On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:42:54 -0000, Bob Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thomas Worthington wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:40:09 -0000, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [..]
>> Since I use the click-drag a lot when working on websites, an extra
>> twiddle with an extra menu is a nuisance and 2.2 remains the better
>> choice for me especially as I also do a lot of cropping and I need to
>> see the ratio as I select the area to be cropped. I've just
>> re-installed 2.4 and confirmed that this is simply impossible now,
>> whereas it was part of the default display on 2.2's crop tool. That's
>> a clear step backwards by any rational measure of usability, and if
>> you can't see that then I'm at a loss as to what is going on in your
>> mind.
> Excuse me for jumping in, but maybe I've missed something in the
> "discussion"; I'm not really sure I understand what you are trying to
> achieve.
> a) Do you know the ratio you want to end up with before you start  
> cropping?

I usually have a target ratio and some leeway. So I might know that the  
ideal is, say, .618 but that .6 to .63 will look okay if that's what I  
have to use to clip out something that I don't want in the picture. I  
don't think this is an unusual situation to be in. I know the ratio of the  
target space or page but I also know that the user won't notice/care about  
a minor deviation in margin sizes.

> b) Or, do you want to crop an area you like, and end up with whatever  
> that
> ratio happens to be, and be able to see it and take note of it (and  
> probably
> use that value later)?

I need to do do this quite often too. Certainly in a set of pictures I  
need to keep each one to the same aspect ratio even if the one choosen is  
not the "ideal" one.

> If a), then I don't follow why setting the exact ratio in the tool is
> difficult to do. It ensures the crop will be exactly what you want,  
> without
> having to watch the current ratio and stop dragging at just the right  
> spot.
> If b), then I agree that 2.4 does not show the ratio information, as far  
> as I can see.

I think this is the case. 2.2 worked very nicely for real-world situations  
where an exact ratio was not as important as a decent picture (within  
reason) while *also* making it quite easy (albeit not AS easy as 2.4) to  
hit that exact ratio when needed. As I say, the 2.4 method seems a clear  
step backwards to me.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to