[Digikam-users] Migration problems - Digikam 1.8 to 2.0
davidvj at frontier.com
Mon Sep 12 22:50:21 BST 2011
There is however a school of thought that maintain that writing data
directly into an image file can be a source of corruption and that such
an approach to the raw image file is totally unacceptable.
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 23:27 +0200, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Anders Stedtlund wrote:
> > This is not going to help but I'm just curious. (I might have missed
> > something in the conversation...)
> > Do you really mean that you lose all your tags whenever you upgrade to
> > a new version? I can't remember that I ever have had that problem when
> > upgrading to a new version.
> I think one of the best advantages of digital photos is that you can store
> data inside the image file, i.e. camera and lens information, but also
> comments, copyright, geo tags, etc.
> If you give those photos away to someone else then those people have all the
> information available, if you want.
> The advantage of using a database is that a program like digikam can search
> very much faster for photos which match certain criteria.
> In my opinion the best practice is to save all meta data inside the photos, so
> if your database gets corrupted for any reason you can always rebuild the
> database from the information inside the photos.
> This is also a good thing if you should sometimes decide to use a different
> photo management software than DK. OK, OK, this will never happen as long as
> DK is such an excellent program ;-))
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
More information about the Digikam-users