[digiKam-users] Is changing the date of a photo a destructive process?
mnaugendre at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 21:46:10 GMT 2018
I liked better the previous process, outside the BQM. It could be used on a
selection, displayed a preview of the new date before update and - of
course - acted on the original picture.
I don't understand why it had been incorporated in the BQM, it is much less
2018-03-07 18:50 GMT+01:00 Maik Qualmann <metzpinguin at gmail.com>:
> The BQM needs a target file. If there are no image editing tools in the
> list, a copy is made from the source file and no changes are made to the
> data. Even overwrite mode to the target file is safe.
> Am Mittwoch, 7. März 2018, 16:54:30 CET schrieb woenx:
> > Hi again,
> > I have been doing some tests, comparing images before and after the date
> > changed in the Batch Queue Manager using an image comparer (
> > http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-
> > r.shtml
> > <http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-
> > rer.shtml> )
> > The file generated after a date change is identical to the original, not
> > single pixel was changed. File size is different due to changes in the
> > metadata, but that's it.
> > As a comparison, I tried to open and save the same JPG picture using
> > Microsoft Paint, and the image comparer found lots of differences to the
> > original.
> > Therefore, I conclude that changing the date in digikam is a lossless
> > process.
> > PS: now, if only the date changing process were more intuitive in
> > --
> > Sent from: http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/digikam-users-
Découvrez mes photos sur mon site <http://marie-noelle-augendre.com> ou ma
page Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/PhotographeEnCevennes?ref=bookmarks>
et tous mes livres-photos sur le site Blurb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Digikam-users