On Tuesday 20 February 2007 16:28, peter sikking wrote:
> boy, am I glad we went out and did workplace observation as part
> of the project I am running. that means I can say with confidence
> that the brush is the way to go. actually healing is applied
> extremely local, with the tiniest brush, to take out only the
> irregularity, and not to destroy the all important texture around
> this spot.
> > In most cases the lasso tool would do.
> > Since the healing tool is of more 'global' nature, being forced to
> > use a local tool like a brush seems misleading.
> >
> > What could make sense would be to use a selection (one in the
> > destination area and a translated one in the source area) first,
> > compute the 'healed' area without pasting it into the destination
> > area, yet. Now the brush could be optionally used to copy parts
> > of the healed area into the destination area.
> now that we got the brush part nailed, we need to find something for
> the user to set the source area. To me as an interaction architect
> the healing brush looks like a smart clone tool on steroids.
> that means we can use exactly the same interaction as the clone tool.

This is exactly the way this works in photoshop and I can't think of any 
reason to do it differently.  In fact this is exactly what I would expect as 
a user.


> "the healing brush looks like a smart clone brush on steroids."
> the solution is already there in the clone tool...
>      --ps
>          principal user interaction architect
>          man + machine interface works
>          http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to