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 opinion.
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: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=712194 Thanks!

Jehan

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Mikel Garai 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 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=712194). 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 infinity).

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 images.

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.

Jehan

Best Regards,

Mikel

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 opinion.
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: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=712194 Thanks!

Jehan
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:54 AM, peter sikking wrote:

Jehan wrote:

Actually Mitch, our maintainer proposed something similar (see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=712194). So we could have a default of IMG_38210-1.jpg for instance.

please don’t.

there is two reasons that I am against tampering with this:

1) when using Export As... (new label), there are 3 things that can be changed:

the location (say, directory), the name, the file type (extension)

2 out of 3 times, the name does not need changing.

2) the same ‘danger’ exists for Save As... but I think we all manage quite well with that one.

Well, I feel that the "Save As..." is quite different, because we don't touch the source data.
But anyway, ok. I'll close the ticket then.

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

[snip]

So you see! You are the target user! ;-)

no that is not what we are doing with this. it does not mean that the non-savers are target users now.

That's not really what I said. :-) I feel there is not just 1 single type of target users of GIMP, is more what I am saying. Anyway, just some Free Software philosophy: Free Software is what their contributors and users make of it. And that's more or less the way I contribute to FOSS. So it's personal, and that's ok if others don't agree. :-)

what we are doing is a renewed effort to take all the friction out of the non-saving paths for as much as we can (without throwing away the clear separation principle), for the benefit of all users.

And I think that's pretty nice. :-)

Jehan

--ps

founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works

http://blog.mmiworks.net: on interaction architecture

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list