[Gimp-developer] Allow zero delta on 'add border' filter
The 'Filters | Decor | Add Border' filter allows a border to be added around the current image. The delta value determines the extent to which the base color is changed to create the bevel effect. When the delta value is changed to 0, it automatically jumps back to 1. However, why not allow it to stay at zero, and when it's zero, just add a border whose color is identical to the specified base color? This would allow the 'add border' filter to add plain un-beveled borders if the user desires. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] Shape layers for GIMP?
Yes, processors nowadays are very powerful and indeed applying a bunch of effects onto a shape layer every time you make a change takes a good amount of CPU power; but that's fundamentally different, because at least there, there is a finite limit of the number of operations that will need to be reapplied per change (ie. every single layer effect is turned on, the CPU will have to re-apply every single layer effect). However, the idea of being able to modify any change in the undo buffer is much more difficult, because there is a potentially infinite number of past changes. I could design a really complex shape, apply 100 effects, then go away and do loads more complex work with loads more complex effects, then design another really complex shape, etc. By the time I want to go back 1000 (by the way, actually finding the edit I want to modify would be rather difficult at this point too!), the CPU has to apply 1000 processor-intensive effects. That's WAY more work than even the worst-case scenario with something like a shape layer. But it just gets worse and worse. What will the performance be like if I want to modify something 10,000 moves back? 100,000? At some point this idea because unfeasible, it seems to me. Modern CPUs can perform "quite a lot of operations without cumbersome delay", but even the most powerful CPU is going to start to hurt at some point, and in advanced graphics editing, that point may arrive rather quickly. > operations without cumbersome delay. And, clearly: if many slow > filters have to be recalculated > in order to update the screen, the user may have to wait. But again, > what would be the better > alternative -- simply not allow to re-adjust that operation from long > ago? Yes. Or to give the user a warning that this operation is likely to take a long time. But because it may be likely to take a long time, it is no replacement for shape layers. The great thing about shape layers in Photoshop is that you get a "live preview" - it is able to render the layer effects almost immediately every time you make a change. It wouldn't be worth it if you had to wait 10 seconds every time. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 09/09/2012 20:10, yahvuu wrote: Hi Jeremy, Am 09.09.2012 13:32, schrieb Jeremy Morton: On 09/09/2012 12:24, yahvuu wrote: My understanding is that you will be able to go back in the operations history and just modify the path. All consequences of this modification will be displayed live. No need to declare special "layer effects" or special "shape layers". Well that sounds great, but I don't really see how it's feasible. What if you want to modify an operation 1000 complex edits ago? The CPU is going to have to redo those 1000 edits every time you modify; surely this would become cumbersome very quickly? what gets better if you redo those 1000 complex edits manually? Your shape layer example probably shows that current computers can perform quite a lot of operations without cumbersome delay. And, clearly: if many slow filters have to be recalculated in order to update the screen, the user may have to wait. But again, what would be the better alternative -- simply not allow to re-adjust that operation from long ago? There is a wide range of possible optimizations, so it is probably better to think of non-destructive editing not as a macro-recorder which has to replay any stroke and user action in strictly the same way, but rather as building a list of operations that achieves the desired effect in the shortest way possible. best regards, yahvuu ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
[Gimp-developer] Selecting multiple nodes with rectangle?
Is there a way in GIMP to use the regular select tools (or something like them) to select multiple nodes in GIMP, rather than having to shift-click node-per-node? If not, maybe it would be a good idea to have a "select nodes" checkbox in the select tool options, so you could use them to select any path nodes that fall within the boundary? -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] Shape layers for GIMP?
On 09/09/2012 12:24, yahvuu wrote: Am 08.09.2012 20:02, schrieb Jeremy Morton: [..] What's taking up the time is going through the following process: 1. Delete previous applied "effects layers". 2. Modify path. 3. Convert path to selection. 4. Fill selection with colour. 5. Apply inner shadow to layer. 6. Apply inner glow to layer. 7. Apply gradient to layer. 8. [etc...] With a shape layer, assuming it had been set up already with the desired effects, the above steps would change to the following: 1. Modify path. One of the most important features of future GIMP is to enable the user to "revisit the past". Citing [1]: "No matter if it was done five seconds or five months ago, one can recall any previous operation applied to this layer and readjust it. " My understanding is that you will be able to go back in the operations history and just modify the path. All consequences of this modification will be displayed live. No need to declare special "layer effects" or special "shape layers". Well that sounds great, but I don't really see how it's feasible. What if you want to modify an operation 1000 complex edits ago? The CPU is going to have to redo those 1000 edits every time you modify; surely this would become cumbersome very quickly? -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] Shape layers for GIMP?
