[Digikam-users] Question about RAW processing: ufraw files?

gerlos gerlosgm at gmail.com
Tue Apr 7 12:42:02 CEST 2009


In data lunedì 06 aprile 2009 19:51:40, Mikolaj Machowski ha scritto:
: > On Monday 06 April 2009 01:15:12 gerlos wrote:
> > I think that scripting and command line operation could be that
> > "something" more that could do the difference between digiKam and picasa
> > or other alternatives... that linux console thing, with scripting, could
> > add a lot of features to our favourite photo managing software, don't
> > you think?
> >
> > Maybe we should leave a door open to it, even if it isn't in the to do
> > list at the moment...
> >
> > I hope I didn't write stupid things.
>
> On one hand your wishes are sensible - for long time this was also my wish.
> But on the other hand new batch tool in 0.11 (svn trunk) looks very
> promising. Of course at the moment there is no complete functionality
> provided by all kipi/digikam plugins + ui is a bit rough (I plan to write
> more about this soon on devel list) but future looks really good.

Wow... I can't wait for it! :-)

> There is other thing I still think would be nice addition to digiKam:
> easier cooperation from inside digiKam with other tools - also some console
> tools like ImageMagick.

Maybe something like service menus in knqueror/dolphin? It would be really 
great! 
I could put together a really complex command script to do something really 
strange, and trigger it on my photos just choosing it from some menu in 
digikam... I'd love a feature like this!

> Last but not least: apart from Gilles attitude to this solution I
> understand that Qt/KDE framework isn't really designed for headless (read:
> no-GUI) operation like you want to do. To do this for existing program
> would mean some awful hacks, big, big, really big code refactoring, etc.
> Without those - even when communicating by dbus would require start-up of
> GUI which defeats whole concept of command line tools.

I understand these difficulties, I didn't though it was so an hard work. So the 
batch queue manager is the fastest and more efficient (and last but not least, 
easy for the user) way to go, isn't it?

> Note that more extensive dbus interface - especially for metadata plugins -
> would make digiKam easier to use in some heavy duty environments with
> existing data structures (second thing I want to elaborate on devel list).

Mmm... I didn't understand this last point... :-(

regards
gerlos


-- 
"Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more
of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something
else. The trick is the doing something else."
           < http://gerlos.altervista.org >
 gerlos  +- - - >  gnu/linux registred user #311588


More information about the Digikam-users mailing list