Pascal, Thank you. I ran exiv2 as suggested on a jpeg output file, and most of the sidecar data were there. Thank you for answering a newby question. Kind regards, Willem
On 31/12/2012 15:48, Pascal de Bruijn wrote: On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Willem Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > One of the important needs that I have is to have EXIF metadata for > images easily and rapidly available for those people that I communicate > with and who are (still) working in Microsoft and who are using a wide > array of software to view and manage images. The problem has two facets: > 1) Metadata pertaining to the original images. Dt writes metadata to > Sidecar files outside of the RAW images (CR2 in my case). I think this > is a good solution. After all, I am the only likely person to handle or > process the original images. It's the only solution. Modifying original RAW files is borderline insane. > 2) Metadata of derivative images arising from "developing" or processing > of original RAW images. For myself, these are typically JPEG or TIFF > files. These are the images often shared with others. Having these > images in a Sidecar file is unproductive, because only Dt can truly > understand the content of the Sidecar files that it wrote. The sidecars apply to your RAW originals, not your JPEGs. Most of the original image EXIF including most of the sidecar is however embedded into the output files. Try: # exiv2 -pa darktable_exported.jpg > Even Digikam > has a problem with understanding the Sidecar files generated by Dt. A > better solution would be to incorporate the Metadata (of which the image > description is the most important; e.g. "Extent of burned grassland at > Exeter at the end of the 2009 dry season") into the JPG or TIFF image > itself. However, the proviso is that it should be done in a way that > almost any imaging software can display this information. This should already be the case. Most of the metadata is incorporated into EXIF as far as possible (and yes EXIF is limiting in this regard). The rest is set in the XMP attached to the exported files (which is basically just the sidecar embedded). Darktable is intended as one stop image management solution, so Digikam compatibility (by itself) isn't really a concern. That said, if we are violating some standard, we'd certainly look into it, but I don't think there is any reason to think that's the case. Regards, Pascal de Bruijn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122412 _______________________________________________ Darktable-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
