKam, and adding
virtual albums on top of searches, tags, calendars and collections makes no
sense anymore. Maybe we should just drop albums in favor of files, or drop
the collections, replace them by albums and call the now Albums files.

I would be interested to know a bit more about the 'others' you mention, who
uses Albums as virtual containers?

We're well aware of the directory/folder circus, but it's (if I'm not
mistaken) a KDE policy to use the word 'folder'.

Gerhard

> The 'tags' view is more like albums except albums should be created by
> the user  just as photo albums or scrap albums, portfolios etc are.
> Having permanebt 'albums' in this sense would be a plus for Digikam, I
> feel.
>
> Thanks for your response -  I am quite happy to let the matter drop -
> but It will always be a little problem with Digikam for me.
> Otherwise Digikam is becoming an excellent tool in Linux.
> Eddie



--
><((((º> ¸.·´¯`·... ><((((º> ¸.·´¯`·...¸ ><((((º>
http://www.gerhard.fr

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

Op zaterdag 5 januari 2008, schreef Gerhard Kulzer:
  > I would be interested to know a bit more about the 'others' you
  > mention, who uses Albums as virtual containers?
I followed the discussion with some interest. Not that I am unhappy with
the current implementation of albums being the same as
folders/directories. But on the other hand, it took me some time when  
I started with digikam to grasp the idea.

At first I  also went with the idea that albums are virtual placeholders
for files saved elsewhere. And I think that most new users will.

So, in my opinion it would be good to consider the current practice.

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

[Eddie Armstrong]

Gerhard Kulzer wrote:
> and adding
> virtual albums on top of searches, tags, calendars and collections makes no
> sense anymore.
Not sure exactly what collections are for - I know you can add albums to
them but can you create them from say 'albums' + selected tags?
They would have to be versatile so you could store *exactly* what you
wanted to keep in each collection.
One possible difference would be if you were (say) making a
collection/album of wildlife photos; you might be able to search on tags
and star rating but you might want to edit exactly what files are in the
collection and maybe later arrange their viewing order (and maybe even
layout).
Maybe these are what *I* mean by 'Albums' - where the user collects
together  albums much as Photograph Albums ?
> Maybe we should just drop albums in favor of files, or drop
> the collections, replace them by albums and call the now Albums files.
>
>  
I do think files should be called files and folders folders (or
directories)- Perhaps this suggestion of yours is the best (depending on
the function of collections).
To Clarify: Do you mean:
Call Collections "Albums":
Call 'My Albums' something like "Folders"


> I would be interested to know a bit more about the 'others' you mention, who
> uses Albums as virtual containers?
>  
These are mostly apps that are for photo albums e.g. canon cameras
provide photo-album software as does Corel and others (all Windows)
there are probably Linux examples but I can't think of any straight off .
There is also the general idea of what a photo album is. And things like
portfolios or shoots could also be considered albums.
> We're well aware of the directory/folder circus, but it's (if I'm not
> mistaken) a KDE policy to use the word 'folder'.
>
>  
Well KDE certainly uses the word as do the apps e.g. Dolphin.

Eddie

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

Arnd Baecker said the following at 01/04/2008 08:42 AM :

>
> Well, sometimes it just means, that your mail has fallen through
> the cracks ... ;-)
>
>> One can always do it outside digikam I suppose,  but it just seems a
>> mite clumsy to switch to konqueror for this one task.
>
> To get virtual albums the concept of tags is the
> way to go in digikam:
> Just assign a tag to all images which should appear in a
> virtual album under that name and access it via the "Tags"
> sidebar on the left.
>

That really isn't an equivalent concept, though, and doesn't seem hugely
practical for a few reasons (not all of equal importance, of course):

1. Using tags means that only digikam is aware of the pictures in a virtual
album. So one loses all of the functionality that the OS and file manager
provides for files. So you can't for example, right click on a picture in
Konq and e-mail it. Or copy the album to a CD with Konq. Or share it with a
Windows user via a samba share. Or grant access via a mounted fuse
filesystem. Right there, this all seems like a showstopper.

2. It confuses the concept of a file qua file with the picture with that is
in the file. What I mean by this is that to create a virtual album of, say,
pictures that one might use for a calendar, one has to imbue the pictures
with some concept in common and give that concept a label (such as
"possible-calendar-pictures"), which is then used to put the pictures in
the virtual folder. But the pictures really have nothing in common as
pictures. So one's natural mental model (well, *my* natural mental model,
anyway) is thrown into disarray. Maybe no one else finds this a problem.
(As a protocol designer, though, this violates my mental layering, which is
almost always a bad thing.)

3. If the database gets hosed, I assume that the virtual folders became
equally hosed and can't be reconstructed by simply rebuilding. (Maybe I'm
wrong about that, but it seems at least plausible that the tagging
information is kept in the database, so you're in real trouble if the
database ever goes south.)

I'm not saying that the virtual-albums-through-tags implementation is
useless, not at all; I am saying that at least for some users, it doesn't
seem like a solution that will work with sufficient robustness. (For
example, I for one share everything via samba to a Windows machine that my
wife uses; she not unnaturally wants to be able to look in a folder of
pictures of our children. If the pictures in that directory are created via
ordinary links, then she can browse the directory and see pictures; if it's
all just entries in a digikam database, then she won't see anything.)

So I guess I am pleading/arguing for a feature that digikam would allow one
to "copy" a picture by creating a link, mimicking what one can do inside
Konq. For now, I'll just create the albums manually myself using Konq.

Thanks very much for the helpful reply, though.

  Doc



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