| 1 |
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:04:47AM -0600, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
>> It is a nice program and I'm pretty sure it allows you to download from |
| 5 |
>> your card too. I'm not sure gtkam will allow downloads from the card so |
| 6 |
>> you are likely headed down the right road. |
| 7 |
>> Honestly, if digikam worked right with my camera, I'd use it in a heart |
| 8 |
>> beat. I like it but I can't get my pics to show up right. |
| 9 |
> ----------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
| 10 |
> Since your spelling is not always 100% precise ;-) do you really mean "show up |
| 11 |
> right", or do you mean "show upright"? The latter is a question of support by |
| 12 |
> your camera. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Meant as written, this time. lol I think I explained this a bit more |
| 16 |
in another post. My camera has a separate directory for each day. |
| 17 |
Digikam doesn't seem to show them correctly. Some images don't show up |
| 18 |
at all and others show up twice or even more than twice. I think it |
| 19 |
looks for just one directory but I'm not sure. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> But why bother with it a special download function in the first place? Most |
| 24 |
> cameras support standard USB mass storage protocol, so if you set your camera |
| 25 |
> to it and plug it in via USB, it shows up as a normal mass storage device. |
| 26 |
> Digikam then recognises the folder structure on it and allows you to download |
| 27 |
> the images. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I'm still more old school -- I copy the images over from the card using |
| 30 |
> $filemanager and then import them selectively into my digikam collection, |
| 31 |
> which allows me to keep it clean more easily. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Digikam is a really great management application. I've been using it since KDE |
| 34 |
> 3 times. Its strong points are tagging and organising, and subsequent |
| 35 |
> rediscovery by tags and descriptions you assign to a photo. And though I |
| 36 |
> myself haven't used it much yet apart from a few select features, it has a |
| 37 |
> nice editing program, too. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
As I said, digikam is a nice program. I'm not saying it isn't for sure. |
| 41 |
It is a bit much for me tho since I already have a way of managing my |
| 42 |
pics. I could use digikam but I already have a system that does what it |
| 43 |
does without all the fancy stuff. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
As to why I use gtkam. I use it because it renames the pics as it |
| 46 |
copies and puts them in sequence. Not only do I sort them by directories |
| 47 |
but I also give them names that helps sort them too. If I just copy |
| 48 |
files the camera has, I end up with a lot of files out of order and |
| 49 |
possible duplicates and such. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Of course, now I have gtkam working without crashing, so far anyway. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Dale |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
:-) :-) |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or |
| 59 |
how you interpreted my words! |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Miss the compile output? Hint: |
| 62 |
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n" |
Archives