[Digikam-users] Re: Importing Tags from Images

[Gilles Caulier]

2011/3/7 Martin (KDE) <kde at fahrendorf.de>:
> 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.

But it's really slower than a DB to search and play with items into a
photo management software.

Gilles Caulier