On 02/11/2013 08:01 PM, jfrazie...@nc.rr.com wrote:
Example with gimp
file => open =>  nut.png
adjust contrast => ok
I want to save it
I can't...
But I don't want  xcf now.....
Ok , I export
many many many files
=> export
many files later
=> export
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, aga
in, the g

oal 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.

Irrelevant for your needs, may be, but non irrelevant for many people ...
No, I work on all kinds of image files, not only xcf, sometimes none xcf at all, sometimes only xcf. I think some people here have a "narrow view" about working on image. This is the opposite of the artistic process...

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.)

You know, I work with Gimp, layers, etc, since many years.... If you know a better free soft, tell it to me....Good lucK... The save/as behaviour of Gimp 2.6, Krita, Showfot (kde), is ok but Gimp-2.8 is much better (matchless), except for save function...

"Art is meant to disturb. Science reassures."
"L'art est fait pour troubler. La science rassure" (Georges Braque)

gimp-user-list mailing list

Reply via email to