On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 09:59:18AM -0400, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> Think of the quality setting as an indication of expectations rather
> than a specific outcome. It may not be possible to get the exact same
> outcome (and obviously -- at least to us -- there's no way to
> retroactively "improve" the result), but the quality setting could be
> treated as the user's expectation for the result.
Just a stupid user here, but interested in this thread since it is something
I do all the time. I have Shift-S configured to change the image size,
and of course Ctrl-S is by default configured to save file. I can't
remember how many times I have hit the Ctrl by mistake, and now am
quite distressed to understand that the image which I uploaded from my
camera and then deleted from the memory card has now been degraded to
a different quality than it was.... Definitely a bug, not a feature,
Just curious, what would be so wrong with saving the original file as
a backup before doing a destructive save? Emacs only bites me when I'm
I am so glad that Guillermo stuck by his guns and apparently *finally*
got the developers to realise the illogic of this "feature". If more
of us users would be as persistent instead of just going away after
the initial knee-jerk "you don't know enough to even be talking to us"
response which seems too prevalent here, maybe the Gimp would become
all that it can be.
Gimp-developer mailing list