-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/20/2015 04:33 PM, Pedro Côrte-Real wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Šarūnas Burdulis > <saru...@mail.saabnet.com> 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'? Thanks! Šarūnas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlZPntYACgkQVVkpJ1MUn+ZoMgCgiQOxauw0zdUZK7sF0JrXA8OB QyIAn0FAEE5NgpPRTx4wVN7fpHf2i4up =2BfH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ___________________________________________________________________________ darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
