Maybe, I take the chance to shortly present my use case: And that this is primarily a fight between the OpenSource and the closed source world:Īt least digiKam seem to have an option for the "standard" way: " "īut I see some valid points for the darktable decisions. All I could find, is that Adobe is doing it like this. I searched the internet for "the" standardization of the naming scheme. Since Adobe is ruling the digital photographic world, you can call it a quasi standard: "If it doesn't work in Adobe photoshop/lightroom, it is broken by design". I think, it was a company decision (Adobe) to do it like this, and that slipped into the paper in a few words and is still common practice in the Adobe products. It is your product and you decide what to implement and what not.īeside from this, I don't buy the argument that the naming convention is a normative definition in the ISO standard, a definition that have to followed without room for flexibility. Even if it is frustrating from a users perspective, I accept your decision. SO sorry, if this question was already answered. P.S.: there is no search option in the forum. Is there any way to change the behaviour in FPV to use ""? I can currently not open a folder that was already processed by digiKam/darktable without losing the grading, title and description. So this will break the compatibility between the two set of programs. digiKam and darktable store XMP data preferably in a file named:ĭigiKam will search for XMP files in order:ĭarktable on the other hand, will also read the "image.xmp" upon first import but then switches to "".įRV seems to only read/write the "image.XMP" version of the sidecar file. I'm using digiKam/darktable on windows and I have a problem with FRV and XMP sidecar files.
One part is culling and FastRawViewer seems to be a good solution here. I'm new to RAW processing in general and I need to rework my image management workflow due to the speed and quality of viewing RAW files.
0 kommentar(er)
