On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:06:18 +0100, Karl Günter Wünsch <kgw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 02 November 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote: >> There are also some improvements for the JPEG plug-in. As I mentioned >> some time ago, I would like to hide the current "quality" slider among >> the advanced options, and replace it by a smaller selection of >> pre-defined quality levels. > Sorry to disagree, the precise selection of quality really is one of the > many > areas where I would not like any dumbing down of the interface. This > would > mean that each and every time I have to save an image as JPEG I would > have to > switch to the advanced options as every site I post my images to has > stringent restrictions on file size - which are enforced by an automatic > resampling (which is to be avoided at all cost due to a severe loss in > quality) if I don't adhere to these limits! > Having preset quality settings really is no option, it is a major > annoyance in > Photoshop new users I spoke to always are struggling with! > regards > Karl Günter Wünsch > _________________________ Hi, I would tend to agree with Karl. The quality is the only setting that _really_ makes a difference in jpeg and small changes are quite noticable. Changing this would also break the idea of keeping settings as they were defined when the file was open. Neither do I see a real advantage in replacing a fine grain control with an imprecise one. It's still there but less good. The advanced settings covers the rest very nicely anyway. If this is one area where Gimp has the edge of PS I'd like to see it stay. (Or rather I'd like to see it stay for it's merits). The achille's heal of jpeg has always been the lossy format degradation. If you have some improvements there I think it would be a major asset. best regards, gg _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
