Need ... more ... bloat ...
I for my part would find it absolutly enough if the brush size was
indicated, and even that possibly only by a bounding box which is light
The point is that everything else, color (that would be completely
irritating for me), opacity (equally irritating) and shape (hard on
resources, as I've been told) is what you know or can see by a quick
peek into the according dialog. As a painter with a pen opacity wouldn't
help me much but I see that for people who do some exact and careful
editing previewing opacity might be useful.
At least for me, only Brushhsize is what I have absolutly no idea about.
I can use the same brush for 10 hours and still wont know what size is
"10 pixels" - mainly because I just drag the slider and base my adjustments
on the current size - make it relative.
Choise 4 of the below seems to be the most eligible to me, though I must
admit that this applies only for painting and not photo editing with the
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:22:40PM -0500, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 20:42 +0100, peter sikking wrote:
> > multiplying this 3x3 matrix out we got 9 cases that all need their own
> > feedback (or not) for assessing the
> > 1) centre coordinate
> > 2) outline of brush stamp
> > 3) opacity of stamp pix
> > 4) a fitted ellipse or rectangle that hints at the total brush area,
> > aspect ration and angle.
> Some drawing/painting/image programs also support indicating the current
> paint colour in the brush pointer/outline.
> Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
> The barefoot typographer
> Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer mailing list