Discplaimer: Nnote that I am related to shotwell development. > Shotwell thinks the adjusted files are duplicates, and declines to > import them, so it is necessary to identify the images in the general > "Photos" view, and move them to the Wastebasket. > > All I had to do now was Import the directories again? > WRONG AGAIN!
Preventing duplicates is one of the beauties of shotwell for me. I often run an import from a camera sd card twice without deleting the pictures inbetween, I often import from a network share where my wife has put new photos in various locations, etc. I were lost if not for the duplicate detection :-). > All the images that I'd put in the Wastebasket were restored, and my > images with the adjusted EXIF data were ignored again. I would consider the first one a bug, if I put it in the trash (mostly unsharp and crappy pictures) I don't want them restored on repeated imports. (they are still crappy :-)) > To resolve this, it was necessary to find all the relevant images in the > Photo view - which is not straightforward unless they happen to be > contiguous - select them all, move them to the Wastebasket AND empty the > Wastebasket before I could import the adjusted images and have them put > together as events. What you could do is to delete the underlying files and they would be shown as missing on the next start which allows you to easily throw them in the trash. > 1. There are perfectly good reasons which I might like to have two or > more absolutely identical images in different directories, and to be > able to track them using Shotwell - for example I might have a working > directory which starts off as an exact copy of an archive directory > which I plan to leave untouched. Why doesn't Shotwell recognise this as > an option? Because in the easy and common case users don't want duplicates? :-) And there are only a handful of shotwell developers that can't cater for the more complex cases from the very beginning? Shotwell is still a young app. > 2. In my view, a Wastebasket image has already been flagged as > "unwanted", so when I choose to Import a duplicate (in Shotwell's terms) > its information should overwrite the original. I disagree, in my usecase once I've thrown a picture in the wastebasket, I don't want it to be reimported. ooh, "zombie photos" otherwise :). > 3. When an attempt is made to Import an image which appears to be > identical to one already in Shotwell's database, the option of > overwriting the original entry should be offered, as should the option > of creating a new entry. That might be an option but it should have the possibility to set permanent defaults. I don't want to click through 9k of photos again and again, saying that I really don't want to reimport them every time... > 4. I'd like to be able to see that I have several versions of the same > file in a directory, even though they might appear to be identical to > Shotwell. I might, for example, keep 800x600 and 1024x768 versions of > the same image and have them separately tagged for different export > jobs. If they have different resolution, they are (for shotwell) different images as the files differ, so that should already be possible. The problem I see is that people have very different use cases and work flows and catering for all these is impossible without creating a whole slur of complex user options (which is against the shotwell philosophy). So what might seem as stupidity and neglect to you, might be the main feature and advantage to me :). Sebastian _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
