[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Actually, I think jpegs for the actual raster data in some cases is perfectly > fine. > > Use case 1: I have this jpeg 8MPixel photo, I just want to add some text to. > Why > should I make my file 3 times bigger, if all I need with noiseless precision > is the > text layer ? > > Jpegs should not be the default pixel storage method, but I can't see why not > to > have fully functional jpeg layers.
I concur with that. JPEG as read only is perfectly fine, and probably much better than a raw bitmap if the image imported comes from JPEG. Hub _______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
