Re: [Gimp-user] Does Gimp support more than 8 bits per color channel?
more bits per pixels on the monitor/graphics card are actual independent of what your image editing software supports. 8bits per color component is more than you eye can distinguish already, so if these 10 bit components cost extra, don't go for them. Contrast is another thing: you should aim for good monitor contrast ,where black is black. So, detailing the display parts: I don't know if x11 or Wayland support 10bpp for display use. Anyway, GIMP uses GTK2 + Cairo for doing the interface, and those sure are 8bpp only. GIMP 2.9 however can manipulate images with comparatively arbitrary color depths (32bits per color, or 32bit floating point). That will just work on "regular" 8bpp hardware, and the extra depth, while making difference in several situations in an image manipulation pipeline, does not translate to direct physical "view" depth in any device> the extra depth is good when transforming lightness conditions in parts of the image and preserve a smooth local color gradient. So, again: this 10bpp of monitors and video boards have nothing to do with GIMP's ability of manipulating 32bit float per component, and it does not make the least difference. On 20 October 2017 at 14:11, Helmut Jarausch wrote: > Hi, > I'm considering buying a new monitor (and graphics card) which supports > 10 bits per color channel. > Will Gimp on a Linux machine (X11) support this now or in the near future. > Or is it just waste of money to buy a monitor with more than 8 bits/color > channel? > Many thanks for some hints, > Helmut > ___ > gimp-user-list mailing list > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look
On 10/20/2017 11:41 AM, Ross Martinek wrote: > As for Wilbur, I, too, thought he looked a bit silly at first. Now I love the > sight of him. He isn’t merely a mascot, or a logo. He’s an Icon, as in > “Cultural Icon.” Put another way: “If you don’t use GIMP, you’re too wealthy > to call yourself an artist!” (You’re supposed to laugh, here. It’s a play on > the iconic “starving artist.") > > Stop fussing about what the paint brush looks like. Go thou and create > something beautiful. Right on. I'm glad to see that proposals for fidget changes, for the sake of change itself, don't seem to get much traction here. As a long time student of propaganda and marketing (same thing) I would consider dumping Wilbur and anonymizing the GIMP logo as brand suicide moves. Off topic for the thread: The GIMP splash screen includes a progress indicator showing the GIMP scanning all its optional/variable parts to build its menus and stuff every time it is started. On older, slower hardware that takes a lng time. I would like to see an option to toggle that process off and on, by saving the configuration data on exit, and reloading it when/as a "fast start" mode was enabled by the user. As a possible default solution, a faster scanning process that only looks for changes in relevant directories could trigger a "real scan and reload" of all the variable parts, only where and as a change (new, missing or different sized files in any relevant directory) is detected by comparison of file names and sizes. In the event of abnormal termination a flag indicating failure to shut down in an orderly manner - some dinky file that gets written at the end of successful program start, and deleted after writing out the configuration files during shutdown - could trigger a full rescan if present on start. This same process could be invoked by the user though a "reload all plugins and resources" command, which would restart the GIMP without setting the flag indicating a successful last shutdown. Has this been discussed before (I bet it has) and if so where should I look? Over the years I have spent a lot of time looking at GIMP splash screens when I could have been loading up image files and tweaking on them. The process that causes that does make perfect sense, but IMO so would some attention to shortening it when and as practicable. :o) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look
Alex, I did apologize in advance for acerbidity (not a word ;^} ) And it’s just my strongly stated opinion. To me, anything that performs its function as well as the operator’s ability allows is a thing of beauty, regardless of what it looks like. (No, I’m not an engineer. =^D ) I like your attitude. As long as this is the way the developers see things, I see no problem. It’s just that I have too much experience re-engineering (or back-engineering) things that were well designed, then ruined by the accountants and ad departments. I can’t do this with electronics or software—hence my apprehension. I’ve seen too many good things ruined by making them look “sexy,” or whatever, or by making them less functional for profit’s sake. At least the latter is not likely to be a problem here. But I don’t think you can argue that our society pays far too much attention to appearance at the cost of substance. So being an old curmudgeon, when I see someone advocating improved appearance, it’s going to get a reaction—strongly stated, but civil, I hope. (I try not to make global warming any worse, but there are occasional episodes of localized, total atmospheric ionization …) So a suggestion: Why not ask the users, or at least members of this list, rather than the developers, to produce the cosmetic enhancements. The users are artists of one sort