Provide a more generic and meaningful property
and display name for the previous ImageMake and
ImageModel properties.
CCBUG: 343273
Details
Details
- Reviewers
ngraham bruns - Commits
- R286:131947acb0b2: Rename ImageMake and ImageModel properties
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R286 KFileMetaData
- Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable. - Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.
| src/propertyinfo.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 185 | Isn't Manufacturer sufficient for the label? Same for Model. | |
Comment Actions
"Manufacturer" is shorter, but since the metadata is attached to a photo, the longer version might make more sense to cement that it's a property of the camera itself, and not the photo!
Comment Actions
But is it really ambiguous? If it states "Canon", "EOS 70D" or "Nikon", "D5000", there isn't much room for interpretation. Also, "Equipment" is not really fitting very well - what about the lense, what about the tripod, the flash(es)? And what/who would a "Photo manufacturer" be? We are talking about digital images here.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the enum renaming - reusing a strange name from some widely used standard is one thing, but inventing a new one I don't consider a good idea.
Comment Actions
Well, no ... also "Scanner, Phone, video digitizer, ..."
Digikam just uses "Manufacturer" and "Model", as does Canons DPP
Comment Actions
That is a strong reason to use just Manufacture and Model then.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the enum renaming - reusing a strange name from some widely used standard is one thing, but inventing a new one I don't consider a good idea.
I'd still like to rename these to "Manufacturer" and "Model". IMHO ImageMake and ImageModel is confusing and meaningless.
Comment Actions
All right, let's just go with "Manufacturer" and "Model" then. The values for these keys will probably make it clear enough.