You are here

How do I save to Jpg in GIMP 2.8

Apparently the current version of GIMP no longer includes an option in the file type drop-down to save as gpg or many other types. I have been emailing my files to another computer where an older version of GIMP is installed to save as gpg but this is ridiculous. Can anyone tell me how to save as gpg in the new version 2.8?

Please give step by step instructions I am not a tech and graphic design and GIMP are all new to me. Please give me baby step-by-step instructions on how to do this. I've looked all over the net and can't find an answer, I really appreciate any help.


You have to export to jpg (or other non-GIMP format). I know why they did this but still I question why. At least have a button that gives the end user a choice between classic open/save and this new requirement. Oh well; you are not the only one that questioned this Lena, and there's a good sized thread at GIMP Users complaining about this new "feature". You will eventually get use to export, but there is a jpeg bug which will not give you the proper size when you try to save the jpeg, but it will save the jpeg proper. Already a patch, but it's not been officially released yet. There's also a patch for the gimprc debacle (problem with PSPI and User filter because of this) which also got patched but not currently released. Partha has a release that fixes all of this, but I don't want to un-install my current 2.8 to use Partha's and I don't like using portable versions of GIMP (personal taste). I hope they release 2.8.1 soon (maybe like this weekend would be nice). :)

I don't understand why effort was spent on a "feature" that bring nothing in term of image processing while breaking the habits of users. In the previous version I could easily save using the PROPRIETARY (well yes open but useless outside GIMP) format of gimp or I could just save to anything else for quick image processing.

I spent hours explaining my girlfriend and friends how to use GIMP for image processing. An now, if they upgrade to this version they will just be lost. That's a show stopper for non GIMP specialist users. How can I explain this philosophy about saving to a non expert ? Expert already knew about the benefit of the proprietary format and using it was very easy. So why spent effort on something that brings nothing but frustration and take GIMP out of reach to non expert ?

I guess you don't use Windows then. lol

[Core user group activities include] high-end photo manipulation; note the word ‘high-end,’ this is in results that can be achieved with GIMP and workflow it supports; high-end is not mid-or low-end: touching up some holiday photos a couple times a year is not what GIMP is made for;

Gimp becoming another industry standard for digital artwork clients.Gone are the days of a client wanting only Adobe software workspace files.Most of the time Gimp or XCF is allowed in the work process.


Having "SAVE" default to only saving in .xcf format is clearly a feature for the benefit of mid or low-end users, who have to be protected. As many 'high-end' users have indicated, not being able to set the format in which a image is saved, is a serious nuisance. Does the user community have to wait for GIMP 2.9 for this ERROR to get fixed or should knowledgeable user find another image manipulation. Too bad as GIMP was a good program before some "mid or low-end" designers or product managers got involved.

You can explain that when you "save" to JPEG, you lose all the work that may allow further tinkering: layers, selections, paths... This isn't safe for advanced users, because they can work, save to JPEG and quit.. and lose their work.

If all you do with Gimp is handle a single layer and never make complex selections, then you should be using simpler software.

I am sure "advanced users" have the ability to decide and use the most appropriate formats.

As for saying " should be using simpler software" that is not a good or right thing to say and some times even for single layer edits the GIMP is the best or only thing.

Just wanted to throw a "me too" in here. I upgraded to GIMP 2.8 and was really excited to try out all the new features. Discovering how awful the new file save dialog is spoiled it all though. It's a huge pain not to be able to easily save files in the formats I commonly use such as JPG, TIFF, and PNG without going through the export function. I expect a high-end graphics program to be able to adapt to my workflow. I expect it to save my files in the format I want it to. This is such a pain I'm seriously temped to go back to 2.6 as none of the new features are worth the inconvenience of the new interface. :( Is there any hope 2.8.1 or something will be out soon and fix this with a return to a sane file save dialog that works as most users want and expect? Or is there some kind of plugin that will provide a conventional file save dialog that works as expected? If there's any project out there working on such a plugin (or even a fork or port of GIMP) I'd be willing to contribute some time or money to help!

and seriously... the "export" function is the same as the old "save" function except that the keyboard shortcut is different.

My usual workflow is to load a digital image such as a TIFF (or a RAW via UFRaw), edit the image, then save as a JPEG. With the old version of GIMP, I was able to save, close, and move on to the next file. With the new version I have to export instead of save, but then when I try to close the file, it puts up an "are you sure?" dialog complaining that I haven't "saved" the file. I edit a lot of images and adding even one extra dialog on every save is a pain. At the very least, how about a "stop asking me!" checkbox on the "are you sure?" dialog so I can close the file after I save it without extra steps?

developer response to anyone who finds this "feature" a useless burden, is that we're not a part of the target audience, and that we should switch to a different program. I guess years of loyalty and promotion ain't worth what it used to be.

