Martin Nordholts wrote:
>> there is a grab bag of modes never seen in GIMP. do we want to
>> (artistic need, not compatibility) and can (effort) add some of them?
> Effort-wise it is not a problem to add more layer modes, but I have
> for a long time felt that layer modes is just a primitive and naive
> way to achieve some kind of non-destructiveness.
that is a good bit of reality-check. are we just just catching up
with somebody else's legacy issues?
well, I used to think that adjustment layers was "just a primitive
and naive way to achieve some kind of non-destructiveness."
so '90s. >^}
but now I see that
- doing a (non-destructive) operation on a layer with a selection
- paint (non-destructive) with a certain mode/tool/plugin (later) on a
- applying an adjustment layer (non-destructive) with a layer mask
can achieve exactly the same results and each of them is completely
valid, simply depending on what each user finds more logical in
the spur of the moment.
> Assuming the introduction of GEGL will be severely crippled if done
> within the limits of GIMP 2.x backwards compatibility and that we
> decide to go for GIMP 3.x, wouldn't it be interesting to try to
> get rid of the layer mode concept as it is now and instead couple
> it more with the rest of the non-destructiveness GEGL will provide?
> Or are people too used to the concept of layer modes that it would
> be suicide to make them less prominent?
I think applying layer modes to layers with either 'found image'
material or users' own painting is a way of working that can be
the most comfortable for a lot of cases and users. removing it
seems rather impossible.
as I said: only artistic need (not one-upmanship) should be a reason
add one or more layer modes to our arsenal.
maybe there are simply zero arguments to add modes...
meanwhile, can the overlay thing be repaired file-backward-compatible?
founder + principal interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
Gimp-developer mailing list