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 photographic policy. You don't muck with your negatives. Well, that's your point of view then and you have to live with the consequences. I should think any serious photographer would take the point of view that you never mess with your negatives... Do you have any other suggestion for preserving the rotation information? > 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? > > One reason that comes to mind is to study the lighting after the fact; > knowing what the original rotation was can be helpful in some cases. You are completely right. The camera should do the orientation and EXIF should have an orientation flag that refers to the original orientation. Unfortunately early digital cameras were not able to do the rotation. Nowadays there's really no good reason for this behaviour. That's all well and good, but why force your viewpoint on other people? _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
