After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 715270 - group photos into albums
group photos into albums
Product: shotwell
Classification: Other
Component: library-mode
Other All
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Shotwell Maintainers
Shotwell Maintainers
Depends on:
Reported: 2009-03-11 05:55 UTC by Adam Dingle
Modified: 2020-12-19 20:06 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Description Charles Lindsay 2013-11-25 21:41:06 UTC

---- Reported by 2009-03-11 10:55:00 -0700 ----

Original Redmine bug id: 81
Original URL:
Searchable id: yorba-bug-81
Original author: Adam Dingle
Original description:

group photos into albums

Related issues:
related to shotwell - Feature #4298: Add "Collections" feature (Duplicate)
related to shotwell - Feature #6679: Share entire event with web service (Open)

---- Additional Comments From shotwell-maint@gnome.bugs 2013-08-22 11:58:00 -0700 ----

### History



Updated by Adam Dingle over 3 years ago

  * **Target version** deleted (<strike>__</strike>)



Updated by Adam Dingle over 3 years ago

  * **Status** changed from _Open_ to _5_
  * **Resolution** set to _wontfix_
  * **% Done** set to _0_

We'll probably soon support organizing photos both by tag and by on-disk
folder, and I think we probably don't need yet another folder-ish organization
mechanism. Marking as wontfix.



Updated by Charles Lindsay 7 months ago

  * **Status** changed from _5_ to _Invalid_



Updated by Jim Nelson 3 months ago

  * **Category** set to _library-mode_
  * **Status** changed from _Invalid_ to _Open_
  * **Priority** changed from _Low_ to _Normal_

I'd forgotten that this had been closed. I'm reopening.

I'm unconvinced that our current organizational schemes really are sufficient.
From watching the mailing list for years now, it seems to me that what's
happened is users have worked _around_ our organizational schemes in order to
get what they want out of Shotwell. If Shotwell offered Albums, many of these
workarounds would be unnecessary.

An Album scheme would offer the following:

  * Any album hierarchy the user prefers
  * Photos selectively added and arranged to an album in whatever order the user prefers
  * A custom name
  * Does not affect commonly-used photo metadata, even if metadata writing is turned on



Updated by Adam Dingle 3 months ago

Woo hoo! A 2-digit ticket comes to life!

--- Bug imported by 2013-11-25 21:41 UTC  ---

This bug was previously known as _bug_ 81 at

Unknown version " in product shotwell. 
   Setting version to "!unspecified".
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.
Resolution set on an open status.
   Dropping resolution 

Comment 1 x1P_a8zH 2017-03-08 14:27:44 UTC
Ref #4.  I agree with Jim Nelson and want to emphasise the need for an Album capability in Shotwell. 

From my own and a couple of friends/relations user experience with large photo libraries and Shotwell, the basic Shotwell organisation features are inadequate - they are certainly needed and are good, but they are not sufficient. An example. 

I took around 50 pix in 2 locations on consecutive days.  I stored them in a single directory with a name identifying the date and locations. I then imported them into Shotwell and added tags to each identifying the location, subject etc. Subsequently (when I had time) I reviewed all the pix and made image adjustments in Shotwell, and also duplicated some and reworked in an external editor (gimp) and imported those. Then I wanted to pick a selection from a location and seperate them out as the ones to show/display to others and for perhaps a specific purpose - in other words I needed to create an album collection. 

The ways around this in current shotwell is to: a) create yet another new tag and assign to the pix, but that is messy and you end up with a massive tag list that is very confusing as it tries to combine subect attributes and collections; (b) create a new sub-directory under the original and name it 'album whatever' and move the physical files into it, but that prevents appearance of a photo in multiple albums, and hides the existence of an album in the (large) folder hierarchy. On large libraries, fudges like these soon make a photo organiser unmanageable. 

Jim Nelson's succinct statement of requirements for an Album scheme, cover what's needed.  Please reconsider implementing this new feature.
Comment 2 jel 2018-09-06 07:43:54 UTC
Duplicated here: