peter sikking writes:
> 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.
I'm seeing an unspoken assumption in this thread that most photos
are edited in multiple sessions: read into gimp, do a few
operations, write to disk, read back in (perhaps hours or days
later), do a few more operations, write back out, repeat.
In my experience, it's much more common to read a jpeg in once and
do a lot of operations on it in one session, saving periodically.
There's no cumulative loss of quality: the intermediate saves are in
case of disaster like a power failure, not a way to quit gimp and
continue the editing process later.
But I think I remember Sven saying recently that Export would be able
to save without prompting each time, after the first time. (I guess
that means there will also be an Export As, in case you need to
change the filename?) So those of us who often work in JPEG could
use it just like we use Save now, and even bind ^S to it.
> 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.
Another thing I'm unclear on in this thread: when I first heard the
idea of forcing Export instead of Save, the plan seemed to be that
Save would always save XCF, and anything else would require Export.
But now you seem to be telling us that the issue is lossiness, and
the point of Export is to make it more hassle to save to lossy formats,
to discourage use of those formats. Does that imply that Save will
include PNG, TIFF and other non-lossy formats?
--
...Akkana
"Beginning GIMP: From Novice to Professional": http://gimpbook.com
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
