Am 20.11.2012 00:13, schrieb Simon Budig:
In fact *because* we're dealing with lots of graphical elements we
have to avoid distracting from the image the artist is working on. We
had requests for a grayscale icon theme in the past, I wouldn't be
surprised if too much icon clutter would impact t
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:07:35 -0200, wanderer wrote:
> Well, I have a couple of opinions of my own for why I liked the new
> workflow.
>...
> I guess Inkscape have this same behavior (and would be a very better
> example, because it do ask before closing :P).
>
> Also, I nearly always save a file th
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:13:35AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> Tobias Lunte (tobias.lu...@hfg-gmuend.de) wrote:
> In fact *because* we're dealing with lots of graphical elements we have
> to avoid distracting from the image the artist is working on. We had
> requests for a grayscale icon theme in t
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Vincent Cadet wrote:
> --- En date de : Lun 19.11.12, Vincent Cadet a écrit :
>
> > > > I'll wipe out my current profile and check again to make sure.
>
> I can confirm: Gimp 2.8 defaults to assigning the airbrush to the stylus
> *and* eraser until I change
Em 19-11-2012 19:46, Graeme Gill escreveu:
drawoc wrote:
If you simply open a jpeg, and then save it as a jpeg without
modification, you will lose data. Jpeg is always lossy. More
compression artifacts will be introduced in the saved image. There is
no sane way to avoid this behavior.
Technical
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:35:59 +0100, Michael Schumacher wrote:
>> Von: Robert Krawitz
>> And as I noted before, the GIMP 2.8 behavior does not protect against
>> the kind of overconfidence where you think you're just not going to need
>> the layer information in the future. You've made a conscious
On 11/19/2012 10:54 PM, Vio wrote:
Hello,
Newcomer on this list but old time python coder with a Gimp itch
someone might have an idea how to scratch.
Task seem simple enough: make Gimp do some back-flips from afar
through snaky incantations ... This imply combining 2 libs: gimpfu and xmlrpc.
Wel
Tobias Lunte (tobias.lu...@hfg-gmuend.de) wrote:
> Personally, I've never really understood why GIMP doesn't use more
> graphical elements in its UI (yes, I know, GIMP already uses quite a
> bit, but given that it's a program for photo-manipulation, we can
> assume that most of it's users are incli
On 19 November 2012 22:54, Vio wrote:
> print 'TRACE> entering serve_forever()'
> server.serve_forever()
>
This script will not return control back to GIMP, so the application
probably cannot continue past the loading of this script. You will need to
do this in an async fashion. You can try to
Am 19.11.2012 12:48, schrieb Alexandre Prokoudine:
True :) If you can think of cleaner way to notify the user about
images that were only exported, speak up :)
Hello,
I really tried to stay out of this thread until now, but this is a
subtopic I'm quite interested in.
I'd recommend a two-ste
Hello,
Newcomer on this list but old time python coder with a Gimp itch
someone might have an idea how to scratch.
Task seem simple enough: make Gimp do some back-flips from afar
through snaky incantations ... This imply combining 2 libs: gimpfu and xmlrpc.
Well, after a sleepless night trying to
drawoc wrote:
> If you simply open a jpeg, and then save it as a jpeg without
> modification, you will lose data. Jpeg is always lossy. More
> compression artifacts will be introduced in the saved image. There is
> no sane way to avoid this behavior.
Technically that's true (but see below), but ha
I know I shouldn't comment on this thread, but I think everyone is
missing an important point.
If you simply open a jpeg, and then save it as a jpeg without
modification, you will lose data. Jpeg is always lossy. More
compression artifacts will be introduced in the saved image. There is
no sane wa
--- En date de : Lun 19.11.12, Vincent Cadet a écrit :
> > > I'll wipe out my current profile and check again to make sure.
I can confirm: Gimp 2.8 defaults to assigning the airbrush to the stylus *and*
eraser until I change it. Either tip of the pen remain with the assigned brush
until I clos
> Von: Robert Krawitz
> And as I noted before, the GIMP 2.8 behavior does not protect against
> the kind of overconfidence where you think you're just not going to need
> the layer information in the future. You've made a conscious choice at
> that point not to save it.
This may change in futu
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Jon Nordby wrote:
> 1. Tthere would of course be no prompt in this case.
> Alexandre: this is my proposal for the better image-exported-but-not-saved
> prompt. Make it obsolete.
