We should be able to automaticaly detect when a file has been rotated
without updating the exif data most of the time. Exif stores the image
width and height a couple of times. Cant we just check if the
width/height in the exif match the widht/height of the actual image?
The only cases this wont
Hi Jay,
Jay Cox wrote:
On a more practical note, gimp seems to completely throw away any exif
data when saving as a jpg(tested in 1.3,24, and 2.2.2). Perhaps this is
less of a problem than it has been made out to be (or perhaps I have
weird cvs versions of gimp installed).
You need libexif
David Neary wrote:
You need libexif installed before exif data will be saved.
Perhaps this dependency will go away with Bill's new stuff, but I
think he uses it too.
Reimplementing libexif in gimp wouldn't be too wise, would it?
Michael
--
The GIMP http://www.gimp.org | IRC:
Michael Schumacher wrote:
Reimplementing libexif in gimp wouldn't be too wise, would it?
Libexif is a lot cruftier than it needs to be but I don't have
any ambition to reimplement it.
-- Bill
__ __ __ __
Sent via the CNPRC Email system
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:21:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[re-formatted to include proper quoting]
Alastair M. Robinson wrote:
Robert L Krawitz wrote:
Raphael's proposal sounds right on the money to me.
It comes down to a question of what's most annoying:
(1) having
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:47:10 -0800, William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Krawitz wrote:
[William Skaggs wrote:]
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. [...]
Hi Raphael, glad to hear from you.
Although I am a bit late to the party, here are my 2 cents: I think
that the jpeg plug-in should automatically rotate the image when
opening it without marking it as dirty. The default setting should
be to do that automatically without asking, both for
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:32:15 -0800
From: William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Raphael, glad to hear from you.
Although I am a bit late to the party, here are my 2 cents: I
think that the jpeg plug-in should automatically rotate the image
when opening it without marking it
Hi Robert,
Robert L Krawitz wrote:
Won't they have (already be having) exactly the same problem with any
other EXIF-aware viewer or editor?
I doubt anyone who's encountered this issue opening files in other
programs will have twigged that GIMP caused it :)
Raphael's proposal sounds right on the
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:32:44 +
From: Alastair M. Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Robert,
Robert L Krawitz wrote:
Won't they have (already be having) exactly the same problem with any
other EXIF-aware viewer or editor?
I doubt anyone who's encountered this issue
] Raphael's proposal sounds right on the money to me.
]
]It comes down to a question of what's most annoying:
](1) having to rotate manually an unknown, but possibly quite small
]number of existing images, on a one-off basis, or
](2) having to dismiss (or find a way of permanently disabling) an
Hi,
Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 11:24 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote:
Sven Neumann writes:
Assuming your camera adds EXIF info, are you seriously telling me that
you do not run 'exiftran -a -i' on each and every image you ever shoot
and instead use GIMP to rotate them?
Add another voice to all the
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.
Sven Neumann writes:
Assuming your camera adds EXIF info, are you seriously telling me that
you do not run 'exiftran -a -i' on each and every image you ever shoot
and instead use GIMP to rotate them?
Add another voice to all the others saying No, I leave my originals
untouched, and only edit
]It's a bummer that it's not something like UTF-8 (and quite odd,
]if the spec came from Japan), but editing ASCII is still useful
]for quite a large number of people.
]
]What do modern cameras sold in Japan save in the EXIF fields?
Japan has a romanized alphabet that's corresponds to their
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:24:49 -0800
From: Akkana Peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sven Neumann writes:
Assuming your camera adds EXIF info, are you seriously telling me
that you do not run 'exiftran -a -i' on each and every image you
ever shoot and instead use GIMP to rotate them?
Hi,
Akkana Peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a bummer that it's not something like UTF-8 (and quite odd,
if the spec came from Japan), but editing ASCII is still useful
for quite a large number of people.
It would require unreasonable effort to create an entry that restricts
editing to
On Saturday 08 January 2005 13:40, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:24:49 -0800
From: Akkana Peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sven Neumann writes:
Assuming your camera adds EXIF info, are you seriously telling
me
that you do not run 'exiftran -a -i' on each and every
From: Hal V. Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:09:29 -0800
You can add me to the list. I also leave my originals alone. As you=20
say this is just good photographic practice. I have negatives that=20
are almost 70 years old that are in nearly new condition that I
Hi,
Selon Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
William Skaggs wrote:
Sven wrote:
But isn't it accessible from http://wilber.gimp.org/~raphael/metadata/ ?
No, that doesn't exist any more. And I don't think it ever had the
source code anyway -- but I may be wrong about that.
There
Hi,
Selon Daniel Egger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 05.01.2005, at 18:27, Dave Neary wrote:
Before people get high-horsey about this, consider that 90% of digital
cameras
have embedded DOS as their OS, and are thus unable to generate files
which are
not 8.3.
