thumbnails vs scaled images

Like a lot of people, I have some scripts to generate
web pages from my pictures.  For example:
http://pics.bothner.com/2004/SierraAzulHikeFeb/index.html

I've played around with gqview, and it seems nice for initial
categorization and renaming.  But once I've done that I want to
run my scripts, which generates scaled images and html files.
Then the directory has a mix of the original images and scaled
images (web-page-sized upto 740x740 and thumbnails upto 240x240),
at which point using gqview (or another image brower) becomes
more klunky.

It also seems wasteful for gqview to generate it own set of thumbnails
that just duplicate the thumbnails (240x180 or 180x240) that I
generate for the overview web page.

The former problem can be partially solved by moving scaled images
to subdirectories, but it would be nice if gqview would know that
the scaled images are just that.

So I'm not asking specifically for gqview to natively support my setup.
However, it would be nice if we could work out a set of conventions
to make it more convenient to manage web albums as well as raw photo
collections.  Or am I using the wrong tool - should I be using something
else?

(The scripts I use are described in: http://pics.bothner.com/scripts/i
The basic idea is that each "album" is a directory containing images
plus an index.xml that describes the images, and contains comments
and other meta-imformation.  Then a script generates the linked setof
html pages from the index.xml and .jpgs.)
  --
	--Per Bothner
[email protected]   http://per.bothner.com/


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes
Want to be the first software developer in space?
Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click