[Digikam-users] Re: Importing Tags from Images

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
> Hello Martin
> 

> >> 
> >> Tried it. It did nothing :-(
> >> 
> >> I took a bit a deeper look into it. The Keywords are stored in
> >> iptc. If I take a look at the metadata of the image in digikam,
> >> I see that the keywords are there.
> >> 
> >> Re-Importing the metadata does not help.
> > 
> > I never tried it, I usually go the other way around. But a few
> > years ago I move my photos from one folder to another and all
> > tags were imported correctly.
> 
> I've killed my sqlite files not for the first time. It always
> worked without any problems.
> 
> > As I am using raw photos allot, I can not store metadata into
> > files (even if it were possible, I don't like the idea - sidecar
> > files are the way to go here).
> 
> yeah. Like darktable is doing. I like this idea as well. The
> heavily cluttered image directories are just a cosmetic issue I
> think.

I like darktable for doing my raw stuff. There are some minor things 
missing, but the UI and most of the tools are great.

One point I don't like with sidecar files: you have to copy two files 
for every photo. But I hope digikam takes care of this. most of the 
time I organize my photos with digikam.

> 
> >> It seems that it is a problem related to the mysql backend. I've
> >> opened a bug and found, that there are similar problems with the
> >> migration tool when migrating from sqlite to mysql.
> >> Also, there seems to be a problem if you're not giving the
> >> database user full privileges on your whole database server but
> >> only on the used database :-(
> > 
> > I don't like the idea to use a database server for this. I had
> > many little problems with akonadi (uses mysql server embeded).
> > With every new version of mysql there were other problems. I can
> > not see any advantage that mysql brings. I will stay with
> > sqlite. Easy to back up and I can move it wherever I want.
> 
> I like databases. they are fast and convenient. And there are good
> tools around to keep them sane .-)
> Ok... mysqldump is not as nice as just copying a file around, and
> MySQL is notorious for problems when updating from one version to
> another, but beside that? :-)
> SQL works over the network and only the data, that is needed is
> moved over the connection. So there are benefits. And as soon as
> digikam becomes multi-user-aware I can see quite some benefits in
> a real SQL database (yeah, I know, they say that MySQL isn't a
> "real" SQL-Database :-))

Yeah, I use database server where I need them, but with photos this is 
different. I need the photos anyway, so there is no benefit in using a 
dedicated DB server. And sharing my settings is a little bit 
difficult. I have private photos nobody else shall see my metadata 
for, I have semi private ones my family can see my metadata and I have 
public ones. With this you have to implement a permission system or 
something like a multi database backend into digikam.

To my point of view, sharing metadata via sidecar files is easier to 
handle than via DB.

Greetings

Martin