Wow. I decided to see if this was an issue for anyone else - I guess it is. I
think I pretty well understand the arguments on both sides, and I have to say
that I hope one of the many reasonable solutions proposed here is implemented.
There really are legitimately different uses of the tool, and a 'one size fits
all' approach seems needlessly restrictive.

I've been a Gimp user for a long time. Some of what I do is complex and takes
advantage of all the goodness of XCF, but the vast majority is very simple:

1) Open a JPG file
2) Make some minor edits (usually cropping, rotation, and/or color level
3) Save that same JPG

In my case I already have an automated workflow that saved the original as a
write-only on a different disk, so I really don't care about any of the issues
or benefits of XCF for these particular files - I can revert to the original at
any time, and my changes are simple. I just need to make edits on a few hundred
JPGs with the least possible effort. As well described WAY earlier, the change
dramatically increases the complexity of this particular task.

The Gimp developer answer seems to be that I am not worthy of a tool so exalted
as Gimp, and I should find and learn some lesser tool better suited to my
plebeian needs. Really? I hope cooler heads prevail.

pbft (via
gimp-user-list mailing list

Reply via email to