metzpinguin at gmail.com
Sun Apr 28 17:30:45 BST 2019
Thanks for the test image. It is recognized here with a creation date of
1999-09-14 01:00:00. I think it is correct.
Am Sonntag, 28. April 2019, 17:50:08 CEST schrieben Sie:
> The DateTimeOriginal has a higher priority in the selection. Can you provide
> a test image? By Private Mail?
> Am Samstag, 27. April 2019, 19:57:17 CEST schrieb woenx:
> > I think that might be a side effect of the resolution of this bug:
> > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338533
> > Dates in the image can be stored in three places: Exif, IPTC and XMP. In
> > turn, Exif has Creation date/time, Original date/time (what you referred
> > in
> > the subject), and digitization date/time. IPTC also has digitization and
> > creation, and XMP digitization, creation and, for some reason, video date.
> > I am not sure how exactly the algorithm determines which is the "Creation
> > Date" that digikam uses from all these fields, but apparently if two or
> > more field matches, that date has a higher priority. In any case, in
> > digikam 5.9 Exif's Creation date/time had a higher priority than Exif's
> > Original date/time, but that was changed. That's because Creation date
> > and time is often considered a modified date/time by other software
> > (picasa and lightroom, at least) and will get overwritten often, while
> > and Original date/time is the true "Creation Date" of the picture (should
> > match digitization date, if that field is used). Actually, "EXIF
> > creation date" is called "Modify Date" in exiftool.
> > Yeah, it can be a bit confusing.
> > I'd check the metadata of the image using the metadata editor, and see
> > what
> > dates are there. Digikam's creation date should be either Exif "Original
> > date and time", Xmp "Creation date", or IPTC Creation date" as first
> > options. Or any digitization dates if these are not present or are not
> > consistent.
> > If you need to copy dates from one field to another from multiple
> > pictures,
> > the TimeAdjust plugin does a good job.
> > --
> > Sent from:
> > http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/digikam-users-f1735189.html
More information about the Digikam-users