[Digikam-users] Re: Importing Tags from Images

[Marco Tedaldi]

Am 07.03.2011 11:11, schrieb Gilles Caulier:
> 2011/3/7 Martin (KDE) <kde at fahrendorf.de>:
>> Am Sonntag, 6. März 2011 schrieb Marco Tedaldi:
>>> 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.
>>
We're talking version 0.8 here actually. The goal is different than
digikam. I think these two tools could make a really great team for
photo management / raw workflow stuff!

>> 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.
>>
Yes. That's not really cool. On the other hand, it's really easy and
straight forward to handle!


>>> 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. 

Yes and no. For me it's the desicion of an ugly workaround (symlink to
the sqlite file on my harddisk) and loosing the benefits of networked
computers entrirely... or letting my computer copy around my db files
every time. Or using a real database.
I wonder, what happens if I start digikam on more than one computer at
the same time with the Mysql backend...

>> 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.
>>
As long as sqlite and network shares don't mix (and I think they never
will... db-like files over network shares is just ugly!) there is a
strong point for the dedicated db for me.
At least as long as I have mysql running on my server anyway.


>> 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.
> 
Yeah. Sidecars is like Metadata in the image. It is just a copy! The
tool should use the db for searches and stuff and do everything to keep
the metadata and the db synced.

But there is one point towards sqlite and against mysql with digikam:
With sqlite it works! :-/

best regards

Marco