On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 09:33 +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > 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 :-). >
So the rest of us have to suffer because of your carelessness? <G> At the very least, there should be a warning of the duplicates, and an option to go ahead anyway, with a configuration option to ban all duplicates. > > 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 :-)) Glad we can agree about something! > > > 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. But I want to keep the underlying files, with their EXIF data changed. I agree that this would be a reliable way of ensuring the removal of the dud information, using the sequence: 1. Open the relevant directory in the file manager. 2. Send its contents to the "Deleted Items" folder. 3. Close Shotwell. 4. Open Shotwell. 5. Wait for Shotwell to scan through and discover that files are missing. 6. Authorise their deletion from Shotwell. 7. Restore the directory's contents from the "Deleted Items" folder. 8. Make the adjustments to the EXIF data. 9. Import the folder using Shotwell. It's a bit of a long way round. > > > 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 :). > You agreed (above) that restoring information from the Wastebasket is the wrong thing to do when an attempt to import apparently identical images is made. Are you suggesting that once you've emptied the Wastebasket Shotwell should "remember" that you've got rid of an image and never want it imported again? > > 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... Agreed, or a warning about duplicates and a set of "Yes...Yes to all...No...No to all" import options would sort that. > > > 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. Doesn't work for me - I think it's because the thumbnails are identical, and the test for "identicality" doesn't take file-size or EXIF data into consideration. > > 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 :). > Ah, we're getting into the everlasting battle between Philosophy and Pragmatism here! Michael _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