or another. Here’s an opportunity to use their skills and talents to give back for some great, free software. Ross > On Oct 20, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ross Martinek wrote: >> Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my >> life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is. >> Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything. >> >> Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet >> someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on >> the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.” >> >> So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time >> thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete, >> utter waste of their time. > > Wow, hold on :) I respectfully disagree. > > First of all, we do care about the appearance of GIMP. In fact, we can > be extremely opinionated about its appearance. Not that it was > entirely in our power to make great illustrations and suchlike (with > few exceptions). > > Secondly, this is a users mailing list. The idea is that people who > lurk here are of artistic persuasion :) That makes it a good enough > place to discuss this to _me_. > >> Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and >> works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad >> campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone >> who looks past the exterior knows it. > > uncapable software + bad visuals = no go > > uncapable software + good visuals = might work, but not for long > > capable software + bad visuals = underestimated by potential users > > capable software + good visuals = world domination proceeds as planned > > What's so bad about good visuals then? Yeah, in-house VFX apps can be > ugly as sin while doing the job, but that's hardly something to brag > about, no? > > The project could do with some visual refreshing (somewhat covered in > upcoming 2.10). The nature and the scope of the refresh is a perfectly > sensible topic to discuss, in my opinion. > > Alex > ___ > gimp-user-list mailing list > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Is a high bit depth monitor worth getting? (was Re: emerge --emptytree : how to ?)
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 12:30 -0400, Kevin Cozens wrote: > On 2017-10-20 12:01 PM, Helmut Jarausch wrote: > > I'm considering buying a new monitor (and graphics card) which > > supports > > 10 bits per color channel. > > Will Gimp on a Linux machine (X11) support this now or in the near > > future. > > Or is it just waste of money to buy a monitor with more than 8 > > bits/color channel? I have a monitor with a wide gamut, which is awesome. And i also have one that does 10 bit colour. Last time i tried running X11 in 10bpc instead of 8bpc i found that too much broke outside gimp's image window - including the gimp toolbox and docks and all window decorations (for all windows, not just gimp), as something (libgtk and the desktop compositor both i think) was still trying to use 8 bits for transparency when 10 bits means a 32 bit word is (10R, 10G, 10B, 2 alpha). But it worked fine in Windows, and my guess is that if it doesn't work already it'll work in the gtk3 version of gimp planned some times after gimp 2.10. i could repeat the experiment maybe in the next few days if it'd be of use. Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Staff contact for Verifiable Claims WG, SVG WG, XQuery WG Web slave for http://www.fromoldbooks.org/ ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ross Martinek wrote: > Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my > life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is. > Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything. > > Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet > someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on > the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.” > > So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time > thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete, > utter waste of their time. Wow, hold on :) I respectfully disagree. First of all, we do care about the appearance of GIMP. In fact, we can be extremely opinionated about its appearance. Not that it was entirely in our power to make great illustrations and suchlike (with few exceptions). Secondly, this is a users mailing list. The idea is that people who lurk here are of artistic persuasion :) That makes it a good enough place to discuss this to _me_. > Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and > works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad > campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone > who looks past the exterior knows it. uncapable software + bad visuals = no go uncapable software + good visuals = might work, but not for long capable software + bad visuals = underestimated by potential users capable software + good visuals = world domination proceeds as planned What's so bad about good visuals then? Yeah, in-house VFX apps can be ugly as sin while doing the job, but that's hardly something to brag about, no? The project could do with some visual refreshing (somewhat covered in upcoming 2.10). The nature and the scope of the refresh is a perfectly sensible topic to discuss, in my opinion. Alex ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Is a high bit depth monitor worth getting? (was Re: emerge --emptytree : how to ?)
