[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gimp-developer
Subject:    Re: [Gimp-developer] jpeg quality factor
From:       gg () catking ! net
Date:       2007-07-14 6:20:33
Message-ID: op.tvd36santxpshh () linbox ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:03:18 +0200, Chris Mohler <cr33dog@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll try to follow the analogy without this becoming rediculous:

>
> In this analogy, the new "GIMP Hammer" would auto-provide a nail
> (since the nail is clearly better).  The carpenter would flip the GIMP
> hammer around and use the other end to drive in the screw.

I think a more correct representation would be the hammer turns it self  
around and refuses all attempts to come back.

>  Since carpenters are pretty dextrous - high-end ones anyway  - I think  
> the
> carpenter would enjoy the versatility of the GIMP Hammer.

more likely a sprained wrist.

>  No one in this discussion has ever said anything about removing GIMP's
> ability to produce JPEGs.  What (I think) is going on is a discussion
> about whether or not "Save" is an appropriate command for an action
> that discards data.

We're all agreed we are not targetting mickey mouse users , so why should  
we to treat graphics professionals as idiots?

We all know that jpeg is lossy. You use it with suitable settings in  
relation to the result required otherwise you use a different format.

There seems to be some underlying assumption here that jpeg loss is  
catasrophic. It is not. Sure, if I am going to post about the difference  
between lanczos and catmull-romm filters jpeg will not get a look in.  
However if I am messing with a photo of my solar panel at jpeg-84 I dont  
want some arse telling me I have to first save if in a format that takes  
up 10x more space because I may later want to reopen it and I may lose a  
bearly perceiptible bit of quality.

I dont give a damn for lectured by the interface, let me drive !!


> IMO opinion this pertains more to the newbies
> than anyone else.  Those who've used graphics for some time now
> (should) know what we're doing.
>  Chris
>

I'm in perfect agreement there. This more of an attempt to lecture less  
familiar users that they should not be using jpeg as an intermediate  
storage format than to provide a better tool for high-end users as claimed.

In fact this logic is at complete odds with "the vision". So much for the  
input of a professional interface architect.

As Raphael says we should try to cater for all users if possible. The  
suggested first time use message with "dont show again" option would seem  
best all round.

The minor disruption of a one time "go away" option for competant users  
and a clear warning to those who are not aware of the issue.

I should also point out the misuse of the "import/export" paradigm. This  
is used in other software of various sorts to indicate loading/saving data  
in a format which is not handled natively by the program.

It is nonsense to talk of exporting a jpeg to gimp's internal format.

This is surely convert to xcf.

BTW Chris, looks like you got caught out by the mailing list's FROM  
header, your message only had my address and did not go to the list. I  
presume this was not intended to be off list.


/gg

_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]