It's a noble goal :)
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
_
On 19 November 2012 15:21, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:30:38 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> >
> >> Reformulating: is it possible for a user *who reads and understands all
> >> question dialogs which appear to hi
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:33:06 +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> Robert Krawitz (r...@alum.mit.edu) wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:44:12 +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> [...]
>> > Layer information lost.
>
> (Note that this was just a specific scenario to answer Albertos Question
> if there is a workflow tha
Robert Krawitz (r...@alum.mit.edu) wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:44:12 +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
[...]
> > Layer information lost.
(Note that this was just a specific scenario to answer Albertos Question
if there is a workflow that actually loses data. Not intended as a new
argument or anything)
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:29:25 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>
>>> There must be a reason why one group of people keeps linking to
>>> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification and
>>> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Visi
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:30:38 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>
>> Reformulating: is it possible for a user *who reads and understands all
>> question dialogs which appear to him/her*, to actually lose the layers
>> when saving to JPEG wi
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:45:24 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:
>
>>> "Automating repetitive tasks" refers to scripting and future "macros
>>> recording".
>>
>> Still the unconditional enforcing to have to save to XCF violates the
>> sect
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:44:12 +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> Alberto Mardegan (ma...@users.sourceforge.net) wrote:
>> Is it actually possible for a user to lose the layers when saving to
>> JPEG with gimp 2.6? The JPEG plugin asks to flatten the image, at which
>> points the users would cancel the proc
Alberto Mardegan (ma...@users.sourceforge.net) wrote:
> Is it actually possible for a user to lose the layers when saving to
> JPEG with gimp 2.6? The JPEG plugin asks to flatten the image, at which
> points the users would cancel the process if he really cares about them.
> Or do you have reports
Hi Alexandre.
It looks to me you're one of the still most motivated developers to defend and
explain the changes the developers made to Gimp 2.8, while Michael Natterer
asked the debate to be over.. My deep respect for that. Far from me to throw
gas where one needs water but I also feel, like y
> Von: Jeff Maples
> It's not "communistic", or "totalitarian...
Oh, btw, something in regard to all these "the devs are foo/bar/baz"- messages:
Accusing the GIMP developers of being anything will only achieve the following:
- increase their popcorn consumption
- make future LGMs much more enj
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:
> On 19/11/12 12:45, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
>> I think I already understand that you dismiss existence of other
>> experienced users who like the change.
> I don't dismiss their existence
Then please stop generalizing.
> You on the o
On 19/11/12 12:45, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> I think I already understand that you dismiss existence of other
> experienced users who like the change.
I don't dismiss their existence, there are workflows that this change
fits perfectly in, but you dismiss that there are users - very
experience
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Jon Nordby wrote:
>> You seem to be under impression that people actually read text in prompts
>> :)
>
>
> In fairness, that also applies to the prompt that now reminds the user of
> exported-but-not-saved images.
True :) If you can think of cleaner way to notify
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:
>> "Automating repetitive tasks" refers to scripting and future "macros
>> recording".
>
> Still the unconditional enforcing to have to save to XCF violates the
> section "the tools get out of the way of getting things done and allow
> for
On 19 November 2012 12:11, Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:
> Worse still, since most
> of the time I am opening and preparing a preview image out of a
> previously created XCF via export - having the program prompt me to save
> to the original name resulted in overwritten valuable XCF with rubbish
> one
On 19 November 2012 11:50, Alexandre Prokoudine <
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>
> > Is it actually possible for a user to lose the layers when saving to
> > JPEG with gimp 2.6? The JPEG plugin asks to flatten the image, at which
On 19/11/12 12:14, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
>> previously created XCF via export - having the program prompt me to save
>> to the original name resulted in overwritten valuable XCF with rubbish
>> ones which only ever should exist in exported format!
>
> means that we should educate you :)
I lo
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> Reformulating: is it possible for a user *who reads and understands all
> question dialogs which appear to him/her*, to actually lose the layers
> when saving to JPEG with gimp 2.6?
Yes.
> If yes, how?
By being overly confident and not
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>> There must be a reason why one group of people keeps linking to
>> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification and
>> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Vision_briefing, and another group of
>> people carefully ignores these li
Hi Alexandre,
leaving aside the other points, on which I'm sure we will never agree
:-), can you help me with this instead:
On 11/19/2012 01:07 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>>> Is it actually possible for a user to lose the layers when saving to
>>> JPEG with gimp 2.6? The JPEG plugin asks to fla
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:
> On 19/11/12 11:50, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
>> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Vision_briefing, and another group of
>> people carefully ignores these links.
