Mark Wedel a écrit : > >> It's probably less work for them to download the xcf / edit / save as >> png then open png in photoshop, extract elements, remakes some layers, >> save both. >> > > Not sure I understand your explanation. Wouldn't it be less work for them > to > just open the PNG in photoshop, and not deal with the xcf files at all? > > > It's less for to download gimp and install it to edit xcf, than open png in photoshop and redo the layers. > > However, there are also lots of cases where having the xcf image may really > not be useful. For example, if I take an image and it needs some cosmetic > changes, I'm not likely to do that on a layer, I'm likely to do that on the > base > image itself. All the xcf image would get the next developer is potential to > undo the changes from within gimp (I think gimp saves the undo history, but > not > sure). Is it really worthwhile then to have the xcf then? I'd say probably > not. > > Of course, when there are no layers or alike, the png can be seen as being it's own source. The notion of source is irrelevant when it come to pixel-level work :) I don't want to see a svn full of pointless sourcefile that are just another encoding of png (no layers) > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire >
_______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire