On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 20:59 -0500, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> That might not have been the best example.
> A guess a more useful example would be that after building a
> complicated selection to isolate a portion of an image (say the sky)
> the user wants to save that selection, then modify the entire image
> (say gamma correction, or colour balance, even desaturate) then load
> up the original selection quickly to perform another action on it.
> I guess it is a question on that the point of the channels is. Most
> people I know who actually use them, use them as "named selections"
> that they can work with later. Very few that I know actually perform
> any editing on them directly, partially because, as David pointed out,
> directly editing channels is awkward and confusing, and using
> quickmask is much easier.
As I said already, I agree with you in all points and I am all for
changing this. But I wanted you to provide a better workflow example to
persuade the UI team to give OK for this change. Peter, what do you
Gimp-developer mailing list