On 2018-08-06 6:56 a.m., Patrick Shanahan wrote: > indeed, working by group one of which is filmstrip is much more contained > that the entire database. look at dt's collections/groups. they can be > quite specific or not as you desire.
"I'm a bear of very little brain and long words confuse me". I really do like having a architectural file system. it lets me arrange my photos by year/month and by project/outing within that hierarchy. it is easy to map thng onto film-roll. The idea of a flat file system with, never mind 20k image but just 1k images, I find simply overwhelming. To me the advantage of DT's database is that I can do the tagging/grouping that Patrick mentions, add tags, in fact multiple tags, to images, so that I can have 'threads' of themes running though the overall list of images. And with that searching. Which of course makes some aspects of 'production', when you are 'producing' a project, easier, since you have a containment and focus for your work. But the film-roll model I try to keep to something like it would have been if this was in fact film, and that ties in to the year/month/project file system. Which makes 'importing' film rolls easier. I'm sure that isn't the only model and I'd be interesting how others make use of 'filmroll', tagging and threading and what their work-flow is. ____________________________________________________________________________ darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-user+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
