Thanks for opening this discussion, Peter.

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM, peter sikking <pe...@mmiworks.net> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> the reason I talked myself into the position of 'maintainer of default
> resources' (is that a title like 'floor manager' at mcdonalds?) at the
> LGM is that I voiced concern over how they can either enhance or
> sabotage the product vision:
>
> <http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign#product_vision>


> 1) the default resource is a 'must-have primitive' for the resource
> type.
> simply cannot do without it. this is analogous to that a graphics
> program
> 'must have' a way to draw squares, rectangles, circles, ellipses, lines.


It is ironic that you made this statement, as it is the most often
repeated criticism I see made about GIMP (how difficult it is to draw
shapes).  And this (IMOO) should be a requirement under product vision
'GIMP is a high-end application for producing icons, graphical
elements of web pages and art for user interface elements;"


> or
>
> 3) the default resource showcases the depths and sophistication of
> the resource type. the stress here is on being educational and a
> starting point for users to make their own deep, sophisticated
> resources. I am not having high hopes for these defaults also
> to be 'must-have primitive' or 'general purpose, very versatile,'
> so there is not going to be a lot of them and they better be classy.


Keeping a good example of GIH brushes is a necessity here, as it is
one of the big features that I keep hearing PS users complain about
_not_ having.  Keeping the cheese factor down might be the issue.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the ivy brush for this.

I'd also suggest a bokeh brush might be appropriate here(?) and
probably some grunge type brushes which are good for
photo-manipulations.

What is the status of vector brushes for 2.8?

>
> then here some notes for some of the resource types:
>
> patterns
> a first look here tell me that application of the rules above will
> clear out (almost) the whole section. size matters here, large
> (thousands instead of 16–128 pix) patterns to avoid visible repetition.

Having a small section of halftone/dither patterns would possibly be
of value here.

I also keep a small 50% grey pattern to quickly build dodge/burn
overlay layers when photo retouching.  It is faster than having to
open up the colour dialog and specifying 50% grey.

>
> the one thing I can think of we need pronto is one or more believable
> film grain patterns for photo manipulation.

With resource tagging now a reality, is there any value in maintaining
the .pat file type for these, or should they all be .png files with
appropriate tags?


>
> gradients
> similar big cull coming

Regarding the "icon and web creation" purpose I'd suggest a number of
"web 2.0" type gradients, providing gradients the complement what get
chosen as default palettes.

Please keep in metallic gradients.

Regarding photo manipulation, I'd suggest a few
cyanotype/duotone/tritone gradients that can be used with the gradient
map filter.


>
> palettes
> the websafe/visibone stuff looks really deprecated in 2010.
> something like the Tango Icon Theme palette is an excellent example
> of a resource the fits with the product vision (GIMP is Free Software
> and a high-end application for producing icons).

I realize there are restrictions on pantone colours.... but there any
GPL compatible alternatives for spot colours?



-Rob A>
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to