[KPhotoAlbum] Very experimental image-grouping patch
paul at xpg.dk
Thu Nov 29 00:07:52 CET 2007
2007/11/28, Tero Tilus <tero at tilus.net>:
> Lovely! Finally somebody is turning this grouping-vapor into real
> code! :)
Well, I got some spare time on my hands :-)
> 2007-11-28 18:11, Paul Fleischer:
> > Yep, the only question remaining is who is going to be the master. I
> > would prefer the .jpg, as it is the one shown when browsing, but I
> > guess that the .cr2 is more logical as "master" :-)
> That brings us to the natural question. What is the concept we are
> trying to model with this relationship?
I'm glad you bring this up, cause I've been thinking about this as
well. I just thought that it would be more fun to start with a working
patch, than a conceptual discussion. Now we have a proof-of-concept
(and a more improved patch on the way), and it is indeed time to
consider what we are doing.
> Concept 1, "this image is derived from that one"
This concept is most flexible, but I have the feeling that it will
require quite alot to implement both in the backend and frontend of
KPA. Conceptually, this is what I would prefer.
> Concept 2, "series of exposures"
I really like having native groups, rather than the hacky parent/child
relationsship my patch contains. Without knowing the KPA source code
very well, I would also say that this is quite easily implemented. So,
this is what I would prefer in practice.
> How to tag?
> How (if at all) these relations should affect tagging? Should we
> maybe have "Annotate Derivatives/Group" bound to Ctrl-3? It would
> take the selected items and all their derivatives (or selected items
> and all items belonging to same groups with them respectively) and do
> "Annotate Multiple Items at a Time".
> What to show?
> I think the question of how KPA should select what to show is mostly
> separated from the image relation concepts. How (if at all) should
> the relationships affect image visibility? And why should I be bound
> to select one and only one image to show from a group or a tree of
> And then, just to piss you off... ;)
> Do we really need groups or derivatives? How far could we get with
> simple "hidden" flag and a pinch of magic to assign resonable defaults
> (show only .jpg if you have several files differing only by extension,
> etc.) upon scan?
Very reasonable comment. I would say that we need it, but then again,
that's no surprise :-).
> Do we really need "hiding"? Wouldn't tagging do the job? If one
> wants to show only "final" versions, just narrow down to "production
> quality" tag. ;)
Interesting idea. However, what I like about grouping is the direct
relation between images.
More information about the KPhotoAlbum