I think the first stage, to make it really useful, would be to incorporate the Script-fu layer effects here into GIMP proper: http://registry.gimp.org/node/186 Are they already in GIMP? I can't see most of them. Once they were in, GIMP could apply them to shape layers automatically. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 08/09/2012 20:08, Liam R E Quin wrote: On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 11:34 +0100, Jeremy Morton wrote: Are there any plans to introduce something like this for GIMP? The GIMP plans are limited by having very few active programmers. Are you volunteering to work on a feature like this? That would indeed be awesome. Liam ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] Shape layers for GIMP?
On 08/09/2012 18:29, Richard Gitschlag wrote: There's a slightly faster manual way: Stroke the path onto a layer mask, this keeps the "shape" of the layer separate from its actual content. True, you still have no live preview (you have to fill inside/outside of selection with 0% and 100% to set the mask) linked to a path object, but it's non-destructive to the layer's constituent pixels. Destroying the constituent pixels isn't really what's taking up the time. What's taking up the time is going through the following process: 1. Delete previous applied "effects layers". 2. Modify path. 3. Convert path to selection. 4. Fill selection with colour. 5. Apply inner shadow to layer. 6. Apply inner glow to layer. 7. Apply gradient to layer. 8. [etc...] With a shape layer, assuming it had been set up already with the desired effects, the above steps would change to the following: 1. Modify path. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
[Gimp-developer] Shape layers for GIMP?
I've looked around and it looks like GIMP doesn't have anything like Photoshop's shape layers. Shape layers are really cool because they're a path tied to a normal layer whose purpose is simply to ummask that normal layer. Photoshop then gives you a live preview of what that unmasked layer looks like when the path is closed, and automatically updates that preview as you edit the path's nodes. In addition, Photoshop offers the option to apply layer effects live (updated each time you edit the nodes in the shape layer's path). Although you can do this in GIMP, you have to do it all manually (create path, convert to selection, fill selection) so it's much slower and it isn't a "live preview". Are there any plans to introduce something like this for GIMP? -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] XP SP3 requirement?
I changed the registry entry following registry entry on my machine to fake SP3 being installed: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Windows] "CSDVersion"=dword:0300 The setup ran fine and GIMP 2.8.0 runs fine. I really think the Windows installer should not refuse to install on SP2, and at most should popup a 'not supported' warning. It's pointless to put a barricade in place because of a registry entry. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 07/05/2012 18:27, Jernej Simončič wrote: On Monday, May 7, 2012, 15:45:13, Jeremy Morton wrote: The "GTK+ and GIMP installers for Windows" project is listed as GPL-licensed on Sourceforge, but I can't seem to find the source files used to make the latest GIMP-2.8 installer. Could you tell me where I can get them? For example, where the latest Inno Setup ISS script is? Oops, I forgot to upload the new script - it's now up (though the only changes from the 2.7.4 script are check for SSE and cleanup of a few obsolete plugins from 2.6). ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] XP SP3 requirement?
On 07/05/2012 18:27, Jernej Simončič wrote: On Monday, May 7, 2012, 15:45:13, Jeremy Morton wrote: The "GTK+ and GIMP installers for Windows" project is listed as GPL-licensed on Sourceforge, but I can't seem to find the source files used to make the latest GIMP-2.8 installer. Could you tell me where I can get them? For example, where the latest Inno Setup ISS script is? Oops, I forgot to upload the new script - it's now up (though the only changes from the 2.7.4 script are check for SSE and cleanup of a few obsolete plugins from 2.6). ... and also, presumably, this: MinVersion=0,5.01sp3 //MinVersion=0,5.0 -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] XP SP3 requirement?