> I'm citing from the above: "GIMP is user-configurable to automate
> repetitiv
On 19/11/12 11:50, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Vision_briefing, and another group of
> people carefully ignores these links.
I'm citing from the above: "GIMP is user-configurable to automate
repetitive tasks;" - why then is it ignored when numerous people ask for
a w
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:
>> but this is thought too short. Assuming that people know about the lossy
>> behaviour of jpeg is just wrong.
> Then by all means educate them
+
> previously created XCF via export - having the program prompt me to save
> to the origin
On 19/11/12 11:30, Simon Budig wrote:
> People add layers and try to save back to jpeg, later wondering where
> their layers are. Yeah, it is easy to denounce them as clueless users,
> but this is thought too short. Assuming that people know about the lossy
> behaviour of jpeg is just wrong.
Then b
On 11/19/2012 12:50 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>
>> for my needs was optimal; but I would also like to try to address the
>> problems that the new export functionality tries to solve, except that I
>> don' have a clear idea of what th
--- En date de : Lun 19.11.12, Michael Schumacher a écrit :
> > IIRC I started with a blank profile but I don't exclude I did that by
> > accident. Look, I'll wipe out my current profile and check again to make
> > sure.
> > (I'm currently not able to do that right now but in a couple of hours.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> for my needs was optimal; but I would also like to try to address the
> problems that the new export functionality tries to solve, except that I
> don' have a clear idea of what they are (except the image quality for
> compressed formats).
On 11/19/2012 12:30 PM, Simon Budig wrote:
> People add layers and try to save back to jpeg, later wondering where
> their layers are. Yeah, it is easy to denounce them as clueless users,
> but this is thought too short. Assuming that people know about the lossy
> behaviour of jpeg is just wrong.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
> 99% of the time people opening jpegs will be adjusting and cropping
> photo's, so assuming they are doing something out of the ordinary
> and making it hard for them is simply bad UI IMHO.
The very same 99% of people who download pictures from
Graeme Gill (grae...@argyllcms.com) wrote:
> Simon Budig wrote:
> > The whole point we're trying to make and which you refuse to understand
> > is, that "they already agreed to and want" only applies for images they
> > created themselves from scratch. It breaks down immediately when they're
> > wo
> Von: Vincent Cadet
> IIRC I started with a blank profile but I don't exclude I did that by
> accident. Look, I'll wipe out my current profile and check again to make sure.
> (I'm currently not able to do that right now but in a couple of hours.)
Please don't do that. Wiping your profile in or
Simon Budig wrote:
> As soon as the User does some little tiny editing we no longer can
> discern reliably between invented bits and important bits.
You don't have to though - the lossy compression algorithm
does that for you.
> The whole point we're trying to make and which you refuse to underst
--- En date de : Lun 19.11.12, Michael Schumacher a écrit :
> > In Gimp 2.8 the airbrush is selected by default for the
> eraser.
>
> Did you save this device state once
Thanks Michael. How can I check that?
> and is automatic saving
> of tool settings on exit disabled? This would explain wh
> Von: Vincent Cadet
> In Gimp 2.8 the airbrush is selected by default for the eraser.
Did you save this device state once, and is automatic saving of tool settings
on exit disabled? This would explain why the setting is kept for a session, but
resets to the saved settings in a new session.
Graeme Gill (grae...@argyllcms.com) wrote:
> Simon Budig wrote:
> > We cannot just make the assumption that "oh, its a JPEG. *clearly* the
> > user wants us to discard information on saving".
>
> You really think they want you to save a lot of invented bits
> and blow their file up in size with al
Hi Alexia.
I'm providing feedback on a particular issue I had raised earlier.
--- En date de : Ven 3.8.12, Alexia Death a écrit :
> >III.1. Tablet-specifics, Pen/Eraser consistency
> > First thing I noticed in 2.8 is that I now need to select the eraser tool
> > when I flip my pen to use the e
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Akkana Peck wrote:
> On the thread-which-shall-be-nameless, when folks were asking for
> a way to quit GIMP without being prompted to save files that had
> already been exported, Alexia wrote:
>> Oh, let me throw up this idea for you - you do not need a fork, just
53 matches
Mail list logo
