Re: [Gimp-developer] Default file name for file-export action


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Mikel Garai <mikel garai eu> wrote:
May I suggest leaving it as it is?

Just for information, nothing is decided yet. That's just a proposition from me.

for the ones of us that take, e.g. 1000 pictures, and want to do some little
adjustment in most of them, the workflow is already a pain with the new
save/export thing, don't make it any harder please.

My typical workflow is:

 * browse the images in geeqie
 * open an image in gimp (i.e. IMG_38210.jpg)
 * make little changes (takes me about 1-5 minutes)
 * save (well, now export) to IMG_38210_0.tif (is just replacing ".jpg"
   with "_0.tif")

Actually Mitch, our maintainer proposed something similar (see
So we could have a default of IMG_38210-1.jpg for instance.
This one is fine by me too. Probably even better than "Untitled.jpg"
actually. Only thing I didn't like was that the default name was
*exactly* the same as the source in current code. So IMG_38210-1.jpg
is all good. Close but still different.

 * close image in gimp (and normally export again just in case, that
   "unsaved changes" dialog is scary)
 * continue browsing images in geeqie

The thing is that if the "export" dialog does not automatically put the name
of the file in it I will have to manually enter it looking at the window
title, so more room for human errors in the process (that in big amount of
files could be significant, and if I open 3 files it could be just

I see. Well this other proposition (like adding a "-1" after the
basename) would suit you well, I think then.

Saving them to .xcf is not a practical option since I then convert them to
".jpg" and scale them in a batch process with imagemagick (to distribute
them) and because it does not save me any time even if I have to redo some

Yes yes, I know that I'm not the target user and I probably will have to end
up using something like darktable or similar (even if I prefer geeqie for
browsing, directories for organizing and gimp for editing) but I want to

I would not say so, even though I know some other developers would use
these words. I have another conception, and for me GIMP is a "generic"
or "general" image manipulation software (this was actually even the
original acronym actually, according to Wikipedia, but the meaning of
the G was changed later from General to GNU), so is destined to a
whole range of different users with a broad range of use cases.

Now it is clear that GIMP is a complex software with *a lot* of
features, so it is obvious that using it for basic fixes may not be
the primary use case, because simpler software may be better (= have
nicer workflow) at doing this.
So my opinion is not that you are not the target user, but rather that
there may be other software better suited to what you do. Which is not
the same thing, in my opinion. :-)

postpone that change as much as possible. So please, leave the Export path
for the "daredevil" users that do not want to be protected from ourselves,
you already have the save path with "Save" file actions.

Also I'd like to note something that you may have already seen on the
mailing list: there will now be from next release a simplified way to
close the image without saving: in the quit/close image dialog, you
can ctrl-d to "close without saving". It means that you can ctrl-w-d
for instance to close an image instantly without saving to XCF (or
ctrl-q-d to close the whole GIMP without saving).
I think that's a very nice change for all the users who use GIMP
without saving, just like you. :-)
So you see! You are the target user! ;-)

And for Jehan, yes, is kind of weird to use "export" with the default name
set to the same of the one opened, but is meant to be "export from gimp"
which format is "xcf", so saving to any other format is actually exporting
it (if I understood correctly from previous emails in this list)

It is somehow true. But the "goal" of this distinction is not for the
sake of the distinction. It has a reason: preventing data
loss/destructive editing. So if the export dialog proposes by default
to overwrite the source file, well that's not really following the
concept, in my opinion.


Best Regards,


On 13/11/13 09:42, Jehan Pagès wrote:

Hi Peter,

Currently if you started a work from an image (jpg, png, whatever) the
first "export" dialog will propose you the original source image name
as export filename.

In other words:
1/ Open "foo.jpg"
2/ Modify your image.
3/ ctrl-e (export)
4/ The default proposition for an export filename is "foo.jpg" (in
other words, by default, it proposes to overwrite your source!).

But I think that's not right, because it goes against the logics of
not destroying your source files as a *default* workflow. You can
still enter the same file name if you really wish it, but then you
have to do it explicitly. The default should be for instance
"Untitled.jpg" (same as the default for saving will be "Untitled.xcf"
on the first save).
I've actually already made mistakes sometimes when testing some image
modification quickly and did not really care about the filename, as
long as it is different as the original. I just wanted to export it.
Untitled.jpg would have been fine to me. But it proposed me the
original by default, very risky if I go on a frenzy Enter-Enter usage!

Moreover even for those who have needs of quick edition of the
original file, without saving, there is the "file-overwrite" action
anyway (for which they can make a shortcut). The "file-export" would
be more for those who want to *really* export, to a different name,
no? So the default filename proposition should be different, in my
What do you think?

Anyway I have already made a patch proposing this change, and Mitch
told me to ask you what you think about it:

gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:    gimp-developer-list gnome org
List membership:

gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:    gimp-developer-list gnome org
List membership:

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]