[Digikam-users] What am I doing wrong?

Stuart T Rogers stuart at stella-maris.org.uk
Sun Aug 31 20:07:55 BST 2014

On 31/08/14 13:27, guenter wrote:
> Am 31.08.2014 12:44, schrieb guenter:
>> Am 30.08.2014 12:09, schrieb Stuart T Rogers:
>>> OK so I have uploaded two images to my website, a before IMGP3685 and an
>>> after test3685 both jpegs. You can find them at
>> Hi Stuart,
>> when you compare these images with IM (e.g. compare IMGP3685.jpg
>> test3685.jpg  x: ) you'll see that a lot of pixels are affected by the
>> watermarking (unchanged pixels are shown white, changeds red). Maybe
>> these overall changes allow a better compression then?
>> I would have expected that only the image region with the watermark
>> would be affected. But this should know a digikam insider/programmer.
>> I tried same watermarking in batch queue here (dk 2.4.0, KDE 4.13.2)
>> with the same your result.
> Add:
> Adding the "Convert to JPEG"-tool as suggested in the mailing archive:
> http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/2010-October/011373.html
> and specifying there 100% quality creates a big result file but compare
> shows nevertheless changes allover the image. Maybe these changes come
> from the conversions jpeg -> internal format -> jpeg and the result is
> acceptable for you?

Bottom line here is that in my view there is a bug.

You should be able to start with a jpeg and using Batch Queue Manager 
add a watermark and save it as a jpeg and it should work EXACTLY like it 
does when using the digikam editor and saving the image. There should be 
NO need to add a Convert to JPEG to get it to work. As of now I will go 
back to using my Windows7 VM and a Windows program to watermark any 
images I need to and will not attempt to use digikam for this purpose 
again until this bug is fixed.

For me there is no more debate on this it is unquestionably a bug in 

Website: http://www.stella-maris.org.uk
or:      http://www.broadstairs.org

More information about the Digikam-users mailing list