Those extra files are generated by Shotwell because decoding the .NEF
file (or any RAW file) takes a lot of CPU power and time. Also,
there's two ways Shotwell can "develop" a RAW file: by decoding the
file or using one of its internal JPEG files. Generally the internal
JPEG file looks better because the camera has tweaked it using various
parameters (white point, exposure, etc.)
If you delete those files, Shotwell will regenerate them when you next
view that file in Shotwell. Note that the latest version of Shotwell
(0.14) will not generate so many of them; it's an old bug that caused
all those different versions to appear.
-- Jim
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Michael Hendry
<[email protected]> wrote:
Earlier this year I retired my elderly Dell PC running Ubuntu 12.04
in favour of a new iMac 27".
Virtually every application I was using on the Dell can be replaced
with a Mac-compiled version, but I'm still running Shotwell in a
virtual Ubuntu machine, storing all the images in a shared directory
on the Mac.
I've found that I've got a number of JPG versions of NEF files I'd
previously uploaded to the Ubuntu machine, and the migrated to the
Mac, for example:
DSC_8937.NEF is accompanied by
DSC_8937_NEF_embedded.jpg
DSC_8937_NEF_shotwell_1.jpg and
DSC_8937_NEF_shotwell.jpg
I'm currently using Shotwell 0.12.3 with Ubuntu 12.04 in a Parallels
VM.
Is it safe to delete any or all of these Shotwell-generated JPGs?
Will Shotwell generate a new JPG version if all that's left in a
directory is the raw NEF file? Or does it only generate this on the
initial import?
I don't _need_ the extra space at the moment, but I'd like to dispose
of an unnecessary overhead and reduce back-up requirements if I can.
Thanks in advance,
Michael
_______________________________________________
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
