[Digikam-users] Re: Rating based on quality or content? Ideas, comments?

[Johnny]

Remco Viëtor <remco.vietor at wanadoo.fr> writes:

>
> I try and rate on content, and delete if quality is insufficient.
I have some scanned photos managed in Digikam as well, e.g. a photo of
my great-grandfather as a child, however the quality is pretty
bad. Rather, compared to some of the latest diving pictures I took last
vacation with great macro and vivid colors (after some touh-up in Gimp),
the quality could be said to be horrible. However, diving photos (and
other recently taken pictures), I have loads of, while old (e.g. family)
picutes, I have very few.

> So for me, there would no need to go back every so often to adjust the
> 'quality' tags (which is what your system would require).
No, on the contrary. My great-grandfathers photo would simply rate 1 on
quality, but 5 on content. However, the diving pictures would rate 3-5
on quality, and 1-3 on content (except that close-up of the mandible of
the great white maybe...)

> Also, a borderline quality that is kept, has value, so wouldn't be
> deleted anyway, why complicate things with two ratings
Agree, but even if it is not deleted, it is not easily identifiable. I
sometimes want to see my pictures with precious content (e.g. reunions)
and at other times with great quality (e.g. showing off :)), and
sometimes both (for printing that family album).

> (I'm not a professional, so no problems related to selling pictures)
Concur!


Thinking about it, it is similar to a risk register; one one axis you
have the probability, and on the other the consequency. For pictures
this analogy would be quality - content, where pictures in the lower
left corners are candidates for deletion and the upper right ones are
for the albums.


 Quality
          |                  Few lucky
          |   Awesome pics     shots
          |      here
          |
          |
          |
          |
          |  Crap          Precious 
          |  Here           pics here
          +-----------------------
                                 Content


Sorry, I am going off on a tangent here...
--
Johnny