Simon,
I think "group files with similar file name" would sound better. I bet "Similar" can include filename_v2, filename_v3 and other versions if we want to.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Simon Frei <freisim93 at gmail.com> Date: 2017-01-10 10:57 AM (GMT-07:00) To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the power of open source <digikam-users at kde.org> Subject: Re: Group JPG and RAW
@Andrey: I completely misinterpreted your earlier statements,
sorry. I just associated group by type with what it does in
digikam, without actually thinking about it.
I completely agree that semantically it is wrong to say group by
type. I wonder whether group by name (while correct) is clear.
Does a user, who doesn't already know what it is meant to do,
understand what is meant by name (namely the filename without the
extension)?
On 10/01/17 18:36, Andrey Goreev wrote:
For me *.DNG is one type and *.JPG is another type.
If you go to menubar - view - group images - group by format
this is grouping by type for me.
just saying...
Best
regards,
Andrey Goreev
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:24 AM,
Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>
wrote:
At least "Group by Type" must be "Group by
Type-Mime". Type Mime is already used in setup dialog.
Take a care. Wikipedia said that media type must be
used instead type mime tp prevent confusion. I'm not
agree. Media is a support of data, as network stream,
removable device, etc... Not only a file.
Gilles Caulier
2017-01-10 17:54 GMT+01:00
Christoph Huckle <chrihuc at gmail.com>:
Hi Simon,
In the past I would have agreed with your
explanation about grouping by type, but after
thinking about it, the group's don't hold images of
the same type and that's what grouping by type
means.
So, I apologize for picking that expression and am
the opinion that correct would be grouping by name.
Regards,
Christoph
Simon Frei <freisim93 at gmail.com>
schrieb am Di., 10. Jan. 2017, 17:30:
Hi Andrey,
I completely agree that the naming of
grouping is confusing. Do you have a
suggestion how the two functionalities could
be named instead?
One is grouping icons by album/format/not at
all in the main view (that's why it is in
the "View" menu) and the other groups actual
image files together (->context menu).
Maybe the view grouping could be called
structure instead of group and keeping group
terminology for images. I am not a native
English speaker, so I am very unsure on the
subject.
Regarding "Group selected by type": This
says exactly what it does: It groups any
file ("name.extension") that shares name but
has a different extension. So 00001.arw is
grouped together with 00001.jpg, but also
with 00001.tif or any other extension.
Cheers,
Simon
On 10/01/17 17:04,
Andrey Goreev wrote:
Hello
Christoph,
Thank
you a ton for your contribution!
I have been actually looking for that
group RAW / JPG option in "(Menubar) -
View - Group Images".
The fact that that menu menu does match
the "Right click (on images) - Group"
menu is pretty confusing. Plus, again,
the option is called "Group selected by
type" instead of "Group RAW and JPG" so
I bet there are many users out there
that have no idea the option actually
exists.
Just
some thoughts.
Best regards,
Andrey Goreev
On
Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Simon
Frei <freisim93 at gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi
Christoph,
First: 5.4.0 is out: https://www.digikam.org/node/764
It isn't anything big,
nevertheless important (at
least for my workflow).
Citing from the release text:
Grouped items are now
processed together. Previously
operations
would only apply to the
top image in the group (i.e.
the image
displayed when grouped
images are hidden). In other
words, applying,
for example, a tag to a
top image in a group will
assign the tag to
all images in this group.
On 10/01/17 10:33, Christoph
Huckle wrote:
Hello
Both,
Sorry
you are correct, I picked
the wrong expression...
@Simon,
I'm not fully in the loop,
as I'm not a team member,
just programmed that
feature for myself and
then in made it's way
upstream :) but what are
the cases you are talking
about, which will be fixed
in 5.4.0?
Thanks
Christoph
Andrey
Goreev <aegoreev at gmail.com>
schrieb am Mo., 9. Jan.
2017 um 19:34 Uhr:
Hello Simon,
It actually worked!
Thank you!
To be honestly I thought
"group by type" means
group by extension. RAW
and JPG files are
different type but same
file name for me.
Best regards,
Andrey Goreev
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017
at 3:50 AM, Simon
Frei <freisim93 at gmail.com>
wrote:
I haven't read
those
conversations,
but grouping by
extension is
implemented. I
use it
frequently. The
behaviour was
somewhat strange
(grouped images
were not in all
appropriate
cases processed
together), but
that will be
corrected in
5.4.0.
To group raw and
jpg, select all
to be grouped
images (so all
jpg and raw
files) and in
the context menu
select group
-> group
selected by
type.
On 03/01/17 23:56,
Andrey Goreev
wrote:
Hello,
I have read
the following
threads but
could not
understand
what the
actual status
is.
https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/2015-August/021374.html
https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/2010-September/011117.html
That feature
is very useful
for the
culling
process.
Please let me
know if I
could be of
any help in
getting this
feature
released.
Best regards,
Andrey Goreev
--
Christoph
Huckle
Unterm
Aspalter 22
5106
Veltheim
076
419 62 61
--
Christoph Huckle
Unterm Aspalter 22
5106 Veltheim
076 419 62 61
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20170110/e68d3eba/attachment.html>