peter sikking wrote:
> interesting to see "Compare compressed images against original", would
> it be enough to see the compressed one and balance that against the size
> and what your customer expects?
As an experiment at work I decided to work on just the one image when "saving
for web" and found that I really don't need to do the spot comparisons between
images after all. What's more important is the ability to change the quality of
a jpeg with minimum faff. It turns out that PS's "save for web" has a couple of
flaws in this regard:
1) No adjustment is made until *after* the slider has been released. This means
that I can't just drag the slider up and down the scale to watch how the image
quality changes. This wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for 2).
2) The slider's really small! It's easy to lose the slider after I've released
it, especially as my attention is on the image, not the slider.
Basically I just want a way to assess the quality of an image at different
compression ratios quickly. One idea that appeals to me is to have a row of 10
images all compressed at 10% intervals. Then I could just click the best of
those. This would probably be good enough for most cases. If it isn't, I could
have an additional step: click two adjacent images (e.g. 70% and 80%) to reveal
another row of 10 images, this time compressed at 1% intervals between 70% and
--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---
Gimp-developer mailing list