From: Daniel Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:44:41 +0100

   On 10.01.2005, at 16:52, Jakub Steiner wrote:

   > Unless I'm being told untruth about the losslessness (soundss great,
   > doesn't it?), the metaphor of not messing around with negatives isn't
   > appropriate.

   It depends very much on how clever the tools are regarding the EXIF
   information; if an image is rotated the EXIF information must be at
   least passed trhough to the new file if not even changed
   appropriately. Gthumb for one application (have the authors fixed
   this?) truncated the EXIF data when doing a lossless transformation
   so this was very much for the trashcan....

   I for one have been bitten seriously by this and since then keep
   the images as an umodified original from the camera except for the

There's a good reason *right there* not to trust software that does
any transformation on a master file.  I'm not accusing the authors of
exiftran of being sloppy, but the possibility of a latent bug does
exist (and it's much greater than the possibility of a latent bug in
cp or the like -- and when I do backups, I do verify them carefully,
and use quality memory and the like!).

Robert Krawitz                                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Tall Clubs International  -- or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for Gimp Print   --

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to