Ernst Lippe wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:12:14 +0100
RaphaŽl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:38:13 +0100, Ernst Lippe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:46:49 +0000
"Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that the user should be able to edit the alpha channel independent
from the other channels. I don't think that it is unreasonable that a user
initially makes some parts of the layer transparent, then makes some other
edits to the layer and finally decides that the transparency boundaries
should be slightly different, e.g. slightly more feathered. In most cases
this will work fine but when some of the tiles have been scrubbed this
will not work for these tiles.

I think that it _is_ unreasonable to expect this to work.

Why? Normally operations on the alpha don't influence the state of the other color components, so I don't really see why it would be reasonable to assume that changing to full transparency is a priori different. Also it is the simplest way to implement the whole thing.

Can anyone tell me what users expect? If an "unerase" feature exsists in other products then I perhaps in may be worthwhile to observe how they do it, cause that would be how new users expect it to work.

(I am not just considering Photoshop here, but Shake and Chalice, both of which are influencing Gegl's design).


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to