Jernej, The "GTK+ and GIMP installers for Windows" project is listed as GPL-licensed on Sourceforge, but I can't seem to find the source files used to make the latest GIMP-2.8 installer. Could you tell me where I can get them? For example, where the latest Inno Setup ISS script is? -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 06/05/2012 17:39, Jernej Simončič wrote: On Sunday, May 6, 2012, 17:39:25, Jay Smith wrote: Is SP3 _really_ necessary? Probably not, but I have no time to test on unsupported OS versions. There are many XP users who will not go past SP2 because of the Microsoft monitoring& reporting, etc., of higher-level installations. I have no idea what you're talking about. Anybody that paranoid is on his own. ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] [PATCH] gimp-web: Update the Windows download link to gimp-2.8.0 [try 2]
Microsoft's Genuine Advantage was installed with SP3, but not SP2. There are millions of SP2 installs out there in the wild. If GIMP should basically run on SP2, I don't see a reason not to offer an (unsupported) installer for it; it's just a case of, as Jernej wrote, 'bumping the minimum requirement' down again. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 07/05/2012 08:07, Cristian Secară wrote: În data de Mon, 07 May 2012 00:02:43 +0100, Jeremy Morton a scris: Please please please offer support for SP2. It's not hard and there's still a ton of SP2 installations out there. If you don't bother with SP2, you might as well not bother with XP at all. What means "offer suport" here ? Is to be expected that GIMP 2.8 will not work at all on SP2, or is it just about offering help by someone in case of install troubles or something ? (Other than that, I believe that the "SP3" is just a centralized collection of XP fixes, most of them being already present in a SP2 with all live updates accepted and installed. As for "monitoring& reporting" folly, in case this exists, was this present only on XP SP3 and never since then on newer Windows versions ? Cristi ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] [PATCH] gimp-web: Update the Windows download link to gimp-2.8.0 [try 2]
Please please please offer support for SP2. It's not hard and there's still a ton of SP2 installations out there. If you don't bother with SP2, you might as well not bother with XP at all. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 06/05/2012 20:06, Detlef Riekenberg wrote: GIMP 2.8 was build for Windows XP SP3 and above try 2: Minimum supported OS bumped to Windows XP SP3 as mentioned by Jernej in http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2012-May/msg00055.html -- By by ... Detlef --- downloads/Windows.xhtml |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/downloads/Windows.xhtml b/downloads/Windows.xhtml index 3f11b83..37bc194 100644 --- a/downloads/Windows.xhtml +++ b/downloads/Windows.xhtml @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ href="http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/";>Windows installers by Jernej Simončič. -http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gimp-win/gimp-2.6.12-i686-setup-2.exe";>Download GIMP 2.6.12 – Installer for Windows XP SP2 or later +http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-win/files/GIMP%20%2B%20GTK%2B%20%28stable%20release%29/GIMP%202.8.0/gimp-2.8.0-setup.exe/download";>Download GIMP 2.8.0 – Installer for Windows XP SP3 or later GIMP User Manual ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] XP SP3 requirement?
Jernej, I run XP SP2 on some machines. My vote is also to support SP2. Why is SP2 unsupported, can't you fire up a VM with it on or something? At least provide 2 separate installers, with SP2 and SP3 requirements... -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 06/05/2012 17:39, Jernej Simončič wrote: On Sunday, May 6, 2012, 17:39:25, Jay Smith wrote: Is SP3 _really_ necessary? Probably not, but I have no time to test on unsupported OS versions. There are many XP users who will not go past SP2 because of the Microsoft monitoring& reporting, etc., of higher-level installations. I have no idea what you're talking about. Anybody that paranoid is on his own. ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] yes, its that time of the year..
Alexandre, your social skills get me through the day sometimes. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 06/05/2012 15:26, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:15 PM, legion1978 wrote: Please read it before you ditch it. "I know you are tired of the "rename GIMP" threads, but I will bring this up once again so that you could be even more tired." Thanks, but no, thanks. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
[Gimp-developer] Official 2.8 Windows installer?