On 10/20/2017 12:30 PM, Kevin Cozens wrote: GIMP is moving towards higher colour depth. Would a high bit depth monitor be worth it? That would depend on your use case(s). Is GIMP the only program you would run that would benefit from a high bit depth monitor? Do you run other programs that would benefit from such a monitor? Will your computers graphical environment (aka. desktop) support full use of a high bit depth monitor? GIMP 2.9/2.10 does process images at 32-bit floating point. But at this point the GIMP code that sends the image to the screen for display works at 8-bit integer, using "CAIRO_FORMAT_ARGB32". Cairo does provide "CAIRO_FORMAT_RGB30 -> like RGB24 but with 10bpc. (Since 1.12)". Which if any editing programs use CAIRO_FORMAT_RGB30? How would it impact performance if GIMP started using CAIRO_FORMAT_RGB30? There's an open darktable issue on the topic: https://redmine.darktable.org/issues/10197 Over on the ArgyllCMS mailing list is a nice discussion of 30-bit displays, distinguishing between calibration and profiling: https://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/Argyll-and-30bit-colors,3 Not every free/libre image editor uses cairo to send images to the screen. Can Krita make use of 10-bit monitor displays, using whatever it is that qt apps use? Will cairo still be used if/once Linux switches over to Wayland? Elle ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Is a high bit depth monitor worth getting?
Hi, >> I'm considering buying a new monitor (and graphics card) which supports >> 10 bits per color channel. >> Will Gimp on a Linux machine (X11) support this now or in the near future. >> Or is it just waste of money to buy a monitor with more than 8 bits/color >> channel? > GIMP is moving towards higher colour depth. Would a high bit depth monitor > be worth it? That would depend on your use case(s). Is GIMP the only program > you would run that would benefit from a high bit depth monitor? Do you run > other programs that would benefit from such a monitor? Will your computers > graphical environment (aka. desktop) support full use of a high bit depth > monitor? Currently, only Gimp and some other image viewing applications are my main focus for such a monitor. >From the hardware side I've an graphics card which does support 10 bits per color channel. I've read that (only?) OpenGL will support this. How does Gimp "send" the graphics data to the hardware? Does it use "generel" X11-apis and does this support 10 bits per color channel? Many thanks, Helmut ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look
In data venerdì 20 ottobre 2017 17:41:06 CEST, Ross Martinek ha scritto: > Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my > life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is. > Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything. > > Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet > someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on > the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.” > > So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time > thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete, > utter waste of their time. > > Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and > works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad > campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and > anyone who looks past the exterior knows it. > > GIMP is a tool that can be used to create artistic beauty, which is the only > place appearance is important. > > Put simply, I don’t care if the tool is uglier than mortal sin if it does > the job well. Form follows function—about a light year behind. > > As for Wilbur, I, too, thought he looked a bit silly at first. Now I love > the sight of him. He isn’t merely a mascot, or a logo. He’s an Icon, as in > “Cultural Icon.” Put another way: “If you don’t use GIMP, you’re too > wealthy to call yourself an artist!” (You’re supposed to laugh, here. It’s > a play on the iconic “starving artist.") > > Stop fussing about what the paint brush looks like. Go thou and create > something beautiful. > > Ross > > > On Oct 20, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Maurizio Paglia wrote: > > > > Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply! > > > > 2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine < > > > > alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com>: > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote: > >>> 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon > >>> containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern, > >> > >> identifiable, > >> > >>> and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment. > >> > >> You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G' > >> letter to make it more identifiable? > > > > Wilber is not a logo. > > A logo is unique and do not change. > > Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat, > > etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot. > > I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written > > in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the > > launcher). > > > >>> 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive > >> > >> for > >> > >>> a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think > >>> GIMP > >>> needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep > >> > >> away > >> > >>> Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead. > >> > >> You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development > >> versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash > >> screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for > >> yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html. > > > > Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-( > > But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon > > > >>> 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages > >>> windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used. > >>> > >>> Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else. > >>> Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is > >>> always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and > >>> minimal icons are used instead. > >>> > >>> What do you think about this dress change? > >> > >> Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :) > > > > Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment. > > Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss? > > I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people. > > Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software. > > In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'. > > Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but > > GIMP needs a new logo. > > > >> Alex > >> ___ > >> gimp-user-list mailing list > >> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org > >> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > >> List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list > > > > ___ > > gimp-user-list mailing list > > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org > > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > > List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list Thanks to all, ho
[Gimp-user] Is a high bit depth monitor worth getting? (was Re: emerge --emptytree : how to ?)
