>Example with gimp >file => open => nut.png >adjust contrast => ok >I want to save it >I can't... >XCF ? >But I don't want xcf now..... >Ok , I export >######################### >many many many files >=> export >ok >######################### >many files later >=> export >Arghhh......................................: >what happens....
I believe the above illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what GIMP is and where it is going(at least my understanding). The underlying Mantra is "keep the original unaltered"(or some such) and GIMP is slowly working toward that approach. To accomplish the above workflow of altering the contrast of an image, a future version of GIMP(2.10, 3.0, ???) would not have you modify the original layer, but instead would have you add a Layer Style(or some such "thingy" of whatever name) that would modify the VISUAL representation of the layer, but would not actually edit the layer's pixels directly. You could add/remove layer styles at whim and could always get back to the original image both during the same editing session as well as in future sessions days/weeks/months/years removed. This rollback is not possible by direct editing of the original file. Yes, this is a really really simple example, but the same applies for an image that would need many modifications, again , the goal should be non destructive editing. For example, I have used GIMP in the past to edit and create Tabletop Role Playing game maps. I may for example source an image of a rock which wish to place into my final image, but wish to add additional shadows and highlights to give the image depth to make it appear more three dimensional. Typically, I will place the rock(or multiples) onto a single layer. However, I NEVER, EVER, EVER modify that layer. My approach is to create a new layer filled with 50% grey set to overlay. I then use the dodge/burn tool upon this layer with various settings. Sometimes I copy this layer with reduced opacity. Again, the point being that the original layer is NOT destructively edited!!! Likewise, I NEVER, EVER make a selection and fill with some texture, especially on an existing layer with other image data on it. Instead, I put the texture upon it's own layer and then use a selection->Channel->Layer Mask. I spend a few additional minutes of work, but now I can far easily change to a different texture in the future if required. Again, it's a matter of learning and using the tool as it is intended to be used. Yes, it takes up more memory to use additional layers and layer masks, but it's well worth it in the flexibility it gives me if I ever need to go back and edit it. >Here is the point: you have to remember/watch what kind of file you're >working on. Nope, you are ALWAYS working on a GIMP .xcf file. The original format is irrelevant. You need to train your brain that this is fact. As noted by Alexandre multiple times, it may well be that you are refusing to accept that you are using the wrong tool. If you never need features that GIMP provides with the .xcf format, then this is almost certainly true. I am not trying to push you away from GIMP, but get you to really think about your needs and how they match up with GIMP's functionality both now and in the future. Based upon the above, if simple edits like contrast changes are what you use most of the time, then another product really is the best suggestion as GIMP will continue changing it's paradigm to support non destructive edits as new releases come out in the future(thus changing where you see items in the menus, how many steps you take to do the same thing may increase, etc.) _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
