Can we please revert this absurd decision?
I always have to remind myself - oh yeah, now you’re using GIMP, you need to speak their foreign language, so when you mean to actually save the image, you must click “export”. It’s annoying, and it paints an impression of the app being shoddy and put together in a hurry.
You also export in Photoshop and probably others. Save is for saving in their native format. Save as for a different name but same format.
You can have apps where save and export are dual purpose. Krita is one of them.
Can you save a pdf in Word? No, you have to print it.
GIMP saves the content of its workspace by default as a .xcf, its native format as does every other application I’ve know for more than 25 years. This format allows you to use all the special little funtions and gimmicks GIMP offers. A jpeg does not offer layers or paths to reuse, a xcf does.
If you, the user, wish to save the workspace as something else to import the file into another application you should export the workspace as .jpg or .png.
Actually lot of apps like :
I wish more software would do a separation. The worst variant is when the software sticks to the export format with the “save” button or “ctrl-s”, because this makes you easily lose important data. Spaceclaim (a proprietary CAD tool does it that way, and it’s horrible, once you “export” (read: “save to”) “.stp”, it won’t jump back to saving in its native format unless you do a “save as” and select the native format from the long list again. It’s a pain. Inkscape is unfortunately similar if you are working with multi-page pdf export, but it will improve over time I think. For single-page or png/jpg etc. export it’s fine though.
For software that has only one native format (or at least not too many), a “save as” as export which does not affect the “save” behavior is IMHO ok, that would probably work for gimp as well. However, it has some limitations in the possible workflows. Especially, it would not be clear if a save as with compression is meant as a native save or as export (for sending the file) which should jump back to uncompressed.
I think that gimp decided for the most flexible option with least ambiguity, which allows to implement any workflow. For me that’s OK. At least it’s an option that prevents data loss.
For me, it paints an impression that there was going much thought into this decision. I don’t think this decision was easy for the devs. Some reasons why one could decide like that are given above.
You must never have used Adobe’s Lightroom. You have to export in that software as well. I didn’t realize that Lightroom was shoddy and put together in a hurry. It would be better to just get used to the fact that you have to export than suggest the developers have done a bad job.
Darktable, RawTherapee, ART… all these use ‘export’ to produce your finished file. I do see what you’re saying, but making GIMP use ‘save’ for this would kick it out of line with pretty all other graphics/imaging software.
I think generally the initial post highlight the ongoing confusion going on between working format or file format saving what’s needed to continue working on the project and viewing/sharing file format, those aimed to offer optimal display/airing condition in as many situation as possible.
I have seen more people cry over lost work with the previous behavior than complain about the new.
Does this even qualify as new behaviour at this point? I don’t remember when it was changed, but it certainly wasn’t yesterday. I do remember there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, though.
Personally, I find it eminently logical.
Hello @Donatzsky
I do remember there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, though.
So do I. Luckily GIMP’s developers stuck to their guns 
I initially complained but got accustomed to it. Either way makes a certain amount of sense but silently saving an alternate format can be problematic.
Not FOSS but for example Affinity Photo will happily save (no questions asked) some modifications back to the original TIFF, presumably as long as they’re supported by the format. Only if you’ve done something that requires their native format will it even ask. That’s almost burned me a time or two.
So despite my initial reluctance I think exporting is the right thing to do. At a bare minimum it should be a clearly documented preference.
Hello, as others have pointed out, the xcf format can hold much more information than a jpg or a tiff and is thus very useful.
You’re a “bit” late to ask to revert this “absurd decision”, as you call it.
The xcf format was introduced in Gimp 2.8.
https://docs.gimp.org/2.10/en/gimp-introduction-history-2-8.html
Gimp 2.8 was released on May 3, 2012.
Both Gimp and Adobe are doing the wrong thing with export/save imho. The assumption is that most work is “proper work” where the layers etc have value. This is the wrong assumption. I work a fair bit in Photohop doing complex images with up to hundreds of layers. Thing is though that for every 1 proper psd style project I do a lot of lossy adjustments to various files. Probably a 1:50 ratio or so. There’s no separate lighter software than Gimp/photoshop for those type of jobs you need the full deal.
So many files are “local” tweaks for some context or another. Adjustments for printing, as assets in 3d projects, size changes for output etc. etc. etc. etc. It’s not realistic to think that pixelpusher software are “project” software. In a photo workflow for instance it’s mostly an end thing, no need to save a psd for that minor cloning or whatever you did? It’s often critical to overwrite the original file to avoid linking issues in dtp or other assets.
So the correct behaviour for GIMP/Photoshop would be to save back to the opened file and export or save as when changing format. This was the way for ages. The comparison to Raw thevelopers or pdf printing makes no sense. They are completely different tasks and software.
You’re stating this as if it was an advantage. It’s not. Or rather it’s mostly a disadvantage. If the decision had been based on observing actual professional workflows it wouldn’t have been made.
This is highly user- and workflow-specific though. Both when I worked professionally in design and now as a photo hobbyist 95% of what I did / do needs to be saved accurately (possibly versioned), since I often would need to access that exact version of the edit.
Yes, but there’s a lot to suggest that lossy editing is a very common workflow. Many professionals use it and most casual users are completely dumbfounded by the can’t save behaviour.
Gimp has the Overwrite function but looking at the menu… Save, Save As, Save a Copy, Overwrite, Export As. It’s just comical! Gimp would work great with only Save, Save as, Export. Save overwrites the opened file, Save as for format and name changes, Export for recurring output to different format without “renaming” the open file. These are extremely well established patterns.
For my own photography where I’m the only person working. I always export from RT in new format, tweaks etc. I never open Gimp to crop a photo. But this becomes unpractical further “downstream”. Someone might get handed my photo to include in some book or presentation and need to change contrast due to their output. It’s much better for them to do lossy edits. That curve tweak isn’t worth the overhead of handling a xfc. My original will be stored in some in type folder somewhere anyway so their “original” isn’t lost.
Totally agree on this point. Most of the options are effectively just little “macros” to save a button push or two. I think AP has Save, Save As and Export… Although I’m not as my computer and might have the terminology wrong. But there are only three options, I think.
I used to do a lot “quick and dirty” work with Gimp. Opened a JPEG and used “save” to store the altered version. In the beginning the new save/export workflow nearly drove me nuts. But even I got used to it 
.
The new behavior is more logical and helps to prevent data loss. And it’s just a click on a different menu item and maybe an additional question when closing the program to prevent data loss.
And I do not know what the relation to “professionals” is supposed to be here. Firstly, most professionals refuse to use image processing FOSS software in general. So, their opinion on Gimp is irrelevant in this context. Secondly, “professionals” are not the holy grail. They are just people making money with their work, which may lead to certain preferences and workflows. I have seen many “professionals” to do dump things. Actually, I am also a “professional” when I use Gimp, Inkscape and darktable at work. But I would never claim, that my opinions and workflows are better than others.