From: Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:53:35 +0100 "William Skaggs" <weskaggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 4) When the exif specifies that an image is rotated, the plug-in > pops up a query asking the user whether to rotate it into > standard alignment. I thought it was better to ask rather than > do it automatically, because there are probably a substantial > number of existing images that have been edited without having > their exif information properly updated (for example, by earlier > versions of GIMP). When an image is saved with exif, the > orientation is set to "top-left", as the exif specifications > require. (See bug #121810) Fortunately this isn't really an issue for The GIMP since people owning a camera that adds rotation information will use tools such as exiftran to deal with it. GIMP shouldn't very often see images with an orientation tag other than "top-left". So your approach is probably fine. I don't buy this. I simply copy images off the camera and leave them alone. My policy is to never muck with the original -- PERIOD. Yes, I could always make copies, but that would use more disk space. This is a standard photographic policy. You don't muck with your negatives. The obvious question is: if the rotation information isn't important, why does the camera even bother with it, as opposed to doing the rotation inside the camera? Why does EXIF even have a rotation tag if it's useless? One reason that comes to mind is to study the lighting after the fact; knowing what the original rotation was can be helpful in some cases.