That's a bummer. I've used GIMP for a long, long time. I'm trying out alternatives but it sucks that I have to do that. I could understand if they wanted to move some of the file formats to "save as" instead of "save". That's the normal way of doing what they were trying to achieve and it works fine; it still gives the user the choice of file format and once the user has chosen, the program respects their choice. I think most users favor ease-of-use and fewer clicks over knowing the developers have achieved theoretical ontological perfection of the menu layout. :/

The developer response has been that the decision is settled, and will not be reversed. A number of individuals have expressed complaints in wording such as "I can't use gimp like this" or "It is [...] a showstopper for some users who might otherwise wish to use GIMP." etc. with the developer response being "OK, then don't use it".

I see in the last couple days someone has forked the code, and made available source that puts everything back under the save/save-as menu again, so assuming the fork is well received and desired it will survive.

Using your words "Save" = "Save" and "Save As" = "Export".

I honestly do not get the problem folks are having with the change, other than the issue that is was a change.

-Rob A>

Note that the code in this fork is sitting there without changes for the last four months. A huge amount of changes has gone into the original GIMP code (both the master and gimp-2-8 branches) since then.

I'm not going to assume that the creator of the fork is going to follow up daily, but I would at least have expected an update for GIMP 2.8.2.

Another fork, gimp-classic, which spares users the horrible GIMP 2.6 UI and brings back the 2.4 look and feel, seems to be behind schedule as well: is stuck at 2.7.4

With FOSS people don't vote with their wallets but they vote with their downloads of the forks. And at 279 downloads, gimp-classic is not really a smashing success...

Well, it doesn't count people like me, who went back to Gimp 4.6 That seems a lot simpler than compiling a new version.

JPEG is a lossy format. Not asking a user if they want to lose information is dangerous (and yes PNG is also lossy in that sense, because you lose layer data). You are also wrong about GIMP 2.6 having less modal dialogs popping up: it would constantly nag about flattening image (if there is more than one layer) and so on; GIMP 2.8 doesn't do that, because it knows that "export" is not "save". Moreover, if you export an image more than once, it asks zero questions on subsequent exports. So, for a large number of users this change only decreases the number of dialogs.

I don't think you're counting all the dialogs. For example, if I edit a jpg, there's no such thing as saving it, so there's no such thing as "save" on;y "save as". So that adds a couple of extra dialogues, in which GIMP essentially asks me if I want to choose XCF, without giving me any other choices.

If I want to export to JPG and close the window, I get a dialogue that says "CLOSE WITHOUT SAVING?" Now, in my terms, I've just saved it, and being asked if I want to close without saving is painful. You really can't just breeze by that message.

Yes!!!! the worst part is you export then try and close and it says you have not saved.

Not the same.

This "feature" is a major PITA. I currently have a folder of PNG images that I simply want to crop.

I would have normally just opened each image in GIMP, cropped and then clicked save.
Now, I have to open in GIMP, crop, choose export, reselect the original file, click save, click replace.

I'm getting pretty irritated by this bug and will be looking elsewhere (even damn Photoshop) if this situation is not rectified. I wonder if there is a decent drop-in replacement for GIMP?

It might seem strange to you, but the GIMP developer's intention is that people make use of other tools for simple tasks like cropping. Gthumb, Shotwell and F-Spot could be useful supplements to GIMP for these types of tasks.

Well, the developers are idiots quite frankly. Most of the time I do simple Image Manipulation Tasks and every now and then I want to use layers and more complex features. I never had a problem with the 2.6 method, I always managed to save as an xcf if I wanted to, whilst most of the time, I save as PNG. GIMP used to be a lot more intelligent and so did the developers.

GNU Image Manipulation Program = Snobby Pseudo-Professional Developers. I look forward to trying out the fork mentioned further up the thread and removing GIMP 2.8 from all the computers it is currently installed on within the institution I work in.

So long and thanks for all the fish!