On 2017-10-20 12:01 PM, Helmut Jarausch wrote: I'm considering buying a new monitor (and graphics card) which supports 10 bits per color channel. Will Gimp on a Linux machine (X11) support this now or in the near future. Or is it just waste of money to buy a monitor with more than 8 bits/color channel? GIMP is moving towards higher colour depth. Would a high bit depth monitor be worth it? That would depend on your use case(s). Is GIMP the only program you would run that would benefit from a high bit depth monitor? Do you run other programs that would benefit from such a monitor? Will your computers graphical environment (aka. desktop) support full use of a high bit depth monitor? -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're | powerful!" #include | --Chris Hardwick ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Does Gimp support more than 8 bits per color channel?
Hi, I'm considering buying a new monitor (and graphics card) which supports 10 bits per color channel. Will Gimp on a Linux machine (X11) support this now or in the near future. Or is it just waste of money to buy a monitor with more than 8 bits/color channel? Many thanks for some hints, Helmut ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] emerge --emptytree : how to ?
The subject for this message is terribly misleading -- Regards, Michael GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] emerge --emptytree : how to ?
Hi, I'm considering buying a new monitor (and graphics card) which supports 10 bits per color channel. Will Gimp on a Linux machine (X11) support this now or in the near future. Or is it just waste of money to buy a monitor with more than 8 bits/color channel? Many thanks for some hints, Helmut ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look
Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is. Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything. Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.” So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete, utter waste of their time. Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone who looks past the exterior knows it. GIMP is a tool that can be used to create artistic beauty, which is the only place appearance is important. Put simply, I don’t care if the tool is uglier than mortal sin if it does the job well. Form follows function—about a light year behind. As for Wilbur, I, too, thought he looked a bit silly at first. Now I love the sight of him. He isn’t merely a mascot, or a logo. He’s an Icon, as in “Cultural Icon.” Put another way: “If you don’t use GIMP, you’re too wealthy to call yourself an artist!” (You’re supposed to laugh, here. It’s a play on the iconic “starving artist.") Stop fussing about what the paint brush looks like. Go thou and create something beautiful. Ross > On Oct 20, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Maurizio Paglia wrote: > > Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply! > > 2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine < > alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com>: > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote: >> >>> 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon >>> containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern, >> identifiable, >>> and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment. >> >> You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G' >> letter to make it more identifiable? >> > > Wilber is not a logo. > A logo is unique and do not change. > Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat, > etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot. > I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written > in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the > launcher). > >> >>> 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive >> for >>> a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think GIMP >>> needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep >> away >>> Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead. >> >> You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development >> versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash >> screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for >> yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html. >> > > Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-( > But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon > >> >>> 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages >>> windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used. >>> >>> Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else. >>> Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is >>> always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and >>> minimal icons are used instead. >>> >>> What do you think about this dress change? >> >> Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :) >> > > Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment. > Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss? > I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people. > Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software. > In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'. > Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but > GIMP needs a new logo. > >> >> Alex >> ___ >> gimp-user-list mailing list >> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org >> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list >> List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list >> > ___ > gimp-user-list mailing list > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look
Hello!
There's a couple of things at work here, I think.
