https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418635
--- Comment #12 from Philipp Reichmuth <philipp.reichm...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to linadmin from comment #11) > (In reply to Philipp Reichmuth from comment #10) > > Created attachment 144076 [details] > > Screenshot of the GPSAreaInformation tag in Gwenview 21.08.3 > > > > Here's how Gwenview displays the tag on my system, it looks OK. > > Maybe the issue is with a particular combination of libraries and tags? > > Thousand thanks for your efforts. Indeed your version does display it in a > different way from my slightly older version. > I therefore installed Debian Bullseye which has Gwenview 20.12.3 and the > display indeed looks as you showed it. > > However, I do not see why it should display the additional information that > the GPSAreaInformation is in such and such character coding. It does not > show that on City and City2 which also can be Unicode and which have already > worked as expected in older versions. It shows exactly what you have in your file, as reported by libexiv2: # exiv2 -g City P1020755A.JPG Exif.Panasonic.City Undefined 72 Mecklenburgische Seenplatte Exif.Panasonic.City2 Undefined 72 Neubrandenburg # exiv2 -g GPS P1020755A.JPG Exif.Image.GPSTag Long 1 15800 Exif.GPSInfo.GPSVersionID Byte 4 2.3.0.0 Exif.GPSInfo.GPSLatitudeRef Ascii 2 Norden Exif.GPSInfo.GPSLatitude Rational 3 53deg 32' 51" Exif.GPSInfo.GPSLongitudeRef Ascii 2 Osten Exif.GPSInfo.GPSLongitude Rational 3 13deg 15' 13" Exif.GPSInfo.GPSTimeStamp Rational 3 16:09:34 Exif.GPSInfo.GPSStatus Ascii 2 Messung wird durchgeführt Exif.GPSInfo.GPSMeasureMode Ascii 2 Zweidimensionale Messung Exif.GPSInfo.GPSDOP Rational 1 9/10 Exif.GPSInfo.GPSMapDatum Ascii 10 WGS-84 Exif.GPSInfo.GPSProcessingMethod Undefined 14 charset=Ascii GPS Exif.GPSInfo.GPSAreaInformation Undefined 266 charset=Unicode Dampferanlegestelle Exif.GPSInfo.GPSDateStamp Ascii 11 2019:07:14 > I conclude that the Gwenview project management it too lousy to believe: > They _somehow_ worked at the bug without looking how it has been done on > other fields. I think bashing developers is counterproductive. I think it's more probable that they didn't have test cases that were generated by whatever process you use to put GPS tags in your files. Where do those tags come from? I notice that the lengths of several fields are off. Maybe that process has something to do with the behaviour we're seeing here. For example, there are digital cameras that zero-pad the EXIF strings to a fixed length, but I'm not sure whether Panasonic is one of them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
