Mark. Thank you for your reply. I'd like to clarify some of my comments.
> You obviously have to compare qualities at similar filesizes. Everything else
> is irreelvant.
I don't think the way the "quality" is expressed (I know, it's not 
"quality" but compression ratio) is irrelevant.
If you came from a program where you saved at 70% and it gave you a high 
quality image, when you save at 70% and you get an image with heavy 
compression artifacts, it matters.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking "do it like photoshop", but for the 
user it's confusing.
The first thing that crossed my mind saving a jpeg with gimp was "it 
sucks at 70%"... Had to look at the filesize to figure that the 70% of 
Gimp was not the 70% of Photoshop.
You'll say it doesn't matter, Gimp is not Photoshop, and that's ok. But 
I'm a designer, worked more than 10 years with Photoshop and switched to 
Gimp a couple of months ago. I'm sure that I'm not the only one 
following that path.
Maybe it's a good idea to document this difference and/or display a 
warning in the exporter.

> It is free software, you can look at how it does things any time you want.
I know and I'd love to. But I'm not a coder, just a user.

> Uneducated and jumpy people might jump to all sorts of conclusions - that
> generally is their problem.
I'm not an uneducated or jumpy person, but I swear that the first thing 
I thought was "something is wrong with the jpeg exporter".

> Higher than? JEPG images do not store a quality factor, and the very
> notion of using "the same quality" is simply not achievable with a lossy
> format such as JPEG.
In Gimp the compression factor is expressed as quality factor. So 100% 
is the best and 0% is the worst.
If it would be labeled as "compression ratio", more compression should 
be the worst. When I mention "quality" I'm meaning the % selected during 
the export, not the perceptible image quality. I know it's lossy 
compression and I know it's impossible to get the same quality.
In the terms that the percentage is expressed in the export dialog, the 
user will think that, in a scale between the best and the worst quality 
achievable with jpeg compression, a 70% is a 70%.
Well, 70% isn't the same in Gimp and in Photoshop. And it doesn't sound 
very logical.
That's what I'm talking about.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to