[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
I see the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp, even in the last git and i fear to see it even in next 2.8 I think nobody use it, also because would be close to the impossible do something definite with it: not only is not clear for what is for, but even after reading its help page, remain basically unusable as it is now because miss even the most rudimentary preview Much more widely used and interesting filters were removed (i.e. the freetype plugin) Many third party plugin fit much more in the gimp product vision Do you really think that the Van Gogh filters may fit in the gimp product vision ? In case at least fix it adding a preview, (but i think nobody will complain for its removal ) Hello! I have read this message in GIMP lists: http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2010-November/025817.html I think that You are wrong. Did You asked to all GIMP users before saying that something is not useful and nobody uses it? I haven't been asked. Please, don't say that nobody uses it, because You don't know it. Also, It could be filters (scripts) that uses this filter, and They would be broken. I have a better idea: If You don't like something, don't use it. I prefer the proposed idea of packages of filters (artistic, photo, 3D textures, pixelart...). It would be much better that just removing things. Also, I will make a backup copy of all filters, and I will reinstall them if some of them is removed in the next release. Also, I will install GIMP 2.8 and GIMP 3 simultaneously, because GIMP 2.8 has some functions that I need (and I use) that would be removed in GIMP 3 (like indexed colour model). Bye! -- DontRemove (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
I think that You are wrong. Did You asked to all GIMP users before saying that something is not useful and nobody uses it? I haven't been asked. Please, don't say that nobody uses it, because You don't know it. Also, It could be filters (scripts) that uses this filter, and They would be broken. Your reply with theorical general questions to a my practical and speciphic question. now would you please explain me why you want THAT filter, why do you want preserve the Van Gogh filter ? what use you do of that filters? You could describe how the Van gogh filter integrate in your workflow ? Or even a example, a video or a tutorial or a blog entry that describe a possible use of that filter?, If not i would tempted to believe that you also never used that filter, and that , as almost everybody else , you get no idea of its possible practical use. Maybe you talk of general principles, i talk of a crappy filter that nobody know why was never added to gimp the only one described as effects that nobody understand... -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 14:30 +0100, Ofnuts 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. 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 :-) :-) As for, which filter to use on a photograph, it depends on the photograph, on the lighting that was used, on the subject matter... 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. 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. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
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 Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On 11/15/10 19:01, Ofnuts wrote: 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:-) That is really a pretty perverted logic. Due to the all too common lack of repect for backwards compatibility in Linux world most people either conclude that a feature is broken/disappeared and live with it or they just conclude that they can't remember how to do it.. The percentage of users that actually take the trouble to search for help, subscribe to a list and post a bug report is very small. Hardly a useful way of polling the user base. 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. Little pupose except _education_ . One sure way to make sure users stay uneducated and don't know how/why to use the tools is to remove them ! /gg ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On 11/15/2010 07:53 PM, g...@catking.net wrote: On 11/15/10 19:01, Ofnuts wrote: 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:-) That is really a pretty perverted logic. Due to the all too common lack of repect for backwards compatibility in Linux world most people either conclude that a feature is broken/disappeared and live with it or they just conclude that they can't remember how to do it.. If you look at the 3.0 specs a lot more people are going to be surprised by the new UI than by the absence of some filters. And I'm not advocating to remove anything either, just to move it to optional packages. The percentage of users that actually take the trouble to search for help, subscribe to a list and post a bug report is very small. Hardly a useful way of polling the user base. 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. Little pupose except _education_ . One sure way to make sure users stay uneducated and don't know how/why to use the tools is to remove them ! See above about optional packages. And I am not convinced that the intractable VanGogh or the pre-cooked Alpha-to-Logo filters are very educative. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
Hi all, On 13.11.2010 18:13, Martin Nordholts wrote: On 11/13/2010 05:48 PM, photocomix wrote: The never used van gogh filter is in gimp from 1996 and survived all debates and clean up till now You can't know for sure that no one uses this plug-in in some script somewhere, and if we don't have a good reason to break our plug-in API, we don't do it. Impatience is not a good reason :) Another thought: cleaning up the menu tree is independent from preserving plugin API compatibility. Our van gogh could be sliced into two plugins: one plugin which installs just the pdb functions (and resides in GIMP core), and a second plugin which resides in the plugin registry and solely installs the menu entry. Makes sense?!? regards, yahvuu ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On 14.11.2010 01:21, Bill Skaggs wrote: Here is a better reason, maybe. It is a good thing if people can learn to use Gimp by experimenting. When features are included for which experimenting leads only to confusion, and never to anything useful, users are discouraged from experimenting. Doesn't this boil down to Remove anything that requires any level of education? Michael -- GIMP http://www.gimp.org | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp Plug-ins http://registry.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On 11/14/2010 11:44 AM, Michael Schumacher wrote: On 14.11.2010 01:21, Bill Skaggs wrote: Here is a better reason, maybe. It is a good thing if people can learn to use Gimp by experimenting. When features are included for which experimenting leads only to confusion, and never to anything useful, users are discouraged from experimenting. Doesn't this boil down to Remove anything that requires any level of education? That would be a caricature. Let's face it, the core of Gimp (and of Photoshop, for that matter) requires education. You won't use Gimp efficiently without a good understanding of such concepts as selection, layers canvas, transparency... If you look at Gimp forums, you see very basic questions. 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. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
