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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
Only mentioned because there are expectations that the five save options only are an issue for casual users and a lingering presumption that “proper” work involves saving edit history. I don’t think anyone would argue that 5 menu items for saving are helpful for noobs.
I don’t remember when it was changed,
Introduced with 2.8, so in May 2012. Nearly 12yo, that’s a big boy now…
There are shortcuts in 2.10 for this. If you open a JPEG you can tweak it and overwrite it with File > Overwrite (Shift-Alt-S).
I know it’s included in my list above of five ways of saving in gimp. Usability isn’t additive rather the opposite. You never* solve a ui problem by adding a button or an option.
* ok sometimes you do
Bit of a link to this earlier post.
Incorrect:
File > Save as
Save as type: PDF