<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
There is clearly a misconception here:<br>
The "Date modified", "mtime" or whatever it is called property is
NOT the time a picture was taken. That information is stored in the
file itself, in the exif header. So the moment of your capture does
not change at all unless you specifically do so using tools to
modify the exif header of the file. <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/01/17 15:30, Andrey Goreev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9e7uhstk1cgsmmssynn84cx4.1484404134572@email.android.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div>Well, I take pictures to capture moments. So why should the
date of the moment be changed if I simply added an info in order
to be able to find that picture later ? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from my
Samsung Galaxy smartphone.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage -->
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: Simon Frei <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:freisim93@gmail.com"><freisim93@gmail.com></a> </div>
<div>Date: 2017-01-14 7:24 AM (GMT-07:00) </div>
<div>To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a
professional with the power of open source
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org"><digikam-users@kde.org></a> </div>
<div>Subject: Re: digikam default options </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
Well that is your philosophy. Mine is that anytime a file is
modified on disk (the metadata header is part of the file) the
timestamp should be updated. There is no correct philosophy, that
is why there is an option to set the behaviour to ones taste.<br>
The usual (as in not photography related) behaviour is to change
the timestamp on any file when it gets modified, so that is why
this is the standard behaviour in digikam.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/01/17 15:14, Andrey Goreev
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:rhu0h62n4n5lgbsxede1lhxj.1484403294594@email.android.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div>Wanted to add to my message below.</div>
<div>I think adding any info to metadata should not be
considered as "file modifying". Why would you add any
metadata? To get your pictures organized, right? So why would
mess with timestamps then? Original timestamps should be
preserved.</div>
<div>If you actually develop a picture that is a different case.
Filestamp should be up to date.</div>
<div>IMHO.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from
my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage -->
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: Andrey Goreev <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:aegoreev@gmail.com"><aegoreev@gmail.com></a>
</div>
<div>Date: 2017-01-14 7:04 AM (GMT-07:00) </div>
<div>To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:cerp@eeos.biz">cerp@eeos.biz</a>, digiKam -
Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the
power of open source <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org"><digikam-users@kde.org></a>
</div>
<div>Subject: Re: digikam default options </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>I guess it is not clear what the "file timestamp" is and
what is considered "file modifying".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are tons of date tags in metadata (try to "exiftool
-s filename" one of your files has been modified few times
using different programs. You will be surprised how many
date/time tags are there. So which one being updated when the
option is on?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also, is adding a keyword or caption or label or
geolocation considered a file modifying? Or that only applies
to an image that has been touched in Image Editor module?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from
my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage -->
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: cerp <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cerp@eeos.biz"><cerp@eeos.biz></a>
</div>
<div>Date: 2017-01-14 6:50 AM (GMT-07:00) </div>
<div>To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a
professional with the power of open source <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:digikam-users@kde.org"><digikam-users@kde.org></a>
</div>
<div>Subject: Re: digikam default options </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
This is exactly the second problem we have: when you modify the
exif <br>
data of the JPG or RAW fle, for example for adding copyright <br>
information, or photograph title and description (important for
some <br>
assignment and for some contests / prizes), the file timestamp
is <br>
modified, which means the whole time order is screwed and when
you <br>
then try to open the photographs with another editor or DAM
tool. <br>
Would it be possible to have the option to switch off
modification of <br>
the file timestamp when we only modify the exif data?<br>
<br>
Best Regards<br>
<br>
Corrado & Rina<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Quoting Remco Viëtor <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:remco.vietor@wanadoo.fr"><remco.vietor@wanadoo.fr></a>:<br>
<br>
> On samedi 14 janvier 2017 13:55:04 CET Gilles Caulier
wrote:<br>
>> 2017-01-14 13:51 GMT+01:00 Remco Viëtor <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:remco.vietor@wanadoo.fr"><remco.vietor@wanadoo.fr></a>:<br>
>> > On jeudi 12 janvier 2017 08:49:06 CET Andrey
Goreev wrote:<br>
>> > > Hello,<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > I thought it might be not a bad idea to let
users activate/deactivate<br>
>> > > the<br>
>> > > following options during the initial setup
wizard:<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > * Update file timestamp when files are
modified (activated by default)<br>
>> > > * Always show original images (deactivated by
default)<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > I have a feeling that many users would prefer
to have updating the file<br>
>> > > timestamp box unchecked and show original
images checked.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Showing original images as default: yes; that
avoids images appearing as<br>
>> > 'not<br>
>> > present' and considered 'lost' (see mailing
list...)<br>
>> ><br>
>> > NOT updating timestamps as default: no, for at
least one simple reason.<br>
>> > If you mean the file "last-modified" timestamp,
not updating that would<br>
>> > break<br>
>> > all "make-like" programs and scripts, that use
that timestamp to see if a<br>
>> > particular fiel needs treatment?<br>
>><br>
>> Ah i miss-understand your previous mail. The option is
enabled by default<br>
>> and your want to see this option turned off now. Right
?<br>
>><br>
>> Gilles Caulier<br>
><br>
> It's my first mail in this thread, so, "which previous
mail"? :^)<br>
> My reply was to Andrey Goreev (the OP)<br>
><br>
> For the record, I agree with what you stated as Digikam
defaults in your<br>
> earlier mail (Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:10:12 +0000 (UTC)):<br>
> Update file timestamps : YES<br>
> Always show original images : YES<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>