[digiKam-users] versions of pictures

[frederic chaume]

Hi Maik

I was using the "applying a metadata model" tool from the BQM in a 
workflow amongst other tools like watermark, resize,  and the image 
version generated with such BQM workflow were not visible in the version 
sidebar.
When removing the "applying a metadata model" tool from the workklow , 
the image version generated is now visible

by the way rating or tag is not availble in the BQM, no?


Regards
Frederic

Le 25/04/2022 à 13:10, Maik Qualmann a écrit :
> Changing metadata does not create a new image version. Then just adding a
> rating or a tag would create a new version.
>
> Maik
>
> Am Montag, 25. April 2022, 10:03:52 CEST schrieb frederic chaume:
>> Hi Maik
>>
>> Just noticed that the jpg are missing in the version sidebar  when I
>> include a metada model in the BQM process.
>> Is that normal ?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Frederic
>>
>> Le 25/04/2022 à 09:30, frederic chaume a écrit :
>>> Maik
>>>
>>> in fact when I unset de flag in BQM "save image as a newly created
>>> branch" , the result is not exactly what I was expecting
>>> let me summarize the scenario
>>>
>>> *X-original.jpg*          ==BQM process ==> *X-processed.jpg*    ==>
>>> another BQM process   ==> *X-processed-2.jpg*
>>>
>>> What I would like to see in the version sidebar
>>>
>>>      *X-original.jpg*
>>>      *X-processed.jpg *
>>>      *X-processed-2.jpg*
>>>
>>> but the result is not as expected and seems independent of the flag
>>> "save image as a newly created branch"
>>>
>>> in some case , the version sidebar is showing
>>>
>>>      *X-original.jpg*
>>>
>>> in some other case
>>>
>>>      *X-processed.jpg *
>>>      *X-processed-2.jpg*
>>>
>>> *
>>> *and in some case*
>>> *
>>>
>>>      **X-original.jpg**
>>>      **X-processed.jpg **
>>>      **X-processed-2.jpg**
>>>
>>> *
>>> *so I have some question :*
>>> *
>>>
>>>    * why in some case *X-original.jpg* is missing. I didn't figure out
>>>    
>>>      the difference when the *X-original.jpg* is missing or not. What I
>>>      just notice is that it seems to be dependant of the folder : there
>>>      are some folders where all the *X-original.jpg* are visible , and
>>>      other where all the *X-original.jpg* are missing. => what can make
>>>      the *X-original.jpg* missing or not in the version sidebar ?
>>>    
>>>    * why in some case *X-processed.jpg* is missing. Some of my BQM
>>>    
>>>      processed set the destination folder in another collection, can it
>>>      be the reason why the file is not visible in the version sidebar ?
>>>      in that case anything to do ?
>>>    
>>>    * what is the difference between setting or unsetting the flag "save
>>>    
>>>      image as a newly created branch" in the behavior? I don't see any
>>>      (or I missed something)
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> Frederic
>>>
>>> Le 24/04/2022 à 15:07, frederic chaume a écrit :
>>>> Hi Maik
>>>>
>>>> thanks for your answer
>>>> Effectively there is a  version sidebar , but only versions created
>>>> by the DK editor are visible here. I was looking for a solution to
>>>> get a similar view of different versions of the same file.
>>>> Good news , as you indicated, in BQM , I just unset the option "save
>>>> image as a newly created branch" and now I can see effectively the
>>>> generated versions in the version sidebar. thanks
>>>>
>>>> other option was similarity, but as the generated jpeg may be
>>>> different in term of size, format and watermark, the result is not
>>>> accurate
>>>>
>>>> Frederic
>>>>
>>>> Le 24/04/2022 à 13:07, Maik Qualmann a écrit :
>>>>> Maybe I don't fully understand the problem. The digiKam main view
>>>>> also has a
>>>>> version sidebar. You can see all versions of the image as a
>>>>> thumbnail there.
>>>>> Hovering over an entry will bring up a small image icon, clicking on
>>>>> this will
>>>>> take you straight to the album where the image is located.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand what you mean by version link at BQM. The BQM has
>>>>> a setting
>>>>> under Behavior whether a new standalone image is created or a new
>>>>> version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maik
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Sonntag, 24. April 2022, 11:04:56 CEST schrieb frederic chaume:
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> using DK7.6 on windows
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One point I'm looking for is the link between the different
>>>>>> versions of
>>>>>> a picture I'm generating from the raw to the different versions
>>>>>> (format,
>>>>>> usage, size,..).  Purpose is to easily retrieve the differents
>>>>>> versions
>>>>>> of the same pictures  without browsing the different album, or to
>>>>>> check
>>>>>> if a jpeg for a particular usage hasn't been already generated,...
>>>>>> One solution would be to use the editor and use the version menu from
>>>>>> the right sidebar, but as I'm using an external editor , even launched
>>>>>> through the "open with" command, the link is lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I try different solutions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     * search tool with the name of the initial raw file (as I'm
>>>>>> keeping it
>>>>>>       all along the different generation). That the better solution
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>       found, but it requires several manual operations and sometimes
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>       version found are not accurate when I forgot to mark the group as
>>>>>>       "opened" in the display menu. One suggestion would be to run any
>>>>>>       search with this option set as "opened", this will ensure an
>>>>>>       accurate result
>>>>>>     * Similarity tool. simple to use , just right click on a picture.
>>>>>>       Unfortunately, not accurate (I tried with an indice between
>>>>>> 80-100%)
>>>>>>       as it doesn't detect the similarity when the size is different
>>>>>> or if
>>>>>>       you added a watermark. my Raw is generaly 4/3 and I can generate
>>>>>>       pictures in 3/2, 16/9,....
>>>>>>     * open with : I don't know if it would possible that in such case a
>>>>>>       link would be generated to be visible in the version
>>>>>>     * BQM: when I'm generating a new version using the BQM, no link is
>>>>>>       generated. couldn't it be possible to create the version link in
>>>>>>       that case ?(could be a 1st useful step)
>>>>>>         o by the way , possibility to add a tag in the BQM process
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>           be also helpful (I think the request is already in bugzilla)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> any comments or suggestions ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frederic
>
>
>