there is, IMHO, a grave danger in what you are asking for.
Because it involves resampling bitmaps (and usually resampling them upward).
Joan User copies and pastes a web photo into her publisher document to use
as the cover for the 4 page sell sheet. She enlarges it to bleed the page.
the printer tells her she needs to give him a 300 dpi jpg. so she does it,
using the controls you are seeking.
crap on a stick!
but it looks ok on her computer and Epson (a little fuzzy on the Epson, even
on plain paper, but "they" can fix that, no?). the guy who asked for the jpg
(who is proven to be technically deficient be the very language of the
request for a jpg) looks at it decided the 300 dpi is good enough, plates
it, cranks out 1500 copies, and
crap on a stick is now on the paper.
somebody is going to eat them. Because Joan's boss is sure as heck not going
to pay for them and Joan will probabely be able to lay the blame on the
pritner and make it stick.
If the resampling had not gone on there would be a much stronger liklihood
that the odor associated with the stuff on the stick would have been noticed
much, much sooner.