Re: Digikam not recognising already downloaded photos - solved for me at least

Well after waiting to get my main PC back from repair I have had another 
look at this.

I had my camera added manually but of course when it gets plugged in it 
is auto detected as well and I believe having two instances of the same 
camera is causing the problem because I removed the manually added copy 
and lo and behold it now remembers which photos are already downloaded.

So for me the problem seems solved for me at least. Dont know if this 
helps others who have the problem.

Stuart

On 29/07/12 14:51, Stuart T Rogers wrote:
> Well I've just done some more testing.
>
> First with USB reader and new photo on card, this is detected as new and
> downloaded. I then closed digikam and re-opened and went to import from
> card again and it was recognised as already downloaded. So looks like
> USB reader does work OK.
>
> Same photo accessed by plugging in camera and using autodetected camera
> option shows photo as new, downloaded anyway and overwrote existing and
> then showed up as already downloaded. I then selected the pre-defined
> option for the camera and this same photo showed up as new. Closing and
> re-opening digikam and the photo on the camera comes up as new on both
> options.
>
> Now from what I have seen here it does look like digikam considers the
> origin of the photo (ie card reader or specific camera) as to whether or
> not the photo is new. This is I suppose OK as people are likely to have
> more than one camera, however this falls down when using a card reader
> as all cards will be considered as the same device irrespective of which
> camera they are from.
>
> So as far as I can tell from this we have a problem with digikam and
> cameras, now it also seems that gphoto is involved in this as well but I
> dont know if gphoto actually does the determination of new or if this is
> within digikam.
>
> The bottom line here is that there IS a bug and to be honest it is also
> a regression since this always used to work when I first started with
> 1.8 and 1.9 of digikam. I also feel it is quite important to resolve
> this since for me one of the big advantages was to be able to use my
> camera directly and just hit download new.
>
> Stuart
>
> On 07/29/2012 09:24 AM, Stuart T Rogers wrote:
>> In my view even if it uses file name and device downloaded from there is
>> still no reason why this should not work.
>>
>> I am still hoping someone who knows the internals can explain how this
>> works and whether this function is performed by digikam itself or relies
>> on some other code to detect this, that way I'll know where to open a
>> bug report.
>>
>> I will try and see if digikam remembers by creating a new photo and
>> download it via the card reader, and then see if it comes up as new or
>> not on a second try.
>>
>> I seem to remember that digikam gets it correct if you dont restart it
>> between attempts but again I'll have to test that.
>>
>> This problem is such a pain to me as my wife does not like to clear
>> photos off her memory cards unless it gets full so I have to make sure I
>> know what has been downloaded already (or sit here skipping photos
>> manually and when you have 400+ its a pain).
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On 07/29/2012 08:32 AM, Anders Stedtlund wrote:
>>> There is probably a table having a relation between downloaded images
>>> and the device they were downloaded from. I have had problems with
>>> digikam not remember images downloaded from my Canon EOS 50d.
>>>
>>> Now I use a external card reader and don't have the problem any
>>> longer. I use digiKam 2.7.0 at the moment.
>>>
>>> /Anders
>>>
>>> 2012/7/28 Stuart T Rogers <stuart@...>:
>>>> I can see all the photos correctly listed in the sqlite database so I
>>>> dont
>>>> know what else to look for.
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 07/28/2012 09:10 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stuart,
>>>>>
>>>>> this bug happens to me too, every now and than. But I had no
>>>>> time to investigate this jet.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I would do to debug:
>>>>> I would try to find out, where digikams stores information
>>>>> about pictures beeing old/new. Than I would look where
>>>>> writing or reading this information fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> But since I am only a digikam user - no developer - I do not
>>>>> exactly know, where to look for. But I would first try the
>>>>> digikam SQLite Database. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>          Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28.07.2012 16:15, Stuart T Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following my rant the other day I have done some testing
>>>>>> using both the camera and the USB card reader. I am running
>>>>>> digikam 2.7.0 with gphoto2 at 2.4.14.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the photos on the camera were downloaded a few days ago
>>>>>> so there are no new ones to download. All photos are visible
>>>>>> in the correct folder in digikam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My Canon SX10IS is detected OK but all photos on the card
>>>>>> are displayed as new whether I use the auto-detected option
>>>>>> or the one I had pre-defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So next I added my USB card reader and put the card directly
>>>>>> into it, again all the displayed photos on the card come up
>>>>>> as new.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At no time have I been able to get this working now for
>>>>>> absolutely ages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can anyone suggest where to go from here please? I am
>>>>>> willing to try and debug this but have no idea where to start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/23/2012 09:26 PM, Stuart T Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am now running 2.7 and still digikam will not recognise
>>>>>>> that several
>>>>>>> of the photos on my Canon SX10IS camera are not new.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply do not understand why this is so hard to get to
>>>>>>> work properly,
>>>>>>> it used to work OK on 1.9 properly. The photos filenames
>>>>>>> are still the
>>>>>>> same for those already downloaded, and the meta data is
>>>>>>> there. This
>>>>>>> should not be rocket science, everything in the database
>>>>>>> is there to
>>>>>>> recognise that some of these images have already been
>>>>>>> downloaded so why
>>>>>>> on earth can digikam get it so wrong? Sorry but I cannot
>>>>>>> see any excuse
>>>>>>> not to fix this....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry for the rant but this is becoming a real nuisance
>>>>>>> and annoyance
>>>>>>> especially as it is a problem which used not to exist!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Digikam-users mailing list
>>>>> Digikam-users@...
>>>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Website: http://www.stella-maris.org.uk
>>>> or:      http://www.broadstairs.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Digikam-users mailing list
>>>> Digikam-users@...
>>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Digikam-users mailing list
>>> Digikam-users@...
>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>>>
>>
>

--

-- 
Website: http://www.stella-maris.org.uk
or:      http://www.broadstairs.org