Owen: > Interesting, what platform are you using? > Ubuntu Linux (7.04) and Gimp 2.3.18 > Here if I can do say 10 re-saves at 85% quality, it produces no > discernible changes in picture quality. > > In fact I have tried to prove that recompressing jpg pictures reduces the > picture quality and got bored doing it at 85% (which btw is the Gimp > default) > I can't say the same. Today my wife uploaded a couple of photos to her flickr, and she noticed the same. http://www.flickr.com/photos/superdd/738669627/ Se only opened the image from the camera, adjusted the curves, and scaled it down (BTW, the downscale code should do oversamplig by default. It always breaks a little the edges). Until she saved, the image quality was good. Then she saved with CTRL+S, without changing the "quality" factor, and the picture turned out like that. Heavily compressed. > Opinion. > Y > You should never work on a jpeg, take it in off your camera, save it as an > xcf and when finished, recreate it as a jpeg if you want. > Of course. I always do that. I use XCF (or PNG if the image is a single layer) for work. But usually I take the pictures from my digital camera and make a quick levels and color adjustment, and that's when the problem pops up. If you just want to adjust a bunch of pictures from your camera, it's not very handy to save the pictures as XCF. It takes more space and it's not a very popular format for viewers of other platforms. Gez. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
