Re: [darktable-dev] Feature request: camera model in export module

[Šarūnas Burdulis]

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)
> [...]

I just made a pull request on GitHub to add MAKER and MODEL using
img->camera_maker and img->camera_model. It's a minor patch.

Thanks for considering it.

-- 
Šarūnas Burdulis
http://math.dartmouth.edu/~sarunas
___
darktable developer mailing list
to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org

Re: [darktable-dev] Feature request: camera model in export module

[Tobias Ellinghaus]

Am Freitag, 20. November 2015, 23:40:47 schrieb Pedro Côrte-Real:

[...]

> As for submitting the patch ideally you'd do a pull request on github.
> It's easier to review there and that way you actually get credited in
> the commit history. If that's too inconvenient a patch attached to
> email as you've already done also works.

As long as patches are created using "git format-patch" the credits are not a 
problem.

> Cheers,
> 
> Pedro

Tobias

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [darktable-dev] Feature request: camera model in export module

[Šarūnas Burdulis]

-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

Re: [darktable-dev] Feature request: camera model in export module

[Pedro Côrte-Real]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Šarūnas Burdulis
 wrote:
> 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).

Those are probably saner than most. Depending on manufacturer the exif
model will include or not include the manufacturer name so the exif
names are not ideal for most user-facing purposes.

> 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'?

I only had a very quick look but it seemed fine to me. I'd say the we
should either use camera_makermodel (which has camera_maker+"
"+camera_model) or do camera_maker+" "+camera_alias as that's the
commercial name for the specific camera. Calling that
$(CAMERA_MAKERMODEL) or even just $(CAMERA) makes more sense than
using EXIF_ as these are not really the values straight from the exif.

As for submitting the patch ideally you'd do a pull request on github.
It's easier to review there and that way you actually get credited in
the commit history. If that's too inconvenient a patch attached to
email as you've already done also works.

Cheers,

Pedro
___
darktable developer mailing list
to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org