Re: [Gimp-user] gimp users matter

["Joao S. O. Bueno" <gwidion mpc com br>]

Helen,
id id as much as dig messages of you from last June to
understand  what you are talking about and your context.

And it seems to me that you fundamentantaly misunderstood one
or more things.

You are complaining that now when you export to JPG the file
"disapears" from your screen. After reading your messages,
I believe you are saying this because since the image
that is kept open in GIMP is not now named "myfile.jpg"
the JPG file generated in disk might not correspond
to the file you see on screen.

Actually, this behavior had not changed between
GIMP 2.6 and GIMP 2.8 - the image you have open in
GIMP after exporting it to JPG or some other format
in GIMP 2.8, is the exactly same as you had after
exporting it to the same formats in GIMP 2.6, but
for the name shown on the Window title. (And I am using the verb
"exporting" to the formats in gimp 2.6 on purpose, the application
did tell you it was "exporting" the file in an annoying pop-up dialog,
even though it was accessed through the Save menu option)

The image on screen is, and always has been  as different
from the file on disk in GIMP 2.8 as in previous versions:
the formats you mention: jpg, png, gif and others, are always
one single layer, varying degree of support to transparency,
and sometimes even with pixel infomation degradation
(in the case of JPG)

So, if you used to rely on what you saw on screem
after "saving" as JPG on GIMP 2.6 before sending
the file to someone (in terms of image quality,
or whatever), you were doing it wrong before.

You can check the code if you want. All file
exporting plug-ins (i.e., the code that write out
image formats that are not .xcf, and they have
always been called "exporting" plug-ins)
start by making a copy of the image one is editing, and
flattening, or "merging visible layers" on this copy,
before actually writting any bytes to disk.

Now,
it looks like you are a power user, and long
time participant on this list - I'd like to invite
you to participate on constructive terms to the project,
and not keep crying about a behavior that, it seems,
may have saved you from sending incorrect data
more than once. (since now you actually check the
JPG file generated on disk before sending it to production,
if that is indeed needed in your use cases)


 js
-><-

On 8 January 2014 14:51, Helen <etters h gmail com> wrote:
> > This feature imposes no hardship on any user and occasionally prevents
> lost work.
>
>
> This is so obviously wrong that I wonder whether different gimp users are
> experiencing the
> same behavior.  If this were a matter of receiving an unnecessary warning,
> then I would agree that
> the passion is misplaced.  This is not about whether or not one wants to
> see a warning.
> Several gimp users (including me) have said that the problem is that the
> file disappears.  It is gone.
> It is no longer on the screen.  I don't know  how to say this more clearly.
> I am not a casual gimp user.  I use the advanced features.  The
> disappearance of the file is what is causing the problem, not the (useful
> or unuseful) warning.
>
> --
> Helen Etters
> using Linux, suse12.3
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:    gimp-user-list gnome org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list