On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM, peter sikking wrote:
>> guys,
>> here is sort of a review of what has been discussed here:
>> To take this top-down: I can only see this change as an UI
>> improvement if it means getting rid of the bg color swatch.
> How is one supposed to paint on mask without bg/fg color swatch?

That's not included in yahvuu's proposal, but I proposed something
that could neatly solve that, and address gradient issues: replace the
FG/BG color concept with FG + cycleable 4-long color history. In this
situation, you could still press a single key to swap between two
colors (you would be swapping the previous color with the current
color). Pressing it multiple times could cycle further back (in both
cases you could get a simple OSD -- see MyPaint for example.).
'previous color in the color history' still can have roughly the same
usage, we would just not be giving that color special treatment by
labelling it 'BG'. The 'FG to BG' gradients still make sense in this
they could just become 'Current to old color' (and usage patterns
should be virtually identical.)

Peter's done a good job synthesizing the 'BGcolor' with the
requirement to specify whether alpha channel is desired in any
exported/flattened image, and also notices similar problems to you.

The problems brought up by both of you, Alexandre and Peter, are
addressed neatly by my proposal above. Perhaps it needs a mockup.. I
feel it fits very well into yahvuu's proposition, turning its
weakpoints into strong points.

Something that hasn't been brought up, BTW: Flatten Image vs Merge
Visible layers. Not exactly the same, but would become closer to each
other if Peter's description was implemented. Maybe we need to attempt
to rationalize that.

The behaviour of Sample Merged seems fairly obvious here, but I'm
bringing it up also, just in case.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to