Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:39:45 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFwaGHDq2w=?= Quinet <raphael@xxxxxxxx>
If you want to save several images with the same settings, you can
use the buttons "Save defaults" and "Load defaults". We also have
an enhancement request (bug #120829) about providing multiple
presets that could be saved and re-loaded when necessary.
I think that it is much better to require an explicit action if you
want to re-use some settings from one image to the next, instead of
always doing this automatically. Each image should have its own
settings and should not be influenced by how you saved unrelated
images in the same session. As in the example given by Jakub, it
is annoying that the parameters used for saving a high-quality DSLR
image are automatically re-used for saving a low-quality
cameraphone image.
This should definitely change for 2.6. But my question was about
what kind of workaround can be implemented quickly for 2.4. It
looks like it might be better to have all plug-ins broken in the
same way instead of just fixing the most used ones, so that would
be the second option that I described in my previous message:
ignore the settings from the original JPEG images and always re-use
the parameters from the last saved image. This is bad, but at
least this is consistent with other file plug-ins (until they can
all be fixed).
It sounds like what's happening is something like this:
1) Current JPEG quality setting is 85
2) User selects "Use quality settings from original image if
original image is better"
3) Original image has quality setting of 98
4) User saves image
5) Now the current JPEG quality setting is changed to 98
Is that correct?
If so, then (5) seems wrong to me. The JPEG plugin should remember
that the current JPEG quality setting is 85, and that the user has
selected Use quality settings from original image. If the user then
saves another image that has a quality setting of 60, it shouldn't be
saved at 98, but at 85.
My own preference is to err on the side of caution; I'd rather make a
mistake of saving at too high of a quality (which loses less
information) than too low. If I accidentally save a thumbnail at
quality 98 or 100, all I've done is wasted a little disk space; if I
save a good image at 85, I've lost a lot of data.
Yes, I know that I shouldn't save a master copy of an image as a JPEG,
and I don't intentionally. But I'm human and occasionally make
mistakes...
--
Robert Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net
"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
