> Interesting, what platform are you using?
Ubuntu Linux (7.04) and Gimp 2.3.18

> Here if I can do say 10 re-saves at 85% quality, it produces no
> discernible changes in picture quality.
> In fact I have tried to prove that recompressing jpg pictures reduces the
> picture quality and got bored doing it at 85% (which btw is the Gimp
> default)
I can't say the same. Today my wife uploaded a couple of photos to her 
flickr, and she noticed the same.
Se only opened the image from the camera, adjusted the curves, and 
scaled it down (BTW, the downscale code should do oversamplig by 
default. It always breaks a little the edges). Until she saved, the 
image quality was good.
Then she saved with CTRL+S, without changing the "quality" factor, and 
the picture turned out like that. Heavily compressed.

> Opinion.
> Y
> You should never work on a jpeg, take it in off your camera, save it as an
> xcf and when finished, recreate it as a jpeg if you want.
Of course. I always do that. I use XCF (or PNG if the image is a single 
layer) for work.
But usually I take the pictures from my digital camera and make a quick 
levels and color adjustment, and that's when the problem pops up.
If you just want to adjust a bunch of pictures from your camera, it's 
not very handy to save the pictures as XCF. It takes more space and it's 
not a very popular format for viewers of other platforms.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to