> Now, the objective of Gimp seems to stay in the fields of amateur and 
> therefore to delegate the role of single photo$hop image editor for 
> professionals. 

BS! I would posit that amateurs invoke DESTRUCTIVE editing techniques(because 
they don't know any better) while professionals do the strive for the 
NON-DESTRUCTIVE techniques(or should).  

One of the main feature goals of Gimp is to get to a point, over the next 
several release versions, of non destructive editing.  This save/export feature 
change is but one step in a series of releases to enforce this philosophy(as 
much as possible.)  You STILL have the option of destroying the original image 
file, but now you are forced to provide your consent by performing an explicit 
"export" as opposed to the previous "open", "edit", "save" in prior versions.  
You may be a "professional", but even professional's are human and make 
mistakes.  While I am not a "professional", I have made plenty of mistakes 
which destroyed the original image(though most of the time in a recoverable 
way..but not always), this new workflow totally prevents this as an accident 
and this is a good thing.  As a potential client, knowing what I know right 
now, I would NEVER, EVER, EVER work with any "professional" who overwrites the 
original image file with his edits... no matter how good he/she thi
 nk they are they are human and it's a hell of a lot easier to NOT destroy the 
original than it is to fix it after its been damaged.  

Since I and a few others have noted this previously, could you please signal 
that you understand the reasoning?  I don't expect you to necessarily accept it 
to be accurately reflect your opinions on the matter or that you agree, only 
that you *understand*. 
gimp-user-list mailing list

Reply via email to