Hi Chris, I had written a patch for that on a filename-basis [1], which should be sufficient as it actually considers the whole path to the file.
It was considered too confusing to the user when I discussed it in IRC, but I am also in this opinion in its current state. It added an additional option, "[x] ignore jpeg files only if an accompanying raw exists" which worked then together with the current available: "[x] ignore jpeg files" A better way would probably be to have a drop down menu that shows the following options: Import: "All RAWs and JPEGs", "RAWs only", "RAWs and JPEGs without corresponding RAW file" However, there is something else to consider: It will in its basic form only detect the exact same-named jpegs, e.g. "DSC_1234.raw"+"DSC_1234.jpg" but import "DSC_1234_1.jpg". So, for users who have these multiple jpegs, it might come as a surprise that the *_1.jpg, *_2.jpg, etc. files are imported. Not sure if we should detect and include them and what the 'least surprise' [2] would be. Otherwise, if some of the main devs commented on this, I could implement it soon. Best regards, Dennis [1] Please don't try this version of darktable, as it it is quite old, it could screw up your current database: https://github.com/bluesceada/darktable/tree/jpeg-solitary-import [2] Principle of least surprise: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_Least_Surprise On 13.02.2015 10:48, Christian Mandel wrote: > Hi! > > There have been several bug reports/feature requests on similar issues > (http://www.darktable.org/redmine/issues/8779, > http://www.darktable.org/redmine/issues/8538, > http://www.darktable.org/redmine/issues/9065), but they do not describe > my issue exactly. When I bring together images of several photographers > and/or from different cameras (e.g. after a vacation), some images have > just raw, some raw+jpeg and some jpeg only (e.g. from mobile phones). > Therefore it would be handy to ignore jpeg during import only if a > corresponding raw file is present. Especially when the collection of > images in the directory/film roll grows with time and has to be > reimported several times, manually deleting redundant jpegs is time > consuming and I never thought that grouping raw+jpeg is a proper > replacement for not importing redundant jpegs, it's something different. > > Is there already a way to only ignore redundant jpegs but import jpegs > without companion raw or, if not, what is your opinion on this topic? > > I guess, to detect redundancy, two steps are sufficient: first a > comparison of filename and, second, if the same basename, compare exif > date. Maybe even the first step is sufficient? > > Best regards > > Chris > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, > sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your > hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a > look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > _______________________________________________ > darktable-devel mailing list > darktable-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ darktable-devel mailing list darktable-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel
