On 3/27/06, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> "Gerald Friedland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > True. As long as you have got an appropiate selection too, you could
> > select the object, fill it, and you are done. A "natural" bucket fill
> > would just be a short cut to this process.
> Do we really need the overhead in code and complexity to achieve
> something that can be easily done in two steps? I think that using the
> selection tools followed by a fill is the natural way to achieve the
> desired effect and it is also a lot more flexible than a dedicated
> tool.

Maybe I'm not understanding what's wanted here, but I get the
impression that they're talking about a tool that you could use to
e.g. change the color of a shirt someone is wearing without loosing
the lighting and shading.  That would be a pretty cool tool to have,
and I can imagine a decent algorithm for doing it, but I can't think
of a reasonable way to do it with the existing tools.

> If someone wants to put effort into a specialised tool, maybe it could
> be a red-eye-removal tool because that is really an often requested
> feature and it is not easily achievable using a combination of the
> existing tools.

Again, yes, a useful tool.  But I think that before we go about making
more tools, we finally implement pluggable tools.  To avoid the
problems we had last time, I suggest that we come up with a sane tool
API, implement it in the core, port several tools over to it, and then
after it's fairly stable worry about finding a way to do things

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to