PhotoPrint

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 2023-04-28 at 11:35 -0400, Little Girl wrote:
> Shotwell

Hi,

shotwell suffers from several bad decisions.

Take a look at the screenshot, https://i.imgur.com/tr8PTpz.png . The
photo is downscaled. I can't comment on the quality of the scaling
algorithm, since I haven't done comparisons yet. However, I shot the
bird several times, at the same position, if I go from one photo to
another it doesn't keep the scaling, instead it fits the complete photo
into the window, hence the photo is super-downscaled and I can't compare
one shot after the other, since I need to change the scaling and move
the position of the detail I want to see manually each time I select
another photo. The screenshot shows also some EXIF data on the left
side, some other EXIF data on the right side and some EXIF data isn't
shown at all. It provides rudimentary editing options, such as a red-eye
feature no photographer ever needs. Shotwell does apply an edit made by
accident by overwriting the original photo without asking. I need to
restore the photo of the bird from a backup.

I don't know why a viewer provides editing options at all, let alone
that no photographer ever suffers from photos with red-eyes.

Already the scaling issue, the red-eye feature and the destructive
editing without even asking, if it's ok to damage the original photo
make clear that this app is aimed for photos made with a smartphone.
It's not a tool for photographers.

Shotwell is just another useless viewer.

Before testing shotwell I was undecided if I should do a "chattr -R +i"
to the original photo library. After I restore the bird from backup I
will make the photos immutable.

When I first launching shotwell it asked if the photos should be
imported in place or if it should copy the photos. Due to the immense
size of the photo library, tens of thousands 24.3 Megapixel RAW + JPEG
photos already on an internal drive, I selected to import in place
instead of making a copy. The import took several hours, which is ok for
those who need a database. It's ok for me, too, but I don't necessarily
need a database.

Regards,
Ralf