Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior

[John Meyer <johnmeyer pueblocomputing com>]

Either way, this is a much more civil argument then "you developers are 
doodieheads for not doing it my way" aka the way this thread started in 
the first place.




On 8/9/2013 1:44 PM, Ofnuts wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 09:09 PM, Daniel wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:02 +0200, Ofnuts wrote:
> > > On 08/09/2013 12:42 PM, pitibonom wrote:
> > > > It's quite natural to hope saving a pic in the format it has been 
> > > > loaded. Load a
> > > > jpg ? ok, modify it and save it as jpg. Why is it natural ? just 
> > > > because jpg
> > > > format ( though it degrades the image quality at each save, but 
> > > > this is another
> > > > question ) is red by ALL tools, unlike xcf that cannot even be used 
> > > > as import in
> > > > any tool.
> > > Hmmm.
> > >
> > >    * Open your favorite spreadsheet application.
> > >    * Load a CSV.
> > >    * Create complicated formulas to compute more values.
> > >    * Save as CSV, "naturally"
> > >
> > > Oops. What were these formulas again?
> > Sorry, but that's a really bad argument for Gimp.  After all, much
> > metadata is lost when it imports photos and other images which contain
> > metadata.
>
> Please be specific. If I:
>
> - load a JPG in Gimp (2.8.2 Linux ADM64)
> - save as XCF
> - exit Gimp
> - restart Gimp
> - open saved XCF
> - export as JPG
> - run "exiftool -l" on both original and re-saved JPG, redirecting to 
> file
> - diff the two Exif file
>
> I don't see any difference between the two Exif files that cannot be 
> explained by the editing (portrait image gets rotated, for instance). 
> But all the original Exif data (shot date, focal length, lens 
> manufacturer, whatever...) is still there.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:    gimp-user-list gnome org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list