Graeme Gill (graeme2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Simon Budig wrote:
> > The whole point we're trying to make and which you refuse to understand
> > is, that "they already agreed to and want" only applies for images they
> > created themselves from scratch. It breaks down immediately when they're
> > working with images from other sources, like the clueless marketing
> > droid sending you a jpeg logo file.
>
> I'm not following your logic at all.
Obviously we're talking from quite different viewpoints.
> When all you've got
> is lossily encoded image source, you can't get the bits
> back again.
It is not about getting bits back, it is about the importance of the
bits the user adds by editing the image. Each pixel added/changed by a
contrast adjustment, each pimple cloned away immediately transforms the
affected bits into important bits. We need to treat these with care.
For JPEG that means, that we cannot just decide "oh, only 0.63% of the
pixels have been transformed to important bits, so we still can use
JPEG for saving". This has to be made a concious descision by the user.
We're aiding to make this concious by a clear separation between "save" -
i.e. make sure that all bits are safe - and "export" where we ask the
user to understand the implication of the export file format used.
> > This whole "user indicates his intent by the file format he opens"
> > just breaks down when working with images from other sources.
>
> I don't follow you at all. The lossy format implies that images
> are compressed. You can't get those bits back again. If you add
> stuff that benefits from less compression, then you need to be aware
> enough of it to change the compression ratio or save to a lossless file
> format,
People add layers and try to save back to jpeg, later wondering where
their layers are. Yeah, it is easy to denounce them as clueless users,
but this is thought too short. Assuming that people know about the lossy
behaviour of jpeg is just wrong.
> 99% of the time people opening jpegs will be adjusting and cropping
> photo's, so assuming they are doing something out of the ordinary
> and making it hard for them is simply bad UI IMHO.
Where does this number come from?
Bye,
Simon
--
simon@xxxxxxxx http://simon.budig.de/
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing list
gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
