> I'm currently trying to get him involved in various GNOME/FLOSS things

cool ;)

 > Side by side comparison of original image vs. optimized version.

because he is comparing to photoshop which allows to have 4 previews for 
the same image. That is nice of course but is that so useful that gimp 
has to clone Photoshop ?

 > using Save for web for other media than the web
 > is nice too

an example should be nice; Traditionnally we have two kinds of output : 
screen/display (px) or paper (mm, pt or picas). For paper print i would 
NEVER use save for web.

 > Cropping; Works very nicely. the cropped out area is a little too
 > dark for my taste -- perhaps this can be changed in the Gimp settings

I don"t think it can be set. And anyway, i would refer the the "on my 
taste" just to say that if everything was given a preference this could 
simply be unusable.

 > GIF; same as the Image > Mode > Indexed... dialogue features except
 > for the Custom pallet option which Save for web does not have

yep i agree that this can be a trouble

 > PNG-8; Same as GIF, but with a compression option (why?)

because png is also based on that compression

 > Compression is only offered in 10 levels

as far as i know it has always been like that in gimp. why would you/he 
expect having more ?

I don't understand how all this can be a problem because, there is no 
qualitéy problem. If i'd heard that gimp's jpeg compression produces 
worst results than Photoshop (which is someway true) or that photoshop's 
pngs were better optimized, may be i would have understand. I only see 
here good feedback of someone who tested but don't really want to do 
efforts. But may be i'm the wrong way.

I personnaly think this save_for_web plugin is one of the best thing 
that happened to gimp the last 3 months. I would just personnally add a 
dependency check to a png optimizer, but this is only my wish, i don't 
knwo how it is usefull for other user.

If only i was involved in coding c...

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to