Re: Album Support

["Marcus Hast" <marcushast gmail com>]

On 9/15/06, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen gmail com> wrote:

> I think that the term "album" should be defined much as the term is
> used for physical (paper) photo albums: a collection of photographs
> kept together. Just like in real paper photo albums, a photo could
> belong to only one album. Additionally, when viewing an album, photos
> in any other album should NOT be seen.

> Now, when viewing a specific album, only the tags present in the
> photos of that album should be shown. There should be no evidence that
> any other photos exist in the entire universe, other than a dropdown
> box to select which album to display. Therefore, I think that each
> album warrents its own photos.db file.

I think the functionality you describe here should exist. However I
don't think "album" is the correct term to use for it. At least
personally I see "album" to be a much less restrictive way to devide
photos. I also don't think that a photo should be restricted to only
one album.

Most significantly I don't think each album should have it's own
database. But I *do* very much agree that there should be a way to
separate photos in different databases.

Personally I think of "albums" more like a collection of photos. But
slightly different than a tag in that order and possibly extra
information is available. Personally I think it would be a good idea
to tie in different export options to an album. Such as export to web
server (Picasa web, Gallery, Flicker etc), "print" (possibly using
photo printing service) or to create a CD/DVD.

I think "collection" is a better term to describe a set of photos with
separate database file. OTOH I don't think "collection" is a perfect
word to describe it.

/Marcus