[Digikam-users] Photographs with metadata...

[Dennis Meulensteen]

jdd wrote:
> Daniel Bauer wrote:
>
>   
>> important to me for sorting things out, but not for public eyes. 
>>     
>
> should still be in the image, but crypted
> jdd
>   
Why? Isn't this the Open Source advantage? Digikam does not use a closed 
system, so anyone can just write a conversion script if needed.
I don't consider it a big deal if meta data is kept in a database, it 
has lots of speed advantages, can be managed (updated and backed up) 
easily etc. With closed source software, its a different story 
altogether. reading headers out of large RAW files in all sorts of 
formats is inefficient, slows things down, exposes the system to 
obsoletion and introduces lots of  complexity.

I personally don't want any tampering at all with my original RAW files, 
however well meant. Computers and OSes are such complex systems that no 
one can tell you when the next bug will bite. I can guarantee you that 
it will though. I've been a developer and DBA/ designer for long enough 
to mistrust computers and software to the point of paranoia. Trust me, 
you don't want to mess with Murphy...

IMO, putting precious developer effort into write support on RAW files 
is a shameful waste of time. I'm not talking about some intermediate 
format like DNG, which could be very useful.

Regards,
Dennis