Thinking about it, I was never in a position where I had lost my work because I had saved to the wrong format and here's why:
* If I click file>new>image the default save format was xcf, makes sense to save a newly created image as a XCF
* If I opened a PNG or JPEG and touched it up it offered to save as png or jpeg appropriately
* If I created a new image and pasted in some source JPEGs and PNGs to combine in the new image, I was offered xcf as the default option.
* If I wanted a scalable source for future exports, I would have used Inkscape or some other comparable SVG creation program.
So it seems that GIMP was already intelligent enough to know when to offer xcf without the protection of the export feature.

Ultimately, I feel that it is inappropriate for an Open Source's project developers and community to say "You are not the type of users we want using our program".



File>Export>directory of your choice and click the extension(+) to choose extension desired. Then save as usual.

In the past GIMP did this for you by asking if that is what you wanted and reminding you that you needed to do so. Hitting three keys on the keyboard is not much of a big deal when you know it has to be done before you can save it as a JPEG file. Keyboard short cuts are faster than mouse clicks.

You already had to export in older version of GIMP when saving as a JPEG. In older version GIMP was simply reminding you what you needed to know and learn. Anyone who has ever used GIMP in the past knows you had to EXPORT first. I do not see an issue.

I use one program to store my Photos as a database (Aperture on OS X) and I edit using GIMP in 2.6 all I did was "Edit With GIMP" that sent my photo to the GIMP in TIFF format then when the edit was done I closed the window and GIMP saved the Photo back in the same format (TIFF) that it was opened in. This is VERY GOOD and VERY EASY!!!! now with 2.8 it (GIMP) wants to do this exporting thing. You (lylejk) say "know why they did this" so I ask WHY did they? and to the GIMP team WHY???? and can there please be an option to put the old way of doing things back? PLEASE

This is the stupidest thing this team has EVER done. Forcing people to export out anything other than YOUR FILETYPE, in hopes of taking over the other filetypes, is ridiculous and HARVARD-ISH. Was this brought up in a post meeting?

This has in effect made GIMP unusuable to almost every user. USELESS and BROKEN now.

THANKS Harvard Grads.



Have you ever heard of lossless image formats? If you don't do complex things in GIMP - you probably don't need it. There is plenty of other image editing software out there which resort to jpg file format and don't care much about losing image quality. Exporting files instead of saving wasn't made at somebody's whim. It aims to help casual users like you preserve YOUR images from irreversible destructive changes. Most professionals and other high-end users in fact appreciate the changes although they rarely do such mistakes.
>This has in effect made GIMP unusuable to almost every user. USELESS and BROKEN now.<
That is very funny!
Never speak for other people.

Hey proximaTori,

The fact that you need to troll rather than focus on arguments shows that you are unable to reason.

First and most importantly - you are not the sole authority of how people use something like Gimp.

"If you don't do complex things in GIMP - you probably don't need it."

You are aware that Gimp used to be simpler in the past? What are you going to tell these older people - that the simpler Gimp of the past was not needed by them? Because they would REQUIRE Gimp to do more than what it could do back then? Seriously?

"There is plenty of other image editing software out there which resort to jpg file format"

Name alternatives. You named zero. :)

Additionally, who are you to mandate how others use Gimp?

"don't care much about losing image quality"

Indeed. As a user, I want to be in total control when and how I lose image quality.

The current gimp nazi dev team decided that my opinion is irrelevant. I do not have any choice, the nazi team decides for me.

You attempt to justify this attitude when in reality the alternative is simple - allow users to decide what they want. But in nazi gimp, this is not an option.

"Exporting files instead of saving wasn't made at somebody's whim."

You attempt to reason why crippling features were added. This is the same strawman argument used by the Gnome team to have fucked up gnome.

Good thing that I don't have to care, indeed there are better alternatives - KDE, Fluxbox, XFCE. Alternatives of developers who don't ignore users.

"It aims to help casual users like you preserve YOUR images from irreversible destructive changes."

Wait a moment. You first argued that "Gimp is for professionals", and now you argue that this feature exists for casual users like the poster?

Can you not attempt to remain CONSISTENT WITH YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS? Is this how the gimp developers try to reason? Like confused 3 years old? :)

"Most professionals and other high-end users in fact appreciate the changes although they rarely do such mistakes."


Which professional uses Gimp? Eh? I am gonna ask industrial designers... man, according to you, we must have more of these guys use gimp rather than ... hmm let's see... non FOSS software like Maya, Photoshop and indesign, EH?

>This has in effect made GIMP unusuable to almost every user. USELESS and BROKEN now.<
"That is very funny!
Never speak for other people."

Wait - YOU did so yourself in YOUR OWN COMMENT. :)

I show where you did so:

"If you don't do complex things in GIMP - you probably don't need it."

^^^ You tried to reason how OTHER people use Gimp.

And I can tell you one thing. The way the user described how he has used Gimp is EXACTLY the same way _I_ use it. So what now, dude. Are you going to ignore the majority?

The changes to the save-export behavior are so insignificant that it's not worth the discussion. It's just a matter of switching from Ctrl-S to Ctrl-E keyboard shortcuts. Really, "dude", simple as that. Well, at least you're a few months late to bring this up and forever late to reverse those changes. It won't happen.
Below is part of the thread from the gimp mailing list. Want to know what the GIMP dev team has to say about it?

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:

> It is certainly important for the authors and developers of an application
> to know who their targeted audience is.
> I'm curious, though... Do you know what percentage of the people who
> actually use GIMP now are part of that target audience?

This is simply not the point.

Let's face it: GIMP is mostly misused. People got used to it, because
if they needed a free app with few extra features, they simply had no
choice. Especially on Linux.

If Pinta was released 5 years earlier, the amount of GIMP users on
Linux would probably be a half of what it is now.

Still with me?

The aim is to meet the demands of professionals. Users have a choice:
migrate to simpler apps like Pinta, migrate to complex apps with
familiar workflow such as Krita, or stick to GIMP and adapt their

The adaptation is really not as bad as you are trying to picture it. I
know it, because I've gone through this two years ago, and I'm neither
supersmart nor extraflexible.

> Also, it seems to me from the stuff at the URLs you sent that the potential
> size of the user base for the audience you are targeting is much smaller
> than the potential user base of more "casual" image editors like me. Do I
> understand correctly that you are consciously aiming to design the
> application to be attractive primarily to that much smaller user base?

It's a matter of perspective. As far as I can tell, users who try to
think and act big gravitate to more sophisticated software. That
automatically expands the audience (far) beyond hi-end users. But the
development focus is still on hi-end users, because focus is

Alexandre Prokoudine

========If you have enough time to read all the discussions on this topic, be my guest.

You wrote:
>Never speak for other people."
Wait - YOU did so yourself in YOUR OWN COMMENT. :)
I show where you did so:
"If you don't do complex things in GIMP - you probably don't need it."
^^^ You tried to reason how OTHER people use Gimp.

My statement is based NOT on my opinion but on the GIMP usability studies among targeted audience. Which is, by no coincidence, the professional community. They are being interviewed by the GIMP team on a regular basis. Now, can you refer to similar usability research among low-end users? The answer is no. Because now the professionals, not amateurs dictate what features they want. GIMP is becoming a high-end image editing software, not the other way around, whether you like it or not. Blender has been developing exactly the same way. It was totally shaped by the requests and demands of the professional artists.

>And I can tell you one thing. The way the user described how he has used Gimp is EXACTLY the same way _I_ use it. So what now, dude. Are you going to ignore the majority?

You are not the majority. The majority of GIMP users that accepted the changes are mostly silent, but it does not mean they are few. Read gimp mailing list, gimpusers, other similar websites and you'll find lots of amateur users who appreciate new save-export behavior.
Maybe reading this article will help you understand why these particular changes were made.
P.S. This site is not a good platform for discussions like this. This is Plugin Registry. If you want to make an impact on how GIMP evolves - take it to the developers.

Have a good day

See title. I want my choice back.

"It aims to help casual users like you preserve YOUR images from irreversible destructive changes." -- This is my problem not the developers, if I can't spend enough time paying attention to what I am doing then I cannot complain when I lose my work.

It seems all the "Go away, 2.8 Export feature is fine crowd" think that we (in this case, myself and other people complaining about this feature) have never used the save as, save a copy and export features; you are wrong. We were quite aware of how they worked and they worked very well with particular types of workflows, but, on a day-to-day basis the previous methodology worked better.

Remember, there's no right way to do anything.

So you admit to redefining the "target audience" to get the answers you wanted. How about asking all the people who use it before you declare that everybody wants something? Maybe if you asked all those silent users, the answers wouldn't be the ones you decided upon then biased the so-called study to support.

You also admit that you're changing the target of gimp with your statement that it is "becoming a high-end image editing software," meaning that it wasn't before, and thus you should have forked the "high end" package and changed its name, leaving gimp as the powerful but low end software you have such disdain for.

If you didn't do that because you couldn't think of a new name, I don't think any graphics packages are currently using pompoustwit.

I really do not see the problem with the new changes for Saving a Gimp Workspace File (XCF). You can still File>Export To, File>Export, OR File>Overwrite in Gimp-2.8.4.Whats the difference if i selected File>Save As> in the older Gimp versions?


TIFF (perhaps) I have been using this format as the professional printer I use for my art likes the files in this format. If I open a file in one format then it is most likely I want to close/save it in the same format unless I want to export/convert it to another.

Gimp was born at Berkeley and the current team seems mostly based in Europe...

So there!

Nah, that is not the reason. I am from Europa too and the decision to screw over the users was a decision done by a team of Nazi developers. If I would have been a developer of Gimp, I'd sure enough would have not done this major usability fuckup.

They hijacked Gimp.

It would be nice if we could get rid of the nazi developers and get in a fork, but as a matter of fact, let's face it - there just aren't enough developers.

So we either have to use something else, or follow the nazi developers. (Or use older versions of gimp, which I will do.)

It's a no sense effort to make a change to a software behavior, in order to complicate it !!!
Best thing as previous release, one save command and then chose the format.

Maybe reading this will help you understand the reasons why the save/export procedures have been changed
And please, read the comment by Ingo below

I did read it and it's all very well put esp for "New" projects but if your editing a image you have all ready worked on then it's most likely you want to save it in the format it was in. Also if you are so high end that you want/need/like this way of doing things then you would not need it as you would do the right things anyway. As for this being the wrong place to post I will blame google as this page is the first page that come up when I googled for it.

It's not designed to complicate it, but to make it safer. With the 2.6 behavior, you can save as JPG/PNG and then quit, and lose your layers/selections/paths... Saving as PNG/JPG/GIF isn't really "saving" because if you do more than trivial editing you cannot rework the output.

I find this way of saving/exporting much better because it allows me to save all work in progress as .xcf very easily and safely. I then export only that which is finished in whatever format I want, but can still go back to the .xcf any time. This same system is used in other graphics programs where a lot of detailed/complex work is done. For me, it's more useable now than it was before.

Folks, this is the plug-in discussion site. Take it to the developers.

I have been using gimp for a very long time.
Very often I use it for something simple like
cropping or decreasing the compression in jpg pictures.

I recently upgraded ubuntu and got the new gimp.
I tried to save a photo to de-compresses it a guess what,
two mins later I am googling "how do I save a jpg in 2.8 gimp" --- how I came here.

This seriously is a mistake.

It will put people off using gimp.
They will get frustrated with trying to save an image (if they loaded it in as jpg
they will expect to be able to save it seamlessly) and think its
usless. This reflects badly on free software enforcing the stereotypes
of it being difficult and for techies only...

I've been using gimp for what, like a decade. It's a product I've promoted and used in both a high end and low end capacity.

Shame it's all going to snootsville all over some pretty elementary functionality. Can't wait to see what's in store for the future, lol.

Love the Open Source Model but, time and again, I have noted that its primary weakness is a sort of "geek elitist" mentality that floats to the top of the developer pool over time. Design decisions start being made with the attitude, "we cater to a certain caliber of user who is worthy of our efforts. If you don't like it, piss off. You are beneath our notice."

Time for some armchair psychology, but it's essentially the standard behaviour of people who have too much to prove. I work in academia and there's the same attitude - the young researchers, fresh off a PhD, feel the need to litter their text with flowery language and impenetrable sentences, whereas the world renowned Professor will write in simple, easy to understand language that any student can take on board.

Actively trying to make things less easy to use is a simple strategy aimed at distinguishing you from the unclean masses. The justification is always "it's high end software so if you don't know how to use it then it's your problem", but being "high end" isn't about removing features and making a design less intuitive. In fact, it's a mark of something not being "high end" because instead of having the confidence to stand by the software they feel the need to actively make poor design choices for the sake of proving a point.

I still think GIMP is very worthwhile software overall - all software has flaws - but that doesn't make the logic behind this particular change any better.

I have to say how disappointed I am in the new upgrades- is it software designers mission in life to hide the obvious and confound the users these days?
Gimp WAS SO easy to add a watermark to my photos and save as a jpeg but now you have added more confusion and TIME to my already busy schedule with these new changes. I am not sure how much longer I will continue to use this program I am VERY disappointed in the time consumption and constant googling of problems to find solutions to them. Stop burying the obvious in layers that only designers can find. I am a competant computer user I have used Gimp for 8 years successfully "until now"


Subscribe to Comments for "How do I save to Jpg in GIMP 2.8"