On 30 Sep 2014, at 21:42, Jim Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Michael Hendry <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I have just read about the sidecar files which are used to attach metadata >> to RAW files - from a position of ignorance, it looks to me as if this might >> be a better way of dealing with the issue. > > That's a more likely way we'd go if we were to offer writing RAW metadata. > > Do you have a suggestion for how the message would look? "Writing metadata > to files (not RAW)" doesn't read very well. > > -- Jim
If you look at my original post, you’ll see that Shotwell claimed to have completed writing metadata to a RAW file... L 17293 2014-09-23 11:00:55 [MSG] MetadataWriter.vala:623: Completed writing metadata for [77831] /home/michaelhendry/Desktop/Parallels Shared Folders/Home/Pictures/Shotwell Library/2014/09/17/DSC_1969.NEF …and did this for numerous other NEF files. Not everyone is going to read a log file, but it might as well be accurate! What I’d suggest is that when the user switches on the writing of metadata for the first time, a warning should come up “Metadata will not be written to RAW files, only to JPGs - Proceed anyway? Yes ~ No”, or similar. “Writing metadata to files (where possible)…” would also indicate that this doesn’t work for all files. On a more general note, wherever possible I use software that doesn’t lock me in by handling data in a specific way. If all my image files were self-sufficient in the sense that they carried all the metadata I’d ascribed to them in Shotwell, then I could be confident the I would be able (for example) to split my library of images into several independent libraries, administered by Shotwell or by any other program that could read the metadata. Michael _______________________________________________ shotwell-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/shotwell-list
