Hello lexa,
thank you for the answer. Even if it is frustrating from a users perspective, I accept your decision. It is your product and you decide what to implement and what not.
Beside 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. 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. 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 searched the internet for "the" standardization of the naming scheme. I actually couldn't really find it. All I could find, is that Adobe is doing it like this. And that this is primarily a fight between the OpenSource and the closed source world: https://discuss.pixls.us/t/linux-applications-and-their-non-standard-xmp...
At least digiKam seem to have an option for the "standard" way: "https://phabricator.kde.org/D9648"
But I see some valid points for the darktable decisions.
Maybe, I take the chance to shortly present my use case:
I'm a hobby photographer, collecting my pictures from various cameras, mobiles and friends in folders sorted by "YYYY\YYMM-Event". I collect these images at various locations, on my laptop, from my desktop computer, from other people computers, via the cloud or mobile uploads or directly via a network share when I'm at home. I use my time for this esp. when offline. So I have various stages of my work at various places.
In the end my goal is to have all pictures together with their sidecar files at one central location and not to loose any pictures in this process. And I strongly follow "last modification" wins :-)
I was never an Adobe Lightroom user and for many reasons I found a very good alternative with darktable and digiKam. Only the speed of working through my RAW images is too slow for sorting, grading and culling.
All what is missing now, is a fast raw viewer that fits into this tooling, and FRV is perfect for this, except...
... that I'm not able to interchangeably use FRV, darktable and digiKam.
I don't care if darktable is right or wrong, I don't care if Adobe is right or wrong. I care about the little pieces of metadata I have added to the pictures. And this already has a very limited interoperatibility scope... regardless of the ISO specification.
So if you want to have a user vote, my vote goes for an option to allow for customizeable names for sidercar files. There are more options than Adobe out there.
Hello lexa,
Hello lexa,
thank you for the answer. Even if it is frustrating from a users perspective, I accept your decision. It is your product and you decide what to implement and what not.
Beside 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. 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. 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 searched the internet for "the" standardization of the naming scheme. I actually couldn't really find it. All I could find, is that Adobe is doing it like this. And that this is primarily a fight between the OpenSource and the closed source world:
https://discuss.pixls.us/t/linux-applications-and-their-non-standard-xmp...
At least digiKam seem to have an option for the "standard" way: "https://phabricator.kde.org/D9648"
But I see some valid points for the darktable decisions.
Maybe, I take the chance to shortly present my use case:
I'm a hobby photographer, collecting my pictures from various cameras, mobiles and friends in folders sorted by "YYYY\YYMM-Event". I collect these images at various locations, on my laptop, from my desktop computer, from other people computers, via the cloud or mobile uploads or directly via a network share when I'm at home. I use my time for this esp. when offline. So I have various stages of my work at various places.
In the end my goal is to have all pictures together with their sidecar files at one central location and not to loose any pictures in this process. And I strongly follow "last modification" wins :-)
I was never an Adobe Lightroom user and for many reasons I found a very good alternative with darktable and digiKam. Only the speed of working through my RAW images is too slow for sorting, grading and culling.
All what is missing now, is a fast raw viewer that fits into this tooling, and FRV is perfect for this, except...
... that I'm not able to interchangeably use FRV, darktable and digiKam.
I don't care if darktable is right or wrong, I don't care if Adobe is right or wrong. I care about the little pieces of metadata I have added to the pictures. And this already has a very limited interoperatibility scope... regardless of the ISO specification.
So if you want to have a user vote, my vote goes for an option to allow for customizeable names for sidercar files. There are more options than Adobe out there.
Thanks for listening.
D.Hobbes