GG: > Can you clarify where this file is when you do CTRL+S ? You say you > open "directly from the camera" , do you mean you are opening a file > that is still on the camera ?! My camera stores the pictures in a Compact Flash card. I use a card reader. I copy those files to my hard drive, then I open them with gimp (or gthumb for viewing.) Sometimes I open them directly from the CF card, but it's almost the same, it's a storage medium anyway. > I have not checked the source code but I would expect gimp to retain > the existing quality setting of the image defined in the jpeg header, > in this case determined by you camera. If you can demonstrate this is > not happening it probably needs checking. That's precisely what I was trying to say. Is it possible that the quality setting defined in the jpeg header by the camera isn't in the IJG scale? (excuse my ignorance... I don't know how the file is structured). If that happens, is it possible that Gimp is taking the wrong setting as reference from the file? > If you want to choose a different compression you should be using File > | Save As rather than File | Save . Yes, I'm doing that now. But I learned that in the tough way :-) > You also say "when I take my image to PS from my camera" , could you > me more precise about the operations you are using? Are you opening a > file on the camera , are you removing it from the camera and putting > it elsewhere with this operation, when you CTRL-S in PS where does it > get saved, back to the original file or elsewhere on your disk? Steps: 1- take the photo. 2- put the card in the reader and copy the photo to the disk. 3- open it with the image manipulation program 4- save it using CTRL+S In Gimp, it saves the file directly, without asking for the compression setting. Result: an image over-compressed with artifacts. Smaller size than the original. In Photoshop, it shows the quality settings the first time you hit CTRL+S. > As I said in my last post Øyvind's test shows there is an issue with > degradation on multiple resaves , I dont think this caused by > 'quality' parameter being changed. > You may have picked a bug and you are misinterpreting this as a change > in the compression. Yes, I think so. At first I thought it was a quality setting issue, but since I learned how the IJG scale works I'm convinced that is a bug or, at least, a strange behaviour. Gez _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
