- AFAICT, there's no means of accessing an individual photo with a simple album-imagename based URL. Am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing something, toggle pic info and see the url given at the bottom
I have it on - and the URL I see isn't "a simple album-imagename based URL". The one I see shows a cgi-based URL with a simple index (apparently through every image in the gallery? EG
http://localhost/~joshua/coppermine//displayimage.php?pos=-5 ) I mean something like (IMO, the best thing about Gallery) /coppermine/albumname/imagename, without arguments passed cgi-fashion in the URL (which limits usage).
- The rotate function doesn't work reliably (at all?)
Rotate will be in cpg1.3.0 (which is still under beta stage). There's a lengthy thread on the cpg1.3.0testing/bugs board about it. Generally speaking: rotate will only be there if the image library you use has support for it.
- There should *never* be a loss of JPEG quality.
Lossless means bigger files - you can set compression/quality in coppermine config - change quality to 100%, which means lossless. There's no way around this, it lies in the nature of the JPEG file format, so your request is (to say it mildly) "invalid".
As a photographer, I don't mind larger files if it means my images look decent. Disk is cheap.
I don't quite see what's mild (or non-mild) about that, or in fact what your 'mild' comment means at all! Or "why" there are "quotes" around "invalid"!
But the fact is, you're mistaken; lossless rotation is part of the JPEG standard. GD supports it, I believe. But perhaps there was some confusion there; I didn't mean JPEG compression shouldn't be supported, only that lossless rotation should be. Apologies if I was being muddy.
Oh - and due to peculiarities in the JPEG2000 spec, 100% lossless doesn't always mean lossless, which I consider very tacky, but what can you do?
- The notion of albums-in-categories is nowhere near as useful as categories-within-albums.
For future versions we're considering to have only albums, which will be able to contain both files and sub-albums. Imo your request basically is just a matter of terminology though.
That would be great. Because there is actually quite a utility difference. If it was just terminology, I wouldn't care.
If you could put photos into a category, there would be no difference but terminology. But since you can't, and albums can be leaf-node-only, there's quite a utility difference.
Especially without the ability to readily move photos; If a user creates a nice tree of categories, as I described, they can't later split up an album into further categories without jumping through hoops. I'd applaud a move to simply nested albums - perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see anything gained by the album/category distinction, except a restriction on what the user can do!
Thanks again for a great alternative to Menalto. I can't wait to use something whose code doesn't make me want to run and hide.