On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:46:44 +0200, peter sikking <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Raphaël wrote: > >>> I say that the solution for all this lies in treating these lossy >>> (my spell-checker proposes lousy) formats the same we are (gonna) >>> handle indexed mode: >>> >>> import + export only. >> >> Eek! That would significantly break the flow for what must be the >> most common image format for photography. > > Really? Let's have a look at the product vision. 'High-end' > is the word I want us to focus on. Please dont distort this by taking one word out of context. Gimp's aim to be a high-end image manipulation program does not mean everyone has to become a professional graphics artist. I see no indication in Sven's vision for Gimp that it becomes an exclusively professional tool at the expense of all else. Neither does starting every phrase with "high-end" make your arguements carry any more weight. > > I can understand that a high-end workflow can start with a > jpeg because due to a mishap nothing better is available. > I can also understand that a jpeg version can be part of > the final result. > > But in between, as long as it is not finished, there is no role for > jpeg. Only one decompression at the beginning and a compression of the > end result is defendable in high-end graphics. That's one way of working for one type of result. I don't see why you think you can be so dogmatic, say this is the ONLY way to work and therefore wish to force everyone down that road. > > There is also a real benefit in opening a jpeg and then saving > the result in another (GIMP) file. We see from the explanations in this > thread that opening a jpeg and then saving it again means a loss of > information. So overwriting an original is a loss. Working on a > full-fidelity copy version is preferred. Again that's preferable in one way when absolute quality is the dominant criterium. Disk space and clutter may be another. Again you rather arrogantly presume to know what the user wants/needs and are going to shut down his options and make gimp do what YOU think is best for the user. "High-end users" require powerful, flexible tools not one hand tied behind their backs by someone who think he know more about graphics than they do. > > The early part of this thread is full of misunderstanding at which > point working with jpeg incurs quality loss. I say it is because of > the "you can work in jpeg" myth. I am still confused that you talk > about saving intermediate results while working on a jpeg. Either > each save reduces quality (implicit save and reload, ouch) or there > is a penalty for closing the file and reopening it, because you > lost the full-fidelity internal (GIMP) representation, ouch. So clearly you can work with jpeg doing intermediate saves (different filenames if wished) and maintaining a lossless copy in gimp until the final step. You could also dupe the image and remain working in jpeg. You can also save with high quality setting and sustain minimal lost where appropriate. Your legendry "high-end" user will know all this of course so he does not need you to limit the flexibility of his "high-end" tools. > So I see real benefits for a high-end image manipulation program > that lossy formats are pushed out to the very beginning and very > end of the workflow. That the working copy of the file is GIMP format, > in full fidelity, any GIMP operation naturally possible, and with > no penalty for opening and closing the file. > > We need to actively support the high-end workflows, with minimal effort. > > Consumer mid-fi workflows (open jpeg, edit the image, save (overwrite) > the jpeg) are still possible, (open, edit, export) and it does not look > like any more effort than the current situation. If users get the hint > that opening and saving the same jpeg again and again is a pain (also > for > the quality) and that either adopting a high-end GIMP file workflow or > moving to another (mid-fi) app to work in their lossy jpeg way. > OK, so that's your basic attitude, anyone who does not agree with your limited view of the one and only "correct" way to work should stop using Gimp. Tell 98% of the user base to go away because they're too mid-fi to use your super "high-end" software I think you should stop this dictatorial approach, you are losing credibility as an interface architect. >> Before I started shooting only in raw format (so before I bought >> larger memory cards for my camera), I shot a lot of JPEG pictures. > > Can you relate why you moved up to raw to the requirements of high-end > image manipulation? I can. > > --ps > > principal user interaction architect > man + machine interface works > > http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gimp-developer mailing list > Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer > _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
