Re: [Shotwell] RAW+JPEG Import.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Pat Suwalski p...@suwalski.net wrote: 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). Shotwell currently renames imported jpeg files from RAW+JPEG pairs to [basename]_[raw extension].jpg This will likely be changed at some point. See this ticket for more info: http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/4149 - Eric ___ Shotwell mailing list Shotwell@lists.yorba.org http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
Re: [Shotwell] RAW+JPEG Import.
Hi Pat, I explicitly set the RAW developer to camera, expecting Shotwell to just use the JPG files and not create anything on its own. The Camera developer option has known issues in Shotwell 0.11.x and 0.12.x, as explained in Shotwell FAQ here: http://redmine.yorba.org/projects/shotwell/wiki/ShotwellFAQ#I-just-imported-a-RAW-photo-into-Shotwell-and-it-looks-overexposed-or-underexposed-why-is-this-and-how-can-I-fix-it. Even if you've set your default RAW developer to Camera, Shotwell may, incorrectly, do its own RAW development. Like I say, this is a known issue, and one potential workaround (i.e. switching the developer to Shotwell and then back to Camera again) is discussed in the FAQ. Lucas ___ Shotwell mailing list Shotwell@lists.yorba.org http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
Re: [Shotwell] RAW+JPEG Import.
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 Shotwell@lists.yorba.org http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
Re: [Shotwell] RAW+JPEG Import.
On 12-05-08 06:34 PM, oliver wrote: 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. Sure, but the eMail you're responding you clearly states that is not the case. 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? Is there a point to this? I read the import code, the classes for Raw and Jpeg, and database. I saw first-hand the _embedded files generate from database items that do not have a JPEG friend, and thus the embedded JPEG is extracted. I saw _shotwell files getting generated when the developer is set to Shotwell. All I am trying to determine is if there is any way I can help fix what is an obvious bug dealing with raw+jpeg import from directories, which is a new feature in 0.12 and isn't quite there. --Pat ___ Shotwell mailing list Shotwell@lists.yorba.org http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
Re: [Shotwell] RAW+JPEG Import.
Hi Eric, On 04/05/12 05:57 PM, Eric Gregory wrote: On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Pat Suwalski p...@suwalski.net mailto:p...@suwalski.net wrote: The problem I am seeing is that about 90% of them import correctly, but the remainder are not seen as a single image, but rather separately. I also note that it creates xxx_cr2_shotwell.jpg for some of these. The *_shotwell.jpg files are JPGs developed from RAW photos by Shotwell itself. These will be generated the first time you open the image. I explicitly set the RAW developer to camera, expecting Shotwell to just use the JPG files and not create anything on its own. I think it's part of the same problem, in that Shotwell does not recognize that many of the JPEGs are associated to the CR2s. I was reading up online, and came to the conclusion that it might be because Shotwell does (or used to?) need exactly the same timestamp on the RAW and JPEG file. Some of them are off by a number of seconds on the file timestamp. Not sure, though. I don't believe the file timestamps are taken into account (I could be wrong) but note that the raw and jpeg files must be the same folder and have the same basename to be associated, i.e. ABC.raw and ABC.jpg will be paired, whereas ABC.raw and DEF.jpg will not be. There must be something, though. Each and every one of the JPG files has a CR2 associated with it, in the form ABC.cr2 and ABC.jpg. The mystery is why Shotwell is not picking up on some of these, though it is on the vast majority. So, there is something in the pairing formula that is not quite right. --Pat ___ Shotwell mailing list Shotwell@lists.yorba.org http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
Re: [Shotwell] RAW+JPEG Import.
08.05.2012 08:21, Pat Suwalski kirjutas: I have attached a screenshot that demonstrates the problem. This list drops all attachments. Please post a link instead. Regards Mattias ___ Shotwell mailing list Shotwell@lists.yorba.org http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
Re: [Shotwell] RAW+JPEG Import.
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//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: 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! --Pat ___ Shotwell mailing list Shotwell@lists.yorba.org http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
Re: [Shotwell] RAW+JPEG Import.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Pat Suwalski p...@suwalski.net wrote: The problem I am seeing is that about 90% of them import correctly, but the remainder are not seen as a single image, but rather separately. I also note that it creates xxx_cr2_shotwell.jpg for some of these. The *_shotwell.jpg files are JPGs developed from RAW photos by Shotwell itself. These will be generated the first time you open the image. I was reading up online, and came to the conclusion that it might be because Shotwell does (or used to?) need exactly the same timestamp on the RAW and JPEG file. Some of them are off by a number of seconds on the file timestamp. Not sure, though. I don't believe the file timestamps are taken into account (I could be wrong) but note that the raw and jpeg files must be the same folder and have the same basename to be associated, i.e. ABC.raw and ABC.jpg will be paired, whereas ABC.raw and DEF.jpg will not be. - Eric ___ Shotwell mailing list Shotwell@lists.yorba.org http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
