>> You can currently kinda get around this by setting the "Image opacity"
>> in the Tool options palate for unified transform tool to less than 100%.
>> Unfortunately, unless you also change the "Opacity" field in the layer
>> palate, the untransformed layer B is still in the way.
> Thanks! for the tip.
Glad to help! I've been reading through your awesome writeups on GIMP's
Love the "Sad little colorspace" part. Poor HSV! ;)
>> Thus my proposal:
>> hide/remove the untransformed version of layer B while the user is
>> transforming it, and set the default "Image opacity" for the transform
>> tool to 50% by default.
>> This would get layer B out of the way, and let you see translucently a
>> bit of what is under the transformation preview as well (layer A).
> Your proposal sounds good to me. I have found the "untransformed" copy of
> the layer being transformed to be an absolute nuisance since the first time
> I tried to use a transform tool.
Most of us seem to agree on this. The only person I've ever seen that spoke
up for the current way it's handled is GNUTux, on GIMPchat. But the
reasoning behind it (seeing a transform in relation to the original) I've
never heard of any use case where that was an actual benefit. It's always a
pain in the rump. It's just something I've learned to live with, but I'd be
dancing if it went away. It regularly wastes loads of time, every single
Reading Gez's post the gimp-gui-list (
> that's also the same proposal?
Yes. Hehehe. You can see what career graphic designers think of the
implementation. It really, really needs to change, and if I had the coding
skills, I'd have done it long ago, even if it were just patching my own
version. I hate it that much! ;P
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: firstname.lastname@example.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list