ignore metadata when checking for duplicates
Submitted by an unknown user
Link to original bug (#716248)
Description
---- Reported by shotwell-maint@gnome.bugs 2010-05-01 07:56:00 -0700 ----
Original Redmine bug id: 1857
Original URL: http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/1857
Searchable id: yorba-bug-1857
Original author: Jakob Jensen
Original description:
It seems like when an image got a tag, and the same image is imported again it is not detected as a duplicate.
/first time filling a bug report/ticket hope it's right.
Related issues: duplicates shotwell - Feature #3487 (closed): More sophisticated, configurable handling of duplicates (Open)
- duplicated by shotwell - 5971: Detect duplicates on images with different EXIF data (Duplicate)
---- Additional Comments From shotwell-maint@gnome.bugs 2013-05-01 11:47:00 -0700 ----
History
Comment 1
Updated by Adam Dingle over 3 years ago
I can't reproduce this in trunk. I imported a photo from a folder, tagged it, then tried to import the same photo again. Shotwell correctly reported that it is a duplicate. I then tried the same when importing from a camera, and once again it was correctly reported as a duplicate.
Are you using 0.5, or a trunk build? Can you report a precise sequence of steps that we can take to see the problem?
Comment 2
Updated by Adam Dingle over 3 years ago
- Status changed from Open to 5
- Resolution set to worksforme
- % Done set to 0
We can't reproduce this in trunk, and it's been a week since we've heard from Jakob87 (the person who reported this), so I'm marking this as worksforme. Jakob87, if this is still a problem for you feel free to reopen this – thanks!
Comment 3
Updated by Jakob Jensen over 3 years ago
First off sorry for the long delay..
I've discovered that theres 2 of the same date! “Sat Jun 21, 2008†is there 2 times, so it's maybe not a tag problem.
i have tried several times, to replicate but with out luck.
Comment 4
Updated by enboig - almost 3 years ago
- Status changed from 5 to 4
-
Resolution deleted (
<strike>
_worksforme_</strike>
) - % Done changed from 0 to 0
Using version 0.8.1 and I have this problem. I think it can be reproduced:
-
import an image.
-
configure shotwell to save tags in files.
-
tag the image.
-
reimport the image.
I have the same photo 4 times right now.
Comment 5
Updated by Adam Dingle almost 3 years ago
enboig,
I can't reproduce this, at least with the current trunk. I did the following steps in an attempt to imitate yours:
I started Shotwell with an empty library and metadata writing turned off.
I dragged a JPEG photo from my desktop into Shotwell, and chose to import in place.
I turned on the metadata writing option.
I added a tag to the image.
I dragged the photo from my desktop into Shotwell again, and once again chose to import in place. Shotwell reported “1 duplicate photo not importedâ€.
Can you try these exact steps to see if the problem occurs for you? (To run Shotwell with an empty library, first turn off the auto-import option, then exit Shotwell and run it with an alternate data directory – e.g. 'shotwell -d ~/foo'.)If these steps don't reproduce the problem, can you provide a sequence of steps that does?
Comment 6
Updated by Jim Nelson almost 3 years ago
enboig, to chime in -- does this seem to be a timing-related bug? That is, does it only happen if you quickly re-import the file?
Comment 7
Updated by Adam Dingle almost 3 years ago
Lluis Forns (enboig) sent this response via email:
No, I imported some photos (around 5gb), then some other fotos (around1gb), then reimported a mixed folder with photos of the first "pack"and they where duplicated.
In my configuration I marked to save tags in photos. When I importphotos, I tag them as fast as I can using the “last imported†feature.
The only thing is I didn't close shotwell, but I waited “writing tagsâ€to finish before reimporting.
How are duplicated photos checked? by file content? or just “imagepart without any tag� I think maybe that's the problem.
Comment 8
Updated by enboig - almost 3 years ago
I don't want to “destroy†all my photos by accident, so I have make:
-
I started shotwell, write metadata already activated.
-
I dragged a JPEG photo from my desktop, and choose copy photos.
-
I tagged the photo
-
I gave some food to my dogs to wait some time.
-
I dragged again the same photo.
It is imported twice.
How can I “safely†move my photos and metadata to check with a “fresh†install?
Comment 9
Updated by Adam Dingle almost 3 years ago
- Target version set to 0.9
- Priority set to High
OK – now I can reproduce the behavior you describe. It seems to occur only when photos are copied to the library on import.
I believe this is happening because Shotwell currently looks at the entire file content to decide which photos are duplicates. I agree that the behavior you're experiencing is probably not desirable, though I'm not sure just how to address this – we need to think more about duplicate detection in Shotwell. But I'll up the priority of this ticket for consideration for 0.9.
Comment 10
Updated by Adam Dingle almost 3 years ago
-
Target version deleted (
<strike>
_0.9_</strike>
)
I just discussed this with Jim. Duplicate detection is a bit tricky and we probably won't be able to change this for 0.9 at this point. It would be good to take a closer look at this for 0.10, however.
Comment 11
Updated by Adam Dingle almost 3 years ago
Lluis Forns (enboig) sent this response via email:
There should be also someway of search for existing duplicated images, right now I have thousands of duplicated images, and an easy way to clean that mess would be wellcome.
Is there any problem using another application to remove duplicated images? would that affect shotwell database?
Comment 12
Updated by Adam Dingle almost 3 years ago
Lluis,
I agree that it would be great if Shotwell could help you clean up your image duplicates. We hope to look at that for 0.10; see#2614.
If you use another application to remove duplicated images, then the next time you start Shotwell it will list all those images as missing. You can then go to the Missing Files view, select all those images and choose Remove From Library to remove them from Shotwell.
Comment 13
Updated by Martin - over 2 years ago
Agree, checking metadata when looking for duplicates would be good. It would also be good if we could de-duplicate existing photos.
Comment 14
Updated by enboig - over 2 years ago
When deleting duplicated images, it would be nice to be able to merge tags.
Comment 15
Updated by Adam Dingle about 1 year ago
- Subject changed from duplicated images when the first is tagged. to ignore metadata when checking for duplicates
- Description updated (diff)
I agree with the above: Shotwell should ignore metadata when checking for duplicates, at least optionally. (I just imported a few directories where I had multiple copies of some photos with different metadata in each, and I wish Shotwell had removed the duplicates.)
Comment 16
Updated by Adam Dingle about 1 year ago
- Target version set to 0.14.0
Comment 17
Updated by Jim Nelson 11 months ago
- Category set to library-mode
Comment 18
Updated by Jim Nelson 11 months ago
- Status changed from Open to 5
- Resolution set to duplicate
I'm less enthused about this feature. It sounds useful when a user knows they're importing directories with semi-duplicate files, but I'm positive it's going to cause confusion with users who expect to see all their photo assets. We already have users who don't understand the duplicate detection we have today.
I feel the real solution is to allow users to evaluate duplicates and decide what to do about them -- delete, remove from library, or simply nothing and let them exist side-by-side in the library. Closing this one as a subset (duplicate) of #3487 (closed).
Comment 19
Updated by Charles Lindsay 7 months ago
- Status changed from 5 to Duplicate
--- Bug imported by chaz@yorba.org 2013-11-25 21:44 UTC ---
This bug was previously known as bug 1857 at http://redmine.yorba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1857
Unknown milestone "unknown in product shotwell. Setting to default milestone for this product, "---". Setting qa contact to the default for this product. This bug either had no qa contact or an invalid one.
Version: 0.14.0
Resolution: RESOLVED DUPLICATE