If something helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it doesn't, we will remove it. This particularly applies to things that are part of our plug-in API (like other plug-ins and libgimp* APIs) that we can't remove after GIMP 3.0 has been released. / Martin -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
The only thing that matters when it comes to deciding what to include and what not to include in GIMP is our product vision. If something helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it doesn't, we will remove it. / Martin that for what doesn't fit in the GIMP product vision But why wait to eliminate a plugin that doesn't fit in ANY product vision? this case is crystal clear: nobody use that plugin ,a plugin that quoting his tooltip produce Special effects that nobody understands :-), This plugin replace all the original pixel of your photo with a abstract thingy, a special effects, hard to define and unpredictable , ...but that always look as crap ( Why carry its code in gimp 2.8 , just delete the van-gogh-lib.c file from the code (BTW is in gimp/plug-ins/common ) would took less developer time then a further debates The never used van gogh filter is in gimp from 1996 and survived all debates and clean up till now -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On 11/13/2010 05:48 PM, photocomix wrote: The only thing that matters when it comes to deciding what to include and what not to include in GIMP is our product vision. If something helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it doesn't, we will remove it. / Martin that for what doesn't fit in the GIMP product vision But why wait to eliminate a plugin that doesn't fit in ANY product vision? this case is crystal clear: nobody use that plugin ,a plugin that quoting his tooltip produce Special effects that nobody understands :-), This plugin replace all the original pixel of your photo with a abstract thingy, a special effects, hard to define and unpredictable , ...but that always look as crap ( Why carry its code in gimp 2.8 , just delete the van-gogh-lib.c file from the code (BTW is in gimp/plug-ins/common ) would took less developer time then a further debates The never used van gogh filter is in gimp from 1996 and survived all debates and clean up till now You can't know for sure that no one uses this plug-in in some script somewhere, and if we don't have a good reason to break our plug-in API, we don't do it. Impatience is not a good reason :) Regards, Martin -- My GIMP Blog: http://www.chromecode.com/ Nightly GIMP, GEGL, babl tarball builds ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Martin Nordholts ense...@gmail.com wrote: You can't know for sure that no one uses this plug-in in some script somewhere, and if we don't have a good reason to break our plug-in API, we don't do it. Impatience is not a good reason :) Here is a better reason, maybe. It is a good thing if people can learn to use Gimp by experimenting. When features are included for which experimenting leads only to confusion, and never to anything useful, users are discouraged from experimenting. In my opinion, there are two plug-ins that have this property: the Van Gogh filter (which has absolutely nothing to do with Van Gogh), and the so-called NL Filter. -- Bill ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On 11/14/2010 01:21 AM, Bill Skaggs wrote: In my opinion, there are two plug-ins that have this property: the Van Gogh filter (which has absolutely nothing to do with Van Gogh), and the so-called NL Filter. The NL filter is a different matter. The human factors are abysmal. It should be three different menu entries, with descriptive names. But it's typical of a filter useless for people doing original art, and only useful for photography and scan. -- Ofnuts ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On 11/12/2010 09:21 AM, Michael Schumacher wrote: What are the requirements for good enough to be included in GIMP 3.0? The only thing that matters when it comes to deciding what to include and what not to include in GIMP is our product vision. If something helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it doesn't, we will remove it. This particularly applies to things that are part of our plug-in API (like other plug-ins and libgimp* APIs) that we can't remove after GIMP 3.0 has been released. / Martin -- My GIMP Blog: http://www.chromecode.com/ Nightly GIMP, GEGL, babl tarball builds ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
I see the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp, even in the last git and i fear to see it even in next 2.8 I think nobody use it, also because would be close to the impossible do something definite with it: not only is not clear for what is for, but even after reading its help page, remain basically unusable as it is now because miss even the most rudimentary preview Much more widely used and interesting filters were removed (i.e. the freetype plugin) Many third party plugin fit much more in the gimp product vision Do you really think that the Van Gogh filters may fit in the gimp product vision ? In case at least fix it adding a preview, (but i think nobody will complain for its removal ) -- photocomix (via gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp?
On 11/12/2010 01:59 AM, photocomix wrote: I see the Van Gogh filter is still in gimp, even in the last git and i fear to see it even in next 2.8 I think nobody use it, also because would be close to the impossible do something definite with it: not only is not clear for what is for, but even after reading its help page, remain basically unusable as it is now because miss even the most rudimentary preview Much more widely used and interesting filters were removed (i.e. the freetype plugin) Many third party plugin fit much more in the gimp product vision Do you really think that the Van Gogh filters may fit in the gimp product vision ? In case at least fix it adding a preview, (but i think nobody will complain for its removal ) GIMP 3.0 will be the release where we remove things that don't fit out product vision. I think we might as well wait until then before we remove it. Other than that I agree, the plug-in isn't good enough for being included in GIMP 3.0. / Martin -- My GIMP Blog: http://www.chromecode.com/ Nightly GIMP, GEGL, babl tarball builds ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
