> Message du 18/07/18 13:16 > De : "Patrick Shanahan" > A : "Darktable Users List" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [darktable-user] Skulls - yes, once more ! > > * Jean-Luc CECCOLI [07-18-18 05:00]: > > > Message du 17/07/18 23:34 > > > De : "Patrick Shanahan" > > > > > * Jean-Luc CECCOLI [07-17-18 14:40]: > > > > > Message du 17/07/18 13:04 > > > > > De : "Patrick Shanahan" > > > > > > > > > > * Jean-Luc CECCOLI [07-17-18 05:12]: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > The export of 2321 pictures finally ended so I could test : it > > > > > > returns OK to the pragma test, so no problem with the db at first > > > > > > sight. I just saw one more thing : the 'state' field for the defect > > > > > > pictures diplay > > > > > > 0...r..ap.... > > > > > > and > > > > > > 0...r..ap...r > > > > > > for those which display correctly. > > > > > > What bothers me, is why some photos display different brand and > > > > > > model than others for the same body and lens. I noticed that it not > > > > > > only happens with this camera, but also with my D700. That means > > > > > > that, though there was no problem so far, I fear that could happen > > > > > > soon or later. Where should I ask for ? > > > > > > > > > > I believe you still have a problem, perhaps with your method of > > > > > importing, but I have never experienced the same. > > > > > > > > Rapid Photo Dowloader is in charge of this task. It copies the photos > > > > from the CF on both the work disk and the backup one, renaming them > > > > according to settings. To my knowledge, it does nothing more to the > > > > files themselves, especially exif data. > > > > > > I copy the files from the flash card to hardisk, verify the copy and > > > delete from flash card. then adjust file-date-time to the origin of the > > > photo and rename to begin with the photo date-time plus original camera > > > file name. then import into dt. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > you might explain in detail how you import your photos from camera to > > > > > dt. > > > > > > > > > Nothing special, as explained above. > > > > Maybe uploading a couple of files on a server would be useful... > > > > > > yes, please. > > > > > > checking library.db with sqlitebrowser, ~95000 images > > > I don't find a "state" field, but I am not a db person :( > > > > > > does exiftool/exiv2 also show "different brand and model" than other files > > > from same body and lense? > > > > > I didn't test this, and my computer is busy again for another 1800 > > exports started yesterday that might not end before tomorrow. > > 1800 is a large export. I seldom have more than 6-700, ~450 after culls, > but export rarely takes an hour on my 5 year old i7. > > > However, I could copy the photos to another disk and import them on my > > other computer (Ubuntu 14.04 / DT 2.0.7). I wanted to compare and try > > to find out what could go wrong. Guess what ? Those same files that > > display skulls on Ubuntu 16.04 / DT 2.4.4 display correctly there ! > > I must wait for my computer having finished the export to do further > > testings. > > now it sounds like you have an install problem, probably with lensfun or > lensfun's version not matching. iirc dt uses lensfun to identify camera > bodies and lenses. you haven't commented on what exiftool/exiv2 identify > your cameras and lenses as.
I finally could do it. Copied folders containing the files processed on 16.04 and those processed on 14.04 in a dedicated folder, then ran a script that extracts make and model. For all pictures, exiftool reports NIKON CORPORATION as make and NIKON 1 V1 as brand. The same for exiv2 for Exif.Image.Make and Exif.Image.Model. There, I don't understand : if DT relies on exiftool, how cant it retrieve information different from what exiftool reports ? I am totally lost... :-( ____________________________________________________________________________ darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