Now that GIMP 2.8 is officially out, shouldn't we (with some urgency) get an official Windows installer for it near the top of the downloads page: http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ We still have the 2.6.12 installer linked. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] gimp 2.8 splash screen suggestion
On 17/04/2012 15:13, John Harris wrote: V e r s i o n Two Point Eight. This could still fit in the bottom of your vertical banner as your third element, yet it would minimize the visual weight. Please god no. That sounds seriously cheesy. :-) -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] ANNOUNCE: GIMP 2.8.0-RC1 released
This may not be the appropriate place for this, but... WOOHOO!!! -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 05/04/2012 21:48, Michael Natterer wrote: Hi, GIMP 2.8.0-RC1 has been released. This is the first release candidate of the upcoming stable 2.8 release. Running this release for the first time will create a new ~/.gimp-2.8 directory in your home directory, and will migrate your GIMP 2.6 settings. Please report any issues you encounter during settings migration, or later with the migrated settings. For a complete list of changes since 2.7.5 please see the "Changes" section below. Also see the release notes of the 2.7 series at http://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.7.html Happy GIMPing, --Mitch Download GIMP 2.8.0-RC1 is available from: ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/v2.8/ and from the mirrors listed at: http://www.gimp.org/downloads/#mirrors The checksum of the tarball is: 134396e4399b7e753ffca7ba366c418f gimp-2.8.0-RC1.tar.bz2 Changes in GIMP 2.8.0-RC1 = Core: - Add our own GimpOperationBrightnessContrast because GEGL one is different Plug-ins: - Fix some GFig rendering issues Source and build system: - Depend on Babl 0.1.10, GEGL 0.2.0 and some other new library versions General: - Bug fixes - Translation updates Contributors Alexia Death, Alexis Wilhelm, Martin Nordholts, Massimo Valentini, Michael Natterer, Mikael Magnusson, Mukund Sivaraman, Sebastian Pipping, Simon Budig, Øyvind Kolås. Translators === Albert F, Alexandre Prokoudine, Carles Ferrando, Daniel Korostil, Dimitris Spingos (Δημήτρης Σπίγγος), Fran Diéguez, Khaled Hosny, Kiyotaka NISHIBORI, Marco Ciampa, Nils Philippsen, Piotr Drąg, Praveen Illa, Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira, ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] What's keeping us from getting 2.8 out?
Thumbs up from me! I think 2.7 was good enough, with a few code cleanups, to be released as 2.8 half a year ago! -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 08/03/2012 17:58, Nils Philippsen wrote: Hi there, I guess I've been a monumental pain to some in the past weeks with all my nagging, but somehow it feels as if we're afraid of getting 2.8 out of the door. I'm not sure how much Enselic's list of remaining tasks matches reality (not sure how it gets decided what tasks get added there and when they're considered done -- I guess it feeds off the 2.8 milestone in Bugzilla?), but if it's not completely off track (I don't think it is), development (or at least "ticking off tasks") has been stagnant since the end of 2011. To get out of this (at least perceived) state of gridlock, we should have some criteria with which to decide what must be done for 2.8 to happen, so we have a list which we can simply tick off one after another. These are the criteria I would use, with a bit of guessing where we are regarding them interspersed: - Finish release notes and related docs: - Document changed and new API -- anyone other than Mitch who can do this? I guess every bit counts but somebody knowledgeable enough needs to say "yes, this should be about all". - http://developer.gimp.org/api/2.0/libgimp/libgimp-index-new-in-2-8.html doesn't exist yet, ditto. - Some screenshots are still missing. - Anything else? - Get out 2.7.5. Only I would call it 2.8-RC, if only to keep us on our toes :-). - Fix milestone 2.8 bugs which are either critical or would need incompatible API/ABI changes for being fixed, or push the latter to a later milestone if the bug is something with which we can live for the duration of 2.8. This needs a bit of triaging I suppose -- I would do that, but would probably err on the side of pushing to 2.10/3.0 :-). - Once we're done code-wise: - Tag 2.8.0 - Roll a tarball, publish it. - Get binary builds for Windows/Mac done? That wouldn't need to hold up the release IMO however. - Post stories how we've beat Duke Nukem Forever by years :-D to Freshmeat or however that's called today, libregraphicsworld.org and the other usual suspects. So that's my take on it. Comments? Other than that, I have some (possibly heretical) ideas of how to get future versions out quicker, but that's stuff for another post (and should probably be discussed after 2.8 is out -- we don't need any more distractions right now). Nils ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] How much money to make a dent in GIMP 2.8?
