From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:53:35 +0100

   "William Skaggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

   > 4) When the exif specifies that an image is rotated, the plug-in
   > pops up a query asking the user whether to rotate it into
   > standard alignment.  I thought it was better to ask rather than
   > do it automatically, because there are probably a substantial
   > number of existing images that have been edited without having
   > their exif information properly updated (for example, by earlier
   > versions of GIMP).  When an image is saved with exif, the
   > orientation is set to "top-left", as the exif specifications
   > require.  (See bug #121810)

   Fortunately this isn't really an issue for The GIMP since people
   owning a camera that adds rotation information will use tools such
   as exiftran to deal with it. GIMP shouldn't very often see images
   with an orientation tag other than "top-left". So your approach is
   probably fine.

I don't buy this.  I simply copy images off the camera and leave them

My policy is to never muck with the original -- PERIOD.  Yes, I could
always make copies, but that would use more disk space.  This is a
standard photographic policy.  You don't muck with your negatives.

The obvious question is: if the rotation information isn't important,
why does the camera even bother with it, as opposed to doing the
rotation inside the camera?  Why does EXIF even have a rotation tag if
it's useless?

One reason that comes to mind is to study the lighting after the fact;
knowing what the original rotation was can be helpful in some cases.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to