[Digikam-users] Several Questions

[Mikolaj Machowski]

On Monday 23 February 2009 22:00:09 Thomas Guettler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have about 16,000 photos in the directory structure YYYY/MM/DD/.
> I use digikam 0.9.3

Try to update to newer version 0.9.5rc is very stable. Even better would be 
0.10rc2 - also stable despite "rc" designation. But you need KDE4 for that.

> 1. Starting digikam takes too long. Will the check for new or missing
> images be done in the background in newer versions?

Start of 0.10 is faster in that field. Unfortunately Marble is using that time 
for its own purposes...

> 2. It would be very nice if you could tag directories like files and
> with the same (nested) catalog of keywords. Example: 2009/02/01 contains
> pictures of skiing with friend FOO. A tag on the directory means
> FOO was there. A tag on the one image means FOO can be seen on the
> picture. I am lazy and would tag only directories in the first run.

For flat categorization you can use... Album categories. 

Man, I remember times when digiKam couldn't handle nested *folders*, now you 
want nested everything. Get off my lawn! ;)

> 3. digikam seems to always create 256x256 thumbnails, even if you
> display the previews smaller then 128. My old application used 128x128
> and I discovered, that these thumbnails were not loaded, but new ones
> got created. Is this intended?

Yes. Create thumbnails one time for faster displaying later. Small thumbnails 
were recreated probably because paths to images were changed.

> 4. How do you tag a lot of pictures? I can type with ten fingers, and
> want to avoid to use the mouse. Is auto completion possible?
> Example: Tag "Familiy/Till" with auto completion I only want to type
> "till" or even only "til" (if this is unique) and the tag "Familiy/Till"
> should be set.

I later versions (0.9.5? I don't think it was available in 0.9.4) tag creation 
and assignation was improved.

> 5. Which database based web galeries are supported? If I had more time,
> I would write a django web front end.
>
gallery for sure; maybe others

m.