Setting metadata for a few images (like 500) freezes digikam.

[Anders Lund]

My planned workflow goes about like this:

- Take a lot of photos
- Select some for publishing
- Add a default title to all of those (although it would be smart to
  just add that to ALL photos, as I may later publish extra)
- Add a special title ("bow #") for photos containing boats with
  bow numbers
- run a script (digikam batch processing) that generates a title for
  those images, using a database, this will be something like "DEN 1442
  Peter Jensen", script is written in perl. The title is written back
  into the photos.
- Process and export images using darktable (I usually us a style, and
  then adjusts rotation and optionally exposure and others).
- run a script (digikam batch processing) that generates a footer
  image with some logos and text (including the title) that is then
  glued to the bottom of the jpg using ImageMagick.
- publish photos to facebook and web gallery using digikam plugins.

So I need something that can safely read/write on the xmp files, if I
use those. Appearently Image::ExifTool can *write* xmps, but not read
them.

Kindly,
Anders


På Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:56:27 -0600
Andrey Goreev <aegoreev at gmail.com> skrev:
> If you write to sidecards you can review the metadata using a simple
> text file viewer/editor like notepad on Windows.
> darktable writes to sidecards too (if the option selected in settings)
> 
> And yeah, I agree on your thought that the slowness comes from digikam
> unnessecarily reloading and rewriting
> thumbnails
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Anders Lund <anders at alweb.dk> wrote:
> 
> > På Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:41:22 -0600
> > Andrey Goreev <aegoreev at gmail.com> skrev:
> > > digikam and darktable share xmp sidecars pretty good (I have not
> > > noticed any bugs).
> >
> > So I could elect to add the data to the xmp file? But for my planned
> > workflow, I rely on them being in the image, I read (and write) them
> > with perl Image::ExifTool.
> >
> > > Also I think the slow process of adding descriptions to images
> > > isn't related to adding metadata to RAW.
> >
> > All my RAWs (CR2s) appearently survived the experiment. I'm quite
> > sure the slowness comes from digikam unnessecarily reloading and
> > rewriting thumbnails.
> >
> > > I have experienced same behavior with JPEGs.
> > > Maybe my machine is slower than what an average user have
> > > nowadays... (Core i5-2520M 2.50GHz with 8Gb RAM
> > > Or maybe my HDD is slow or something else... (2.5" 7200 RPM over
> > > SATA 3.0 Gb/s bus)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Anders Lund <anders at alweb.dk>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Gilles,
> > > >
> > > > På Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:17:38 +0200
> > > > Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com> skrev:
> > > > > Don't use this option. I plan to remove this. The RAW write
> > > > > support in Exiv2 still unstable and nothing work on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The option is disabled by default. Don't change it.
> > > >
> > > > I'll uncheck it again, and maybe it was a bit silly to test with
> > > > that many inmages.
> > > >
> > > > The reason is that I use an external program (darktable) for
> > > > processing, and it would be smart if meta data could be shared.
> > > > For my planned workflow, in some cases the description would be
> > > > used for adding a text to the image using darktables built-in
> > > > facility for that. I'll find a workaround for now :)
> > > >
> > > > > Gilles Caulier
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-07-15 15:15 GMT+02:00 Anders Lund <anders at alweb.dk>:
> > > > > > Hi list,
> > > > > > In preparation for my next event, I am experimenting with
> > > > > > digikam. One of my thoughts is to get a description or title
> > > > > > into every image, which may be a default.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I tried doing this:
> > > > > > - Go to an album with about 500 photos.
> > > > > > - Select all.
> > > > > > - Put something in the description field of the metadata
> > > > > > sidebar.
> > > > > > - Press Apply.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, digikam is mostly frozen, having worked for > 10
> > > > > > minutes. Most of the files in the album are raws, but I
> > > > > > checked the experimental option to write to raw files.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this how the state of this is? Because I mostly find this
> > > > > > unusable, if this is the way it works, I need another tool
> > > > > > to do this task :( Tricks to make this work better?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kindly,
> > > > > > Anders
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >