Michael,
Shotwell 0.8.1 will run on Lucid, but neither the Ubuntu repositories
nor the Yorba PPA contain Shotwell 0.8.1 for Lucid - you need to build
it yourself. See the instructions on the Yorba web site, and feel free
to ask on the Shotwell mailing list if you're having trouble building.
--
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 20:05 +, Omer Akram wrote:
> shotwell 0.8.1 is now in Natty
>
> ** Changed in: shotwell (Ubuntu)
>Status: Triaged => Fix Released
>
Thanks Omer.
I'm using 0.7.2 with Lucid Lynx - do I have to upgrade to a later
version of Ubuntu to use 0.8.1?
Michael
--
You
shotwell 0.8.1 is now in Natty
** Changed in: shotwell (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/644125
Title:
Date information not imported with
** Changed in: shotwell
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/644125
Title:
Date information not imported with jpg files of scanned negatives
--
ub
We've decided that for Shotwell 0.8, we're only going to read the
extended timestamp EXIF information from new photos, since rescanning
photos that were already imported and updating the database is a fairly
large change.
However, I've filed a new ticket for the rescan/database update:
http://trac
** Changed in: shotwell
Status: New => Confirmed
--
Date information not imported with jpg files of scanned negatives
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/644125
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing l
** Changed in: shotwell (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Low
** Changed in: shotwell (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Triaged
--
Date information not imported with jpg files of scanned negatives
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/644125
You received this bug notification because you are a member
I added a note to our ticket detailing an upgrade scheme that should
solve the problem you're describing (thanks for pointing it out). It
would prevent you from having to re-import the photos. The only open
question is whether or not to create new events for these photos once
their DateTime is de
Thanks, Jim.
Once the fallback scheme has been implemented, will I have to remove all
affected images from the image library and then re-import them? If
that's the case, I'll lose all the work I've already done in tagging the
files. As the files themselves won't have changed, they'll presumably
ap
** Changed in: shotwell
Status: Unknown => New
--
Date information not imported with jpg files of scanned negatives
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/644125
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing lis
We've not received much interest in supporting BMP, which is why we've
not implemented it. We do have a ticket to add support for it (as well
as GIF) here: http://trac.yorba.org/ticket/2154 If you want to continue
discussing that feature, that would be a good place to do it.
I now definitely thi
I've been reading about the EXIF "standard", and it appears not quite to
match up to that description!
One problem is that the tags are identified by number within the image
file, and different applications attach different descriptions to these
numbers.
What seems clear is that there are three d
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the text files. This verifies my suspicions, that the
scanner is using the plain DateTime EXIF tag and not DateTimeDigitized
or DateTimeOriginal. If we use a fallback scheme (first looking for
DateTimeOriginal, then DateTimeDigitized, then DateTime), this should
solve your
As a new Linux user, I've been dipping my toes in the water with various
applications, trying to find the best way to make the transition from
Windows.
My first attempt in the photographic side of things was with f-spot,
which was distributed as part of the standard Lucid Lynx distribution,
and wh
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 18:39 +, Jim Nelson wrote:
> Michael,
>
> The current version of Shotwell (0.7.x) will not notice the change to
> the EXIF data and re-sort your photos.
That's what I suspected.
>
> That is planned for the next
> release, and code to do that is in trunk today.
There'
Michael,
The current version of Shotwell (0.7.x) will not notice the change to
the EXIF data and re-sort your photos. That is planned for the next
release, and code to do that is in trunk today. If you're curious,
check out our project page at
http://www.yorba.org/shotwell/install/#source for bu
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 17:16 +, Adam Dingle wrote:
> Michael,
>
> this is ticketed upstream at http://trac.yorba.org/ticket/1212 . We do
> have mixed feelings, however, about using the file time for
> sorting/grouping when no EXIF date is present, since we think that for
> many photos this tim
Michael,
this is ticketed upstream at http://trac.yorba.org/ticket/1212 . We do
have mixed feelings, however, about using the file time for
sorting/grouping when no EXIF date is present, since we think that for
many photos this time will not be relevant. We might allow this as a
user option.
Se
Looking further into this, I find that although the File Manager appears
to report the date of the scan, it's actually reporting the date of
change of the file - the scanning software has not included the date of
the scan in the EXIF metadata associated with the image.
It would still be helpful if
19 matches
Mail list logo
