[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-bugs-dist
Subject:    [Bug 103350] its too easy to save images
From:       Thomas Lunde <thomas () lunde ! net>
Date:       2006-11-10 17:48:07
Message-ID: 20061110174807.27345.qmail () ktown ! kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103350         




------- Additional Comments From thomas lunde net  2006-11-10 18:48 -------
I _never_ want to lose or modify my original images.  Period.

I really like the way that Digikam looks and works, but right now it is just too easy \
to make a crop, save, and then be upset because the original is gone.

F-Spot has a good system for doing this.  A previous commenter laid out its \
file-naming scheme, and it is not a bad one.

iPhoto also has a great system for this.  In fact, it has a prominent menu item \
called "Restore Original Photo" which is enabled because of it.  (And that, too, \
would be a nice addition to Digikam.  Here is how iPhoto's system works:  On image \
import, images are copied to ~/Pictures/iPhoto Library/YYYY/MM/DD/imagefilename.jpg  \
If ANY edits are made, iPhoto automatically creates ~/Pictures/iPhoto \
Library/YYYY/MM/DD/Originals/ (if it did not already exist) and copies \
imagefilename.jpg into that Originals directory.  It then makes the edits and \
performs an automatic save to the original location.  

iPhoto is designed so that a user need not be aware of how the file system is \
structured but, if a user wants to, it is possible to dive in and manually pull out \
the original file.

Picasa and Aperature (also mentioned above) do their "versioning" in a VERY different \
way.  These two programs never actually save _any_ modifications to the original \
image file, except when the user explicitly chooses to Export... an image out of the \
program's database.  Instead of saving modified images, these two programs keep a \
database of editing instructions and apply them on the fly to the orignal image to \
show the user the modified version.  This has a good advantage in protecting the \
orignal and in not consuming disk space, but it has the disadvantage that any edited \
version cannot be manipulated by an external program without an explicit Export... \
step and then a re-Import into the program (which results in a new image file that \
the application does not associate in any way with the original file).

The upside of iPhoto's system is simplicitly.  The downside is that becuase the same \
filename is used for both the original image and the modified image (albeit in \
different folders), it is limited to a single edited version.  F-Spot has the \
advantage that multiple edited versions can be maintained within the program, bu t \
(since it uses different filenames) it is more complex to manually handle the \
resulting image files.  

I think that very, very few images will result the user wanting multiple edited \
versions, so I think that iPhoto's system is better.  (For the case that the user \
_really_ wants multiple edited versions, it is possible to duplicate the original \
file and then perform edits on that "original".)

+1 (and then some) for anyone who can implement the "Restore Original Photo" feature. \
Only then will Digikam be suitable for my Mom (etc).

Thanks


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]