On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 07:37:14PM +0100, Nick Lamb <njl98r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 01:20:50AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > As such, why save an image if you didn't change it?
>
> There is no good reason why a PROFESSIONAL graphic designer should be
> doing it, but lots of us are mere amateurs :)
gimp makes it very difficult to save an image you haven't changed.
> JPEG works one tile at a time. The same behaviour I observe in one image
> will be true on average for individual tiles, so if I alter only one
> half of an image (or only touch up one word) and save with the same
> quality as the original, the untouched tiles will be mostly unharmed.
Most people use things like the Curves tool, the Levels tool, the Crop
tool etc.. to retouch images. Not popping up a save dialog will hurt the
amateur users that you care for most, since it creates a totally wrong
sense of safety.
> By fiddling carefully with JPEG settings we can get the "right" setting
Something that will work "by chance" (without an easy way to undo the
action, since the user will not notice the problem early enough) mustn't
go into the gimp.
I mean, quality detection is a good thing, but it must NEVER be automatic,
second guessing the user on something that will go wrong in a vast number
of common situations is "unfriendly".
> I don't want that, people shouldn't be using JPEG for works in progress
> or as a common format moving between packages or ANYTHING like that, and
> I agree that we don't want to give them false expectations.
>
> I think Marc and I agree on the realities of this situation, I just
> wanted to make clear that "lossy" re-saving doesn't necessarily cause
> any damage to the image. But that's NO REASON to be doing it, and
> no reason for Gimp to encourage it either.
100% correct ;)
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
