On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Šarūnas Burdulis <saru...@mail.saabnet.com> 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
