[digiKam-users] versions of pictures
Maik Qualmann
metzpinguin at gmail.com
Sun May 8 09:45:58 BST 2022
As the thread slipped into private communication, here is the solution for
using metadata in BQM to keep image history.
Since the BQM, like the image editor, always encodes a new image, but this is
not desired if only metadata is applied, there is a special feature in the
BQM. Always put metadata tools at the end of the tool list. Then it also works
in your case with the image history.
Maik
Am Dienstag, 26. April 2022, 12:39:36 CEST schrieben Sie:
> Which tool do you mean by "applying a metadata model"? The template tool?
> Applying a template is not a problem here, a new version is created.
> Remember, if you remove the XMP digiKam image history metadata, a new
> version will no longer be recognized.
>
> Rating or tags cannot be applied in BQM at the moment, we already have a bug
> report wish.
>
> Maik
>
> Am Dienstag, 26. April 2022, 09:39:50 CEST schrieb 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
More information about the Digikam-users
mailing list