[digiKam-users] Digikam puts its "signature" in metadata even when no other changes - why?

[Maik Qualmann]

https://cgit.kde.org/digikam.git/commit/?
id=f969875cb3a9ff70e927364f5d406229505b70fd

Maik

Am Freitag, 21. September 2018, 21:43:36 CEST schrieben Sie:
> Ok, interesting discussion. If I look at the definition of Exiv2:
> 
> Exif.Image.ProcessingSoftware => The name and version of the software used
> to post-process the picture.
> 
> Would I understand it so that only with changes to the image data is a
> software entry. So I would suggest that only the image editor sets the
> software entries, but also the lossless JPEG rotation. Metadata changes
> write no digiKam software entrys.
> 
> Maik
> 
> Am Freitag, 21. September 2018, 13:28:04 CEST schrieb Stefan Müller:
> > Also Digikam writes 'Digikam 5.9' into the metadata even when it
> > hasn't changed anything else at all.
> > totally agree, there should be some kind of differentiation
> > 
> > 
> > On 21.09.2018 13:12, Chris Green wrote:
> > 
> > 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.