David Gowers wrote:
> Hello,
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:09 AM, gg <g...@catking.net> wrote:
>> there is a problem with this new attitude. Why does GIMP try to impose
>> this " you will work with xcf or die" dictate?
> Because it has always been an XCF editor, not an anything else editor.
> Being able to modify images loaded from PNG, JPEG etc is just because
> people have created loaders which effectively translate PNG ->
> in-memory XCF. Everything else, including PSD, is too
> underspecified/basic to handle GIMP images accurately.
>> Sure xcf is a good format and has some useful features. However, if I
>> want to open (and I mean open, not "import") a png image make a couple
>> of simple mods and save it, GIMP is getting in my way and trying to
>> impose a one-size-fits-all way of working.
> That's because you cannot simply open a png, only import. And this has
> always been the case; what you object to is merely: making an idea
> that has been implicit in GIMP so far, explicit.

IIRC, before (circa 2.2 ?) I could open a png/jpeg ... and save it, with 
the caveat of the flatten layers nag/warnings.

Yes, it seems that in making it explicit it is becoming more cumbersome. 
Implicit had some merits. I get the feeling that all this import/export 
business is in danger of making heavy weather of it.

>> Here I want to do some simple editing and save. I do not want to
>> "export" to a format which the file already had before I opened it,
>> neither be bugged about layers being flattened and compression ratios etc.
> I believe you are protesting your sudden realization of the inaccurate
> way you were thinking of things, here.
>> All I require is open: edit: save , in original format with original
>> options.
> Open, edit, export as XXX (where XXX is original file -- one of the
> actions described in the spec.), export settings could be taken from
> the info in the original file.

Sounds good. If exporting to original name with original options is 
readily accessible from a top level menu without having to retype the 
name that would be pretty good.

> I am concerned about whether this would require you to 'confirm close'
> since the image would not be saved as XCF.

maybe if the xcf was never saved as such and the work was saved to it's 
original name, the in memory xcf data could be regarded as an expendable 
buffer rather than a document that needs to be saved.

Thanks for your reply.

> David

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to