From: Daniel Egger <de@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:44:41 +0100 On 10.01.2005, at 16:52, Jakub Steiner wrote: > Unless I'm being told untruth about the losslessness (soundss great, > doesn't it?), the metaphor of not messing around with negatives isn't > appropriate. It depends very much on how clever the tools are regarding the EXIF information; if an image is rotated the EXIF information must be at least passed trhough to the new file if not even changed appropriately. Gthumb for one application (have the authors fixed this?) truncated the EXIF data when doing a lossless transformation so this was very much for the trashcan.... I for one have been bitten seriously by this and since then keep the images as an umodified original from the camera except for the filename. There's a good reason *right there* not to trust software that does any transformation on a master file. I'm not accusing the authors of exiftran of being sloppy, but the possibility of a latent bug does exist (and it's much greater than the possibility of a latent bug in cp or the like -- and when I do backups, I do verify them carefully, and use quality memory and the like!). -- Robert Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@xxxxxxxxxxxx Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton
