Congratulations on your new application, Renegade ;-)
While in theory I agree with many of your point of views, I simply cannot understand the reason for this one:
... JPG ratios? 80% is good enough.
In my opinion, 80% is never good enough. Especially the iris in the eye will need more, I think. Well, in fact the "80%" is the very reason I haven't tested your program. But of course, the program was not made for me but for your wife ;-)
Years and years of experience.
80% for JPGs is almost indistinguishable from 100%, and the file size savings are massive in comparison.
Remember, this is designed for people to produce an "end product" picture that's going to be used somewhere for viewing, not for processing again.
But, the proof is in the pudding. Here are 2 pictures, creatively named A and B. (Down below - scroll then scroll.)
Look at each one quickly to see if you can tell the difference, then take a closer look and see if you can tell the difference. Make sure to view them at the same position on your screen as viewing angles can shift perception.
Have a look, then tell me which one is 80% and which is 100%. The 80% file is 285 KB while the 100% file is 890 KB.
Make sure to not look at the file size if you download them as that defeats the purpose.
*If* you can tell the difference, note just how difficult it is to do so.
285 vs. 890.
That's why I chose 80.
(edit -- change images to full to avoid load time bias)