> Exactly, you need a visual cue. That's why I think
> it's important to offer a set of differently sized
> brushes in the brushes list. So that
> people can pick a brush of about the right size.
... isn't that what the brush outline is for? Or do I
happen to have default settings that are different
from the rest?
Say... is it only in Ubuntu that the -Default- settings
include [ and ] for brush resize? Because that's what I
do right now: use the shortcuts to resize until I get
the right size. I visually decide if the size is right
thanks to the outline.
I don't need to click on a selection, move to the canvas
to see if the size is right, then move back to the
selections to choose one of another size.
> I have a weird obsession. I work with images that
> are larger than what most other people work with.
Well, most professional-grade artists and photographers
work with images that are much bigger than something you
can just put online. They only resize at the end.
> So I don't need a 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, or 19
> pixel fuzzy circle, but I need one that is around 30
> pixels wide. Or 50.
... though that Is pretty big. :P
> > Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them
> > being available in their original size and shape.
> If that is the intent why does the user need to see them
> at all? Cant they be hidden and called "api" brushes?
> That would have more than one benefit.
I was actually thinking along the lines of choosing from a
drop down which brush you need for a script (script message:
please choose a round-ish brush of about x pixels). It'd
offer more possibilities for effects too (by selecting
different brushes available).
Though being able to put them in another folder is fine.
Gimp-developer mailing list