I don't think it is pretty safe
Hi,
Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something that forces me to do an extra gratuitous step for loading
every portrait I ever shoot is a massive pain in the butt however you
slice it.
Assuming your camera adds EXIF info, are you seriously telling me that
you do not run 'exiftran
Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I keep master copies untouched and rely on applications to show the
implied rotation.
You are aware that there's absolutely no good reason to do that?
Rotation of JPEG images using exiftran or jpegtran is
Hi,
William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A) Artist: Ascii, name of the image creator, in parasite
gimp-artist.
ASCII isn't a reasonable encoding for names. I strongly hope the EXIF
spec doesn't define this as ASCII.
B) Copyright: Ascii, in gimp-copyright. The format of this
Robert L Krawitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[Exif orientation tag]
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?
Good
Hi,
Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Well, that's your point of view then and
There's a parasite editor in gimp-perl already which can do all this.
I don't think we need yet another implementation.
Unless somebody has ported this to Gtk2, and is maintaining it
independantly, this statement is false for Gimp 1.2. It was removed
from CVS (with no complaints) on
Robert L Krawitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:36:50 +0100
From: Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert L Krawitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[Exif orientation tag]
The obvious question is: if the rotation information isn't important,
why does the
From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:49:17 +0100
Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Hi Simon,
Simon Budig wrote:
Storing the orientation of the camera relative to the image data stored
doesn't make much sense and just happens to kind of work for exif aware
applications, because the camera abuses the ORIENTATION tag.
The ORIENTATION tag provides enough flexibility to cope with
Sven wrote:
A) Artist: Ascii, name of the image creator, in parasite
gimp-artist.
ASCII isn't a reasonable encoding for names. I strongly hope the EXIF
spec doesn't define this as ASCII.
The spec defines it as ASCII. Before you get too outraged, please bear
in mind that the EXIF
Hi William ;),
ASCII isn't a reasonable encoding for names. I strongly hope the EXIF
spec doesn't define this as ASCII.
The spec defines it as ASCII. Before you get too outraged, please bear
in mind that the EXIF spec was created in Japan, where they were certainly
aware of the
Hi,
Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's all well and good, but why force your viewpoint on other people?
I am not doing that. I just stated that Bill's approach at dealing
with the orientation tag is in my opinion the right thing to do.
Sven
Hi,
William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ASCII isn't a reasonable encoding for names. I strongly hope the
EXIF spec doesn't define this as ASCII.
The spec defines it as ASCII. Before you get too outraged, please
bear in mind that the EXIF spec was created in Japan, where they
were
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something that forces me to do an extra gratuitous step for loading
every portrait I ever shoot is a massive pain in the butt however you
slice it.
Assuming your camera adds EXIF info, are you seriously telling me that
William Skaggs wrote:
Sven wrote:
But isn't it accessible from http://wilber.gimp.org/~raphael/metadata/ ?
No, that doesn't exist any more. And I don't think it ever had the
source code anyway -- but I may be wrong about that.
There seems to be at least a bit of source code:
Robert Krawitz wrote:
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
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:27:16PM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
Before people get high-horsey about this, consider that 90% of digital cameras
have embedded DOS as their OS, and are thus unable to generate files which are
not 8.3.
what are the 10% of the digital cameras that do not have
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, William Skaggs wrote:
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:47:10 -0800
From: William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
Cc: @mail.primate.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] jpeg-exif development summary
Robert Krawitz wrote:
4) When
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:15:06PM +0100, Daniel Egger wrote:
On 05.01.2005, at 18:27, Dave Neary wrote:
Before people get high-horsey about this, consider that 90% of digital
cameras
have embedded DOS as their OS, and are thus unable to generate files
which are
not 8.3.
I don't think
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:47:10 -0800
From: William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Krawitz wrote:
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
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:53:01AM -0800, William Skaggs wrote:
There is now a file called exif-handling.txt in devel-docs that
summarizes my understanding, based on the exif specifications, of
how an image editor is supposed to handle the exif data in a file.
Of course we need not
Carol wrote:
is the proper EXIF file requirement that the name ends in .JPG case
sensitive?
Well, that was my point -- we're certainly not going to pay any
attention to such an absurd specification.
Best,
-- Bill
__ __ __ __
Sent via the
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:00:29AM -0800, William Skaggs wrote:
Carol wrote:
is the proper EXIF file requirement that the name ends in .JPG case
sensitive?
Well, that was my point -- we're certainly not going to pay any
attention to such an absurd specification.
thank you for seeing
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:53:01 -0800
From: William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) The jpeg plug-in now pretty closely adheres to the instructions
in the exif specifications concerning which fields should be
altered by an image-editing program. There are a couple of
46 matches
Mail list logo
