On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 10:39:42AM -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote: > On 12-05-08 06:18 AM, oliver wrote: > >On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:40:06AM -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote: > >>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... > > I see no reason why they should be renamed. AAA.jpg should remain > AAA.jpg and not become AAA_CR2.jpg. It makes it lose the most > obvious association (even though it's properly marked in the DB). [...]
If generated, it would make sense. > > >>pat@pat-desktop:~$ ls -1 ~/Pictures/2012/05/01/ > (...) > >>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. > > Not so. The files are exactly the same as on the CF card, and if > they were generated by Shotwell, they would have "_embedded" or > "_shotwell" in the name. [...] Ah, you read the whole source code and verified, waht you wrote here? Ciao, Oliver _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
