Argument file(s)

[Archive]

[Originally posted by peroxide on 2009-04-22 20:38:56-07]

Hello,
    I am trying to write a simple program to modify the value of some EXIF tags (-tag1, -tag2, ... -tagN) to a series of .jpg files. In order to do this, I need to make a call to the exiftool utility, frow within my program, twice: 1) once to extract those few tags from the original image files (using a command line containing the switch '-w .old' to create a series of output files, one for each image file), and 2) twice to update the same tags using an argument file (with extension .new). Of course, my program takes care of parsing the .old file and modify it accordingly to a .new file between these two calls. While I managed to call the former to execute on many files at once, I have not been able to call the latter for the same purpose.
    Is there a way to provide a pattern for the argument files to make a single call to exiftool where I give a list of image files to process, example PICT023??.JP*, and a list of as many argument files (something like '-@ %d%f.new') ?
    Thank you.

[Archive]

[Originally posted by exiftool on 2009-04-23 00:51:45-07]

The -@ option is processes immediately,
not once per input file, so what you are
trying to do won't work. Instead, why not
output a single .args file for all the files
you want to process, and use the -execute
option to process each separately. - Phil

[Archive]

[Originally posted by peroxide on 2009-04-23 13:37:42-07]

Thanks Phil for your kind answer. Unfortunately, each single image file will most likely give a different output (for instance, all the Date/Time tags will have different values), so there will have to be one argument file for each picture. I need that text file to read, parse and possibly modify some values, then I need to update the image file accordingly. What I was trying to do is to avoid a call to the exiftool utility for every single file, which is highly inefficient and time-consuming. The switch '-w .old.txt' works quite well, and I thought there would be an equivalent switch '-textIn .new.txt' for input. Sorry, I will do that one-by-one for now (maybe I gave you a hint for your next release ?). Regards, Dario.