Packages are sometimes "replaced" by equivalent packages with different names, for various reasons.
The install of "whatever replaced f-spot" failed, but f-spot was almost certainly "cleaned" during the transaction "cleaning" cycle, leaving you with: nothing. Curiously, it certainly appears to me that this was a simple, typical update from f-spot-0.6.0.0-1 to 0.6.1.2-2, not any kind of package-name-voodoo "replacement". <SHRUG>. Still: the transaction resulted (effectively) in a removal of f-spot. This kind of thing has happened to me before. YUM is not really all that smart.
Quite frankly: I'd be far more concerned about the multiple failures that occurred.
P.S. The above is my best assessment of what happened, based on the output you showed. I may be mistaken - the full output might shed more light on what really happened.
P.P.S. Here's where the "replace" comes from:
* Sat Sep 19 2009 Christian Krause <email@example.com> - 0.6.1.2-1
- Update to 0.6.1.2
- Move the screensaver plugin into a sub-package (BZ 519640)
- Let f-spot-screensaver obsolete older f-spot version so that it
is pulled in during update (fresh installations of f-spot will not
pull in gnome-screensaver)
Someone trying to be fancy... .
Messed you up good, didn't it ? But NOT the cause of the failed transactions. Probably not.