With all due respect, your method of not paying anyone has resulted in 2 years without a stable release of GIMP. What's your point? It's not like things are just rosy and there aint nothing to fix. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 05/03/2012 11:56, peter sikking wrote: Paul Slocum wrote: I've been a serious professional GIMP user for about 10 years, but the project has seem stalled for quite some time now. I was wondering how much money it would take to get the project back on track? Would 25k, 50k, 100k to hire one or two programmers for several months make a substantial difference? can I point out a couple of things? first, it has been pointed out for years that that would build a two-class society in GIMP: paid and very active (and contribution is power in free software), vs. unpaid and occasional contributor (or more tragic, unpaid and steady contributor; how long would that last?) next, software engineering is only one single piece of the whole puzzle of shipping software. I have a lot of respect for the people who write the documentation; for the people who do triage in bugzilla; for those who run the SoC; for those who organise and do localisation; I probably forget some more who do similar hard, nagging work that involves quite a bit of managing processes. all of this is not seen as development, which is already a put-down for these people. add another one on top; that it would not speak for itself to pay to get this done? then there is my team, the UI team. and related, the people undertaking quite a bit of usability research at this moment. As a professional, I know what all that is worth, both in what it delivers to the project and what it costs in the real world: a substantial amount. all of this is contributed at the moment with the understanding that there is no money going around in GIMP (donations are used for travel to bring contributors together and for servers and hosting). I would not like to see that understanding being broken. the reason our (m+mi works) contribution of years to openPrinting came to an end, was that I realised that everyone was paid to contribute to open source printing (_no_one_ work voluntarily in printing) except for us, the interaction design team, who were dragging printing out of the 1980s (kicking and screaming). meanwhile there was a lot of pressure on us from these paid folks to make progress, but not a dollar to make it happen. then something snapped. I won't get fooled again. if there is money for the engineering of a project, then there better be real ($) appreciation of what interaction design is worth. my conclusion is to let pandora's box of paid development closed. --ps founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works http://blog.mmiworks.net: on interaction architecture ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] Retouch 'push' tool?
Paint Shop Pro's documentation of it says: "Similar to Smudge, but does not pick up any new color." So it's basically maintaining the colors of the area you initially clicked on when you started the click-drag. I don't see how IWarp is equivalent, because it operates on a whole image. Push is, well, similar to smudge - you drag the cursor around to manipulate the image. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 02/03/2012 23:01, Przemyslaw Golab wrote: 2012/3/2 Jeremy Morton mailto:ad...@game-point.net>> Does GIMP have an equivalent to Paint Shop Pro's retouch 'push' tool? It's similar to but not the same as the smudge tool. Filters>Distorts>IWarp and do as Liam R E Quin said. If you want help give more info about the problem. -- n-pigeon ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
[Gimp-developer] Retouch 'push' tool?
Does GIMP have an equivalent to Paint Shop Pro's retouch 'push' tool? It's similar to but not the same as the smudge tool. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
[Gimp-developer] Progress towards GIMP 2.8?
