[KPhotoAlbum] Added a MoveOnCopy option to Categories.

Miika Turkia miika.turkia at gmail.com
Tue Jul 5 05:52:29 CEST 2011


Hello,

I have currently quite different approach for RAW work flow. I treat the RAW
file as master and all the tagging is done on the raw. If a matching JPG,
TIFF, or PNG exists they are skipped on the new image finder. However, image
viewer shows e.g. the JPG  instead of decoding the RAW. The file with same
name as the raw is the one that is treated this way, different versions and
auto-stacking of them are not affected. This is something that I have just
hacked together and have not committed nor am sure if I should commit at
all.

The main reasons why I started to reconsider how RAW files should be treated
were:
- Having only one place for tagging of individual photo
- Search queries would return only one item instead of many (even though
stacks would help a lot here)

Auto stacking might have been good enough but it lacks my main motivation
for the (currently private) change, single place for tagging a photo. Does
this kind of approach make any sense to others?

miika

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Andreas Neustifter <
andreas.neustifter at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All!
>
> I use stacks in KPA solely for different versions of a picture (RAW,
> JPG, edited JPG), those are automatically stacked as they are created.
>
> Also I use a category that tags the good and great images in a set
> (selection tags), of course the tag gets moved from RAW to JPG to
> edited JPG as the editing of the set progresses. (I guess that's a
> pretty common work-flow.)
>
> Problem is that all the tags are copied from RAW to JPG to edited JPG
> during auto stacking so more than one version of the image gets the
> selection tag (which defeats its purpose).
>
>
> https://github.com/astifter/kphotoalbum-fork/commit/2363b819e3894586570f9f038fab817bbd3fe9eb
> is a patch that adds an setting to each category that defines if tags
> of this category are copied or moved during auto stacking (and
> copying).
>
> I really do not know if this makes sense in any way so I would really
> like your input on this, I tried it and for me it works.
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback.
>
> Andi
> _______________________________________________
> KPhotoAlbum mailing list
> KPhotoAlbum at mail.kdab.com
> http://mail.kdab.com/mailman/listinfo/kphotoalbum
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kdab.com/pipermail/kphotoalbum/attachments/20110705/6f695c93/attachment.html>


More information about the KPhotoAlbum mailing list