[digiKam-users] Digikam puts its "signature" in metadata even when no other changes - why?
cl at isbd.net
Fri Sep 21 12:12:24 BST 2018
Remco Viëtor <remco.vietor at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On jeudi 20 septembre 2018 23:07:42 CEST Chris Green wrote:
> > woenx <marcpalaus at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't know about the "signature", other software does the same thing.
> > Other software doing the same thing doesn't necessarily make it a good
> > idea! :-)
> But it does allow the software to see what kind of fields can be expected in
> the metadata, and how to interpret them.
Possibly, but how many programs are there out there that 'understand'
how Digikam uses the metadata?
> And if there's information about the processing, the program and version that
> created that information is really needed to make sure any replay can be done
> correctly. Different programs, and sometimes even different versions, can use
> different algorithms or interpret parameters differently. No information about
> creating program/version would make storing processing info useless: no
> reliable way to reuse it, and it is not really human-readable (you see the
> numbers, but you'll have no idea what they mean).
Yes, but in reality my images have been processed by several different
programs. Say I do major image enhancement/changes using Gimp or
Photoshop, then some changes to metadata using Photini and then I use
Digikam to manage the inmages. Having 'Digikam 5.9' in the metadata
would be totally misleading!
Also Digikam writes 'Digikam 5.9' into the metadata even when it
hasn't changed anything else at all.
More information about the Digikam-users