Hello everyone, Seems GIMP deadline is doing the usual thing - slipping. :-) This page used to indicate that 2.8 would be released near the beginning of 2012; now it's back to March: http://tasktaste.com/projects/Enselic/gimp-2-8 Can any major developers give an indication of how near we are to a 2.8 release? I'm really looking forward to it!!! -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] suggestion for new versions of GIMP
Oh god, we're really in trouble. :-S Yahoo! Answers is laughing at us? I learnt where babby formed from that informative site. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) On 24/11/2011 09:20, Jim Michaels wrote: the comments I am getting from some yahoo answers when GIMP is suggested are basically laughter, and that photoshop should be had instead. probably one of the most glaring things missing which serious users are missing are REALLY DECENT Camera RAW format tools and conversions for all the camera that have it - especially hasselblads. just make sure that when you have your adjustments, they are properly organized. make it really easy to use. some of the things I like about photoshop like Vibrance and some of its adjustments seem to be missing in GIMP (or people just don't know what those things are called, or they just don't work the same). I don't know if you can add that functionality in GIMP or not. in fact, make GIMP really easy to use, and powerful. make animation part of the package instead of a separate piece. some of us are losing out. make menu items intuitive. File,create for doing scanners is not intuitive. File,Scanners or File,Acquire is easy to understand. adobe photoshop filters (Mac or PC) should be built in. people should have to install a plugin. GIMP without photoshop filters is practically useless. such as alien skin's eye candy... (I think the company name could be changed) GIMP should be powerful. photoshop already has optional OpenGL 3d capability... not to mention you can photo a room and it can count items on a picture and measure items in a room and give you room dimensions. like I said, people laugh at GIMP... so... what is GIMP trying to be? - Jim Michaels jmich...@yahoo.com <mailto:jmich...@yahoo.com> j...@jimscomputerrepairandwebdesign.com <mailto:j...@jimscomputerrepairandwebdesign.com> http://JimsComputerRepairandWebDesign.com http://JesusnJim.com (my personal site, has software) --- Computer memory measurements, SSD measurements, microsoft disk size measurements (note: they will say GB or MB or KB or TB when it is not!): [KiB] [MiB] [GiB] [TiB] [2^10B=1,024B=1KiB] [2^20B=1,048,576B=1MiB] [2^30B=1,073,741,824B=1GiB] [2^40B=1,099,511,627,776B=1TiB] hard disk industry disk size measurements: [KB] [MB] [GB] [TB] [10^3B=1,000B=1KB] [10^6B=1,000,000B=1MB] [10^9B=1,000,000,000B=1GB] [10^12B=1,000,000,000,000B=1TB] ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] Getting the recognition that GIMP deserves
On 10/11/2011 13:45, Alexia Death wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Jeremy Morton wrote: On 10/11/2011 12:47, Rob Antonishen wrote: The same could be said for any complex piece of software. I would disagree that there are many "middle ground users" anymore - and they shouldn't be a a target audience. So take the power users then. They might want to use a recent development version at work... still worth having a professional looking product. They are NOT SUPPOSED TO do exactly that! Ever! They may want to, but its not a good idea from anybody's perceptive. Development versions may for example write incompatible or corrupt files may have features that will not be in the final stable release etc... Concrete sample: At the beginning of 2.7 cycle layer group masks were enabled. They sort of worked but were buggy and deemed too buggy to be fixed in this cycle aand thus were disabled. Now people who used that version in some place they shouldn't have have files that no longer work as intended in current version of GIMP. No functionality present in dev release is guaranteed to be there in a stable version. Arguing that we should use nice splashes so people could shoot themselves in the foot is silly. Well if you want advanced users to use final releases, perhaps release them more often than once every 2 years? ;-) -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] Getting the recognition that GIMP deserves
On 10/11/2011 12:47, Rob Antonishen wrote: The same could be said for any complex piece of software. I would disagree that there are many "middle ground users" anymore - and they shouldn't be a a target audience. So take the power users then. They might want to use a recent development version at work... still worth having a professional looking product. -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
Re: [Gimp-developer] Getting the recognition that GIMP deserves
On 10/11/2011 09:51, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Aleksandar Kovac wrote: "It's only a dev version, general users won't see it." is a lame excuse on many levels. Is there 'us' and 'them' in open source? Come on, you are smarter than that. Of course there is "us" and "them". Using development versions causes cancer, brings 20 year of unluck on your family and kills kittens by thousands. People wo use graphics software professionally tend to use apps that produce _repeatedly_ consistent output. No dev version _ever_ guarantees that. I find it highly distrurbuing that such a simple thing should even be explained. I'm an 'average user' and I'd usually stick to stable releases of stuff like GIMP, but come on - 2.6 is two years old now with no single-window mode. Of course I'm using 2.7. I have no problem with the dodgy splash screen using GIMP at home because I'm not uptight, but thinking about it I might be a little bit uncomfortable installing it at work. ;-) I'd agree with those saying such splash screens should probably be avoided, even for development versions. Speaking of 2.6 being old, how accurate is this tasktaste graph? http://tasktaste.com/projects/Enselic/gimp-2-8 It would seem to suggest there are maybe 1-2 weeks of work left but I get the feeling there is more than that. :-) -- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez) ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
