Hi Lucas, Thanks for running that test for me. Unfortunately, there are some things about RAW handling and development in Shotwell that are just broken, alas. Fixing these problems is a top priority for the next release of Shotwell, so stay tuned!
Lucas On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Lucas B. Cohen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012.06.18 20:35, Lucas Beeler wrote: >>> I've tried re-importing this folder so >>> that Shotwell would find the new file. >>> But I'm surprised to find that Shotwell >>> didn't find it, so didn't import it. >> >> >> What I think is happening here is that when you do the re-import, >> Shotwell identifies the JPEGs as the Camera development of a RAW + >> JPEG pair. So you should be able to see your UFRaw-developed JPEGs by >> selecting the corresponding RAW file and choosing "Camera" from the >> "Developer" submenu of the "Photos" menu. Note that, because of a >> known bug in Shotwell, to really test this theory, you'll have select >> the RAW photo, set the developer to "Shotwell" then switch the >> developer back to "Camera" to actually see the JPEG development. >> >> If you do this, do you see your UFRaw-developed JPEG as the Camera >> development of the RAW master? > > I've just tried this on a freshly imported RAW, and I'm not getting the > results you were expecting. Toggling between developers does not get > Shotwell to display the silly 15000 °K version of the developped RAW I > had saved back into the photo import folder and tried to have Shotwell > consider by using "import from folder". > > Furthermore, deleting that new "silly version" JPG from the photo import > folder using a file manager did not cause any visible errors in Shotwell > when I toggled between developers some more. > > What I've noticed is that the choice of name for the developed picture > may have an influence here. When I chose "IMGnnnn-developed.jpg" in > UFraw as the name, Shotwell did see that picture as new, and did import > it into its database. When I kept UFraw's default "IMGnnn.jpg" (as I had > done last time), Shotwell told be it had only seen duplicates and hadn't > imported anything. > > So, this is a working way to do things for me. However, I can still > experiment a bit if you're curious about what exactly is happening. > > Thanks for your help, > > Lucas > > _______________________________________________ > Shotwell mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
