[digiKam-users] Using right-side Filters pane to cull images

[2895qgvg6v at liamekaens.com]

Thanks for the explanation Maik.

Since the current behavior is desirable for some users, another option 
might be to add a setting to allow folks like Luca and I (and presumably 
other folks who use a similar culling workflow) to have items disappear 
when they don't match the filter.  Would that make sense Maik?  Luca 
would that work for you?  If so we can file a feature request.


On 2022-10-23 23:49, Luca Casone csnluca-at-gmail.com |digikam-users| wrote:
> Thank you Maik. So If I understood well, the fact that the the 
> filtered view doesn't auto-update itself is the intended behavior, 
> that answers my original question. Maybe a compromise could be having 
> a fast method (a button, a menu item & shortcut, ...) to re-run the 
> filter and update the view (unless it's already implemented and I 
> missed it :-/ ). Guess I should post a feature request.
>
> Bye
> Luca
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:23 AM Maik Qualmann <metzpinguin at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>     In theory, the item should disappear when the filter no longer
>     matches. But
>     I've left it that way so far, because it also has advantages for
>     many users,
>     depending on the workflow. An example is filtering for a pick
>     label, as soon as
>     you change it it would disappear. But you still wanted to add a
>     captions or
>     change the rating. You would have to search the article again to
>     make further
>     changes.
>
>     Maik
>
>     Am Montag, 24. Oktober 2022, 07:48:51 CEST schrieb Luca Casone:
>     > Thank you.
>     > It’s unfortunate that no one replied to you back then. Let me
>     tried here
>     > once again, it would be great to hear some feedback from developers.
>     >
>     > Luca
>     >
>     > > On 22 Oct 2022, at 02:42, 2895qgvg6v at liamekaens.com wrote:
>     > >
>     > > I asked a similar question in
>     > >
>     https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/2020-August/031169.html
>     but
>     > > never got a definitive answer from the developers about
>     whether it is a
>     > > bug or not (IMHO it is).
>     > >
>     > > In September 2021 I tried to investigate how to change the
>     code so that
>     > > flags (and maybe colors too) work like stars in this regard,
>     but I had a
>     > > difficult time tracking the flow of QT events to figure out
>     how setting
>     > > stars ends up causing photos to disappears from view when they
>     don't
>     > > match the stars filter.  Unfortunately I got busy with other
>     things and
>     > > wasn't able to work on the investigation for a while and there
>     have been
>     > > significant changes to digikam since then including switching
>     to a newer
>     > > version of QT, so I would need to start my investigation from
>     scratch.>
>     > > On 2022-10-21 06:40, Luca Casone csnluca-at-gmail.com
>     <http://csnluca-at-gmail.com> |digikam-users|
>     wrote:
>     > >> Hi.
>     > >>
>     > >> I need help to understand the behaviour of the right-side
>     Filters pane.
>     > >>
>     > >> Here it is my use case. I need to cull some images, using
>     flags. So I
>     > >> examine one picture at a time and flag it either rejected,
>     pending or
>     > >> accepted. In order to reduce the mess, I open the Filters
>     pane and
>     > >> select the Labels Filters to “None”, so that only unflagged
>     images are
>     > >> shown. However if I flag another picture it stays visible,
>     while I
>     > >> expect that it goes away because of the active filter. Also,
>     I cannot
>     > >> find any way to force the filter to re-run. The only way I
>     have to make
>     > >> the new flagged picture disappear is to turn back to the Filters
>     > >> pane—>Labels Filter and deselect+select the “None” filter.
>     > >>
>     > >> This is quite cumbersome and greatly impacts the Filters pane
>     usage to do
>     > >> culling. Is it the intended behaviour, or am I missing something?
>     > >> There’re alternative ways to cull images the way I described?
>     > >>
>     > >> Thank you. Regards
>     > >> Luca
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20221024/0df491bf/attachment-0001.htm>