[Digikam-users] Review of Digikam
david at familyaldred.org.uk
Sat Dec 16 16:56:02 GMT 2006
On Saturday 16 December 2006 12:46, Duncan Hill wrote:
> > of course the better way should be to have data stored IN
> > the image, but this seems to be unlikely
> There was at least one poster in the past few weeks who was absolutely
> horrified at the concept of changing ANY data in the image, including
> meta-data. Your better way is his worst way :)
It might be good to have this as an option, though, if it's practicable.
Me: I'd rather have the data in the image file - that way I only lose the data
if I lose the picture file (by which time it's too late to matter!).
That doesn't stop the data also being in a sqlite database for speed and ease
of access, but it does mean the loss of the database doesn't involve the loss
of all my additional information. (It would also then need a function to
re-read the image files and recreate the database in case of disaster).
More information about the Digikam-users