On 14 May 2013, at 23:25, Michael Hendry <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> On 13 May 2013, at 20:29, Jim Nelson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Ah -- something I didn't notice earlier: you're using an old version of 
>> Shotwell.  The latest version (0.14.1) fixes numerous problems with RAW 
>> support, including this issue.  I highly recommend upgrading from Yorba's 
>> PPA: https://launchpad.net/~yorba/+archive/ppa
> 
> Thanks, Jim. That worked!
> 
> But it seems to be important to shut down Shotwell before deleting the 
> Shotwell-generated JPGs, as images tend to be shoved into Missing Files.
> 
> One feature I didn't expect - the generation of replacement 
> Shotwell-generated JPGs still occurs after Shotwell has been shut down. I had 
> the Nautilus window open on a directory whose JPGs I'd just deleted, and was 
> surprised to find it was being populated with new JPGs as I watched.
> 
> Michael
> 

I've been working my way through, deleting the additional files, and noticed 
that some directories have NEF files without corresponding JPG files.

I've tried shutting down Shotwell and deleting these files (in case they'd been 
left behind), but they're recreated when I start Shotwell again.

Michaels-iMac:29 michaelhendry$ ls
DSC_6713.NEF                    DSC_6730.NEF                    DSC_6747.NEF    
                DSC_6764.NEF                    DSC_6779_NEF_shotwell.jpg
DSC_6714.NEF                    DSC_6731.NEF                    DSC_6748.NEF    
                DSC_6765.NEF                    DSC_6780.NEF
DSC_6715.NEF                    DSC_6732.NEF                    DSC_6749.NEF    
                DSC_6766.NEF                    DSC_6780_NEF_shotwell.jpg
DSC_6716.NEF                    DSC_6733.NEF                    DSC_6750.NEF    
                DSC_6767.NEF                    DSC_6781.NEF
DSC_6717.NEF                    DSC_6734.NEF                    DSC_6751.NEF    
                DSC_6768.NEF                    DSC_6781_NEF_shotwell.jpg
DSC_6718.NEF                    DSC_6735.NEF                    DSC_6752.NEF    
                DSC_6769.NEF                    DSC_6782.NEF
DSC_6719.NEF                    DSC_6736.NEF                    DSC_6753.NEF    
                DSC_6770.NEF                    DSC_6782_NEF_shotwell.jpg
DSC_6720.NEF                    DSC_6737.NEF                    DSC_6754.NEF    
                DSC_6771.NEF                    DSC_6783.NEF
DSC_6721.NEF                    DSC_6738.NEF                    DSC_6755.NEF    
                DSC_6772.NEF                    DSC_6784.NEF
DSC_6722.NEF                    DSC_6739.NEF                    DSC_6756.NEF    
                DSC_6773.NEF                    DSC_6784_NEF_shotwell.jpg
DSC_6723.NEF                    DSC_6740.NEF                    DSC_6757.NEF    
                DSC_6774.NEF                    DSC_6785.NEF
DSC_6724.NEF                    DSC_6741.NEF                    DSC_6758.NEF    
                DSC_6775.NEF                    DSC_6786.NEF
DSC_6725.NEF                    DSC_6742.NEF                    DSC_6759.NEF    
                DSC_6776.NEF                    DSC_6786_NEF_shotwell.jpg
DSC_6726.NEF                    DSC_6743.NEF                    DSC_6760.NEF    
                DSC_6777.NEF
DSC_6727.NEF                    DSC_6744.NEF                    DSC_6761.NEF    
                DSC_6778.NEF
DSC_6728.NEF                    DSC_6745.NEF                    DSC_6762.NEF    
                DSC_6778_NEF_shotwell.jpg
DSC_6729.NEF                    DSC_6746.NEF                    DSC_6763.NEF    
                DSC_6779.NEF
Michaels-iMac:29 michaelhendry$ 


Although all the above images were taken at a single event (a wedding), the 
majority are said to have been Developed by the Camera, and the remainder 
(those with JPGs) by Shotwell.

I can't see any obvious reason why Shotwell (set in Preferences as the default 
developer) shouldn't have developed all of the images.

There's probably some simple explanation…

Michael

>> 
>> -- Jim
>> 
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Michael Hendry <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 13 May 2013, at 18:53, Jim Nelson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Jim.
>>> 
>>> I tried deleting the three JPG files accompanying DSC_8937.NEF, and the 
>>> result was that DSC_8937.NEF became a "Missing File", according to 
>>> Shotwell, and it disappeared from its event.
>>> 
>>> After half a minute or so, it appeared to move from Missing FIle to its 
>>> event again, but double-clicking on it in its event window (to view it) 
>>> resulting in its going back into the "Missing FIle" slot.
>>> 
>>> I tried dragging and dropping the file from its folder in the file system 
>>> into Shotwell, and opted to leave it in place. The image duly reappeared in 
>>> the relevant event, but no JPG file has been generated, and every time I 
>>> double-click on it, it bounces back into the "Missing File" box.
>>> 
>>> At no time since I deleted the JPG files has a new one been generated in 
>>> the relevant directory.
>>> 
>>> This is obviously not going to be as easy as I thought!
>>> 
>>> Could my difficulty have something to do with the fact that the images I'm 
>>> dealing with were shot entirely in RAW mode (i.e. not RAW+JPG) on my Nikon 
>>> D70?
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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

Reply via email to