On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:40:06AM -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote: > On 12-05-08 01:21 AM, Pat Suwalski wrote: > >I have attached a screenshot that demonstrates the problem. I started > >from scratch and re-imported everything. > > > >The two files detailed are in the same directory, and have the same > >basename. Looking at BatchImport.vala, unless something is wrong with > >the sort routine or one of the get_basename() methods, the code should > >work. Note that the next two photos should also be paired, but that the > >fifth photo is in the same directory and properly paired. > > > >The only other information I can think of is that the files are already > >present in ~/Pictures/yyyy/mm/dd, as that is where I am importing from. > > Also, on a fresh import from a media card, Shotwell has chosen a > most unusual naming scheme for my photos: [...]
Sure? I think the scheme is not that bad, but maybe means sonething different... > > pat@pat-desktop:~$ ls -1 ~/Pictures/2012/05/01/ > IMG_2971.CR2 > IMG_2971_CR2.jpg > IMG_2972.CR2 > IMG_2972_CR2.jpg > IMG_2973.CR2 > IMG_2973_CR2.jpg > IMG_2974.CR2 > IMG_2974_CR2.jpg > IMG_2975.CR2 > IMG_2975_CR2.jpg > IMG_2976.CR2 > IMG_2976_CR2.jpg > IMG_2977.CR2 > IMG_2977_CR2.jpg > IMG_2978.CR2 > IMG_2978_CR2.jpg > > It does properly identify them as RAW+JPEG, so maybe there is some > sort of disconnect between the naming it expects and what is there? > I would expect these to have the same basename and different > extension! Are you sure that theese jpeg's are NOT created by shotwell? The naming scheme looks like a generated jpg. You should compare those files with the files from the camera... to be sure that they are the camera files. Ciao, Oliver _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
