https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=375703
--- Comment #21 from Ricardo Sanz <arreb...@gmail.com> --- IMHO I don't think grouping images is so similar to subalbums. One typical use of groups is group the RAW and the JPG file of the same image. This way you only see one picture (the JPG probably) of your images instead of having the RAW image, the camera JPG and your own developed JPG. Also, about mentioned advantages, it's said: "Image groups are represented in the file system and not just in the database (better for external image manipulation)". This may be true, but is it really an advantage? Using groups for each picture and its derivatives (RAW, JPGs, etc) means each 'real' album, in the filesystem, would be a bunch of directories, with all versions of the same picture on each. Is this better than having all in the same directory? IMHO is not. Using directories for each group probably will end in a cluttered album view with thousand of tiny albums. Also, it makes necessary to select the main picture of each subalbum to be shown in the parent album: this needs a convenient GUI to do it. And, are all subalbums going to be shown in the parent album alongside the parent's picture? This will be a change in current Digikam's behavior, potentially affecting many users. Also, grouping is a feature present in other image software like Darktable or Adobe Lightroom. I just wanted to add my point of view, of course I don't know the problems that grouping brings to the Digikam base code, I'm a talking only as a user :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.