[Digikam-users] What am I doing wrong?

Stuart T Rogers stuart at stella-maris.org.uk
Sat Aug 30 15:37:32 BST 2014

Well what I will do is use both imagemagic and gimp to put a watermark 
on the image and see what file size I get from them. I think you might 
be right but there is certainly still a doubt in my mind about this, not 
sure that a camera would be that poor at compression especially a quite 
recent one.


On 30/08/14 12:40, Remco Viƫtor wrote:
> On Saturday 30 August 2014 10:18:40 Stuart T Rogers wrote:
>> Well not sure how to do this.... the only command used was a watermark
>> using text and no background at 20% size otherwise all default values
>> and I renamed them and stored them in the same folder (album). The input
>> images were standard jpegs from my Pentax K500 and the saved files were
>> also jpegs. I looked for compression settings on the batch queue manager
>> but cold not find any. Comparing the images afterwards showed the
>> renamed ones at about 1.8 or 1.9MB but the same pixel resolution as the
>> originals which seems to me that somewhere a compression setting of less
>> than 100% was used but as I say I cannot find anywhere how to set this
>> for jpegs in the batch queue manager.
> That helps already.
> As you manipulate the image by adding the watermark, the image will have to
> be recompressed on saving. And like was said in a similar thread, a PC has
> more power than a camera, so it might do a better job at compressing w/o
> degradation.
> Also, looking at the images you  provided, I don't see any degradation. So
> if you agree on that point, there seems to be no problem. Unless, perhaps,
> when you have to do more editing on the images (but then why put the
> watermark already...)
> Remco.
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

More information about the Digikam-users mailing list