On 9/15/06, Dotan Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that the term "album" should be defined much as the term is > used for physical (paper) photo albums: a collection of photographs > kept together. Just like in real paper photo albums, a photo could > belong to only one album. Additionally, when viewing an album, photos > in any other album should NOT be seen.
> Now, when viewing a specific album, only the tags present in the > photos of that album should be shown. There should be no evidence that > any other photos exist in the entire universe, other than a dropdown > box to select which album to display. Therefore, I think that each > album warrents its own photos.db file. I think the functionality you describe here should exist. However I don't think "album" is the correct term to use for it. At least personally I see "album" to be a much less restrictive way to devide photos. I also don't think that a photo should be restricted to only one album. Most significantly I don't think each album should have it's own database. But I *do* very much agree that there should be a way to separate photos in different databases. Personally I think of "albums" more like a collection of photos. But slightly different than a tag in that order and possibly extra information is available. Personally I think it would be a good idea to tie in different export options to an album. Such as export to web server (Picasa web, Gallery, Flicker etc), "print" (possibly using photo printing service) or to create a CD/DVD. I think "collection" is a better term to describe a set of photos with separate database file. OTOH I don't think "collection" is a perfect word to describe it. /Marcus _______________________________________________ F-spot-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list
