On 11/14/2010 04:53 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
>> Consider the amateur photographer and Gimp
>> beginner who wants to add some sharpening of a picture. What filter to
>> use? Sharpen? Unsharp mask? NL? Why does Gimp offers the three? What are
>> the differences? That's a bit of a culture shock when one comes from
>> Picasa.Putting the "Unsharp mask" one in a "Photo" submenu would already
>> be a hint.
> But sharpen is useful on images that are not photographs.
> I haven't done much with NL or Van Gogh myself, but any assertion
> that "no-one uses them" or that they are "not useful" must be
> backed up with some real data.

Let's apply Paretos's rule. 90% of users use 10% of the code. 10% of 
users uses 90% of the code.

> There was a project gathering usage statistics on an earlier version
> of Gimp, maybe they have some data on that?
> Or make the filers crash when used and see if anyone complains :-) :-)

I did that  a long time ago to clean up a disk full of obsolete 
utilities. Got very few requests to put some things back :-)

> As for, which filter to use on a photograph, it depends on the
> photograph, on the lighting that was used, on the subject matter...

Yes, proper filtering requires a lot of education. And there is little 
pupose of giving people a whole toolbox (that they have to carry 
around)  if they don't know how/why they could use some of the tools inside.

> Unsharp Mask is popular partly (I think) because it makes a slight
> halo effect similar to some darkroom techniques, so that the result
> is closer to what you see in printed books.

It's popular because it's the better bang for the buck. But the Gimp 
defaults are a bit too much for me :-)

> "Smart sharpen" is
> another interesting alternative, but has no preview and is slow.

> A better approach long-term might be to make it easier for people
> distributing gimp to package individual plugins or groups of plugins,
> and to have away to search and request plugins from within gimp,
> sort of like CTAN for TeX, CPAN for Perl, CXAN for XQuery.
> Then the core could have fewer plugins, with perhaps a primary
> add-on set, or a small group of add-on sets tailored to particular
> use cases such as "digital painter," "professional photographer,"
> "photomanipulator," "scientific visualization," "scanning" and
> so forth.

We are in full agreement on this.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to