On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Nigel Dodd <[email protected]> wrote: > I would have to agree with a previous poster that the Unix philosophy should > apply to Shotwell, namely that it should do just one thing well and that one > thing would be as a keeper and indexer of photographs and possibly sync with > an on-line repository. If I want to process a photo I will use either > something like Rawstudio (for raw) or Gimp or Hugin. I would much rather > Shotwell had a limited feature set but was small and efficient and bug free.
I share the concerns, but raw development is something that shotwell already does... but doesn't do "well", as the unix philosophy requires. Should that capability be removed altogether, in your opinion? Using two tools is an option, of course, but there are always incompatibilities that affect the primary purpose of Shotwell: indexing. There is duplication & potential for error: I have, for instance, deleted files by mistake, because I got confused as to which were the RAWs, JPEGs, rawstudios quick exports, prints, etc. While, I think, post-processing filters (ImageMagick or otherwise), could be implemented as plugins without too much trouble, on first sight I don't see a way to do the same with the raw pipeline. I hope more experienced devs can comment on this. Sorry to have went a bit off-topic & best regards, Camilo _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
