-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/20/2015 05:29 PM, Šarūnas Burdulis wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 04:33 PM, Pedro Côrte-Real wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Šarūnas Burdulis
>> wrote:
>>> would someone care to take a look at the attached patch? It ads
>>> $(EXIF_MODEL) to recognized variables in the export to files on disk
>>> file naming field. I used darktable-org/darktable master branch to start
>>> with.
>
>> Is exif_model actually what you want? Here's what's in the img struct:
>
>> exif_make: the camera make exactly as reported in EXIF (cameras from
>> the same manufacturer will have slightly different values)
>> exif_model: the model exactly as reported in EXIF (often the maker is
>> also in the model)
>> camera_make: the camera make cleaned up (no needlessly long names, all
>> cameras will report the same)
>> camera_model: the camera model cleaned up (no needlessly long names,
>> if there are aliases the base name is used so "EOS REBEL SL1" becomes
>> "EOS 100D")
>> camera_alias: same as before but the alias is used (so "EOS REBEL SL1"
>> stays that way)
>
>> Depending on what you want to do some are better than others. I
>> suspect camera_make and camera_alias are actually better for most
>> purposes and is what we show in the interface.
>
> Pedro, thanks for a quick reply.
>
> Frankly, I didn't even think about what else might be available in img
> struct. So yes, let's use whichever element looks best for showing the
> camera model in most of the cases (I only tested with files from Olympus
> E-M5 and Moto X cameraphone).
>
> Is the patch itself OK, i.e. is it the way this option should be added?
> Do you want me to resend a patch with 'camera_make'?
Sorry, I meant 'camera_model'.
Šarūnas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlZPnzMACgkQVVkpJ1MUn+b/uQCdGNRbFw58yZPyj/K5ORMZ2g3G
K4UAnjJp1O7iA2ITrkMJCFGKi7HoPkS7
=KkxM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
darktable developer mailing list
to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org