Okay George, and if you want to add the 42 pictures on your camera right now to a folder 3 deep in your tree, how would you do it? There's been a lot of stress on this idea of "I must do it f-spot's way, or everyone else's way." I don't see f-spot as being mutually exclusive as critics keep stating, but I do not have enough experience to give a detailed real world example. May I please trouble you to share this with us?
(George, sorry for the the direct email from my another address, GMail really sucks at handling multi-accounts/reply-to-all for mailing lists.) On 3/27/07, George Talusan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For what it's worth I recently imported 49,452 images into F-Spot after > a catastrophic hard disk failure. > > I re-tagged all of them within two hours and after fixing bug the memory > leak bug for RAWs. > > F-Spot already handles the condition where your images are organized by > folder. Simply turn off the "copy image" checkbox when importing. The > only thing missing is reflecting this fact in the UI. However this is > solved with importing one folder at a time and creating the necessary > tag for it, and repeating for each folder. No symlinks needed. > > > > > On Tue, 2007-27-03 at 22:02 -0400, Harvey Stein wrote: > > I certainly agree with Jason on the usage of the file system. I'm a new > > user of f-spot. I just imported ~3,000 photos so that I could easily > > upload a few hundred to picasaweb without booting MS Windows & running > > picasa there (the linux version doesn't upload). > > > > I didn't want to spend all the time necessary to load up all the images. > > And I certainly didn't want to copy all of my photos into F-spot - I > > don't have the disk space for it & I don't need duplicate photos laying > > around. > > > > I got around the latter problem by importing links instead of copying > > the files. And I did it because I needed the upload function. But, I'd > > still like to view things as they are on my file system, potentially > > move certain things around, etc. > > > > It's certainly true that you can do everything you need from within > > f-spot via tags. However, that doesn't make it convenient. What's > > convenient is to treat the file location itself as another property of > > the photo, and allow the user to manipulate that as well. Similarly, > > it'd be far more convenient if f-spot were able to automatically find > > and register new photos/changes (as do picasa & kphotoalbum). If it did > > these things as well, it'd do pretty much everything I need in an image > > browser. Without them, I need to be able to work directly with the file > > system and paradoxically, this makes being able to work with files by > > location even more important. And if picasa or kphotoalbum handled > > uploading, I probably wouldn't have started using f-spot either. > > > > Given that it can work with links to the files instead of the files > > themselves, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to manipulate the > > links. Maybe if I get some free time I'll try to do it... > > > > -- Harvey > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > F-spot-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > F-spot-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list > -- .!# RichardBronosky #!. _______________________________________________ F-spot-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list