Wilber has served double duty as both a mascot _and_ a logo for a very,
very long time. There's a long history of association of the image of
Wilber with the project. It provides the benefit of being both unique, and
instantly recognizable to anyone that's used GIMP before.
I understand the desire for something "modern" ("minimal" or not, though I
understand that it's the flavor du jour at the moment), but I'm not sure if
the path to a single letter or something similar is in the best interests
of the project.
For one, if I'm looking at a launcher of icons and I see a single "G"
there, my brain currently would associate it with Google first, not GIMP.
The branding for that letter has previously been well established by a
large player in the computer industry. Changing the GIMP icon to
something similar would only serve to water down it's meaning and possibly
confuse users more, imo. This is partially what Alex is referring to with
his "identity loss, followed by existential crisis" I think.
The branding is strong with Wilber at the moment, and I can not find a good
reason to reconsider it, personally. I'm happy to entertain reasons
otherwise, though.
We are actually discussing splash screen stuff right now in the IRC room.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:08 AM Maurizio Paglia wrote:
> Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply!
>
> 2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine <
> alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:
> >
> > > 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon
> > > containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern,
> > identifiable,
> > > and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment.
> >
> > You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G'
> > letter to make it more identifiable?
> >
>
> Wilber is not a logo.
> A logo is unique and do not change.
> Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat,
> etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot.
> I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written
> in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the
> launcher).
>
> >
> > > 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive
> > for
> > > a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think
> GIMP
> > > needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep
> > away
> > > Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead.
> >
> > You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development
> > versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash
> > screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for
> > yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html.
> >
>
> Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-(
> But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon
>
> >
> > > 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages
> > > windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used.
> > >
> > > Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else.
> > > Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is
> > > always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear
> and
> > > minimal icons are used instead.
> > >
> > > What do you think about this dress change?
> >
> > Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :)
> >
>
> Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment.
> Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss?
> I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people.
> Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software.
> In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'.
> Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but
> GIMP needs a new logo.
>
> >
> > Alex
> > ___
> > gimp-user-list mailing list
> > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> > List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
> >
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
>
--
https://patdavid.net
GPG: 66D1 7CA6 8088 4874 946D 18BD 67C7 6219 89E9 57AC
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look
Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply! 2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote: > > > 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon > > containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern, > identifiable, > > and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment. > > You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G' > letter to make it more identifiable? > Wilber is not a logo. A logo is unique and do not change. Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat, etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot. I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the launcher). > > > 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive > for > > a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think GIMP > > needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep > away > > Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead. > > You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development > versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash > screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for > yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html. > Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-( But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon > > > 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages > > windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used. > > > > Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else. > > Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is > > always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and > > minimal icons are used instead. > > > > What do you think about this dress change? > > Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :) > Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment. Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss? I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people. Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software. In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'. Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but GIMP needs a new logo. > > Alex > ___ > gimp-user-list mailing list > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list > ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote: > 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon > containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern, identifiable, > and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment. You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G' letter to make it more identifiable? > 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive for > a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think GIMP > needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep away > Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead. You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html. > 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages > windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used. > > Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else. > Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is > always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and > minimal icons are used instead. > > What do you think about this dress change? Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :) Alex ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look
Hi all, I am testing new 2.9 snapshots and finally found a very nice evolution of this great piece of software. I hope GIMP 2.10 can be released quickly and same for following releases. Nevertheless I have a general concern about the software appearance. In order to make GIMP looking more 'professional' I think it needs some works. 1. NAME - Discussion about a name change must be avoided. I agree with the developer and many users: a so long well known name must remain unchanged. GIMP has its own meaning and - more important - is worldwide recognized/used. 2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern, identifiable, and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment. 3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive for a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think GIMP needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep away Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead. Background could be a nice photograph/graphic (GIMP is an IMAGE manipulation tool). Maybe a competition among users could be organized in order to choose the image for the next GIMP release... 4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used. Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else. Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and minimal icons are used instead. What do you think about this dress change? Thank you, Maurizio ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
