Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
> Exactly, you need a visual cue. That's why I think > it's important to offer a set of differently sized > brushes in the brushes list. So that > people can pick a brush of about the right size. ... isn't that what the brush outline is for? Or do I happen to have default settings that are different from the rest? Say... is it only in Ubuntu that the -Default- settings include [ and ] for brush resize? Because that's what I do right now: use the shortcuts to resize until I get the right size. I visually decide if the size is right thanks to the outline. I don't need to click on a selection, move to the canvas to see if the size is right, then move back to the selections to choose one of another size. > I have a weird obsession. I work with images that > are larger than what most other people work with. Well, most professional-grade artists and photographers work with images that are much bigger than something you can just put online. They only resize at the end. > So I don't need a 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, or 19 > pixel fuzzy circle, but I need one that is around 30 > pixels wide. Or 50. ... though that Is pretty big. :P > > Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them > > being available in their original size and shape. > If that is the intent why does the user need to see them > at all? Cant they be hidden and called "api" brushes? > That would have more than one benefit. I was actually thinking along the lines of choosing from a drop down which brush you need for a script (script message: please choose a round-ish brush of about x pixels). It'd offer more possibilities for effects too (by selecting different brushes available). Though being able to put them in another folder is fine. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
Hi, On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:34 +0300, Alexia Death wrote: > > As soon as you copy them, they can be edited. > Why couldn't that copy be made for the user on profile creation? Last time we discussed this, we decided against copying all resource files to the user folder. But perhaps we need to reconsider this. There are some questions that need to be solved before we can do this though: - How can the user resurrect brushes that she removed? - How can we make sure that scripts don't break. - Is copying really the best solution? > > Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them > > being available in their original size and shape. > If that is the intent why does the user need to see them at all? Cant > they be hidden and called "api" brushes? That would have more than one > benefit. That's a possible solution. But I would prefer if we added API that allows scripts to set brush parameters. For backward compatibility, we could add some code that checks for standard brush names and creates the appropriate brush on the fly. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
Sven Neumann wrote: > Note that these brushes are editable. They are just read-only because > they are in the system folder. I am well aware of the technical reasons. That does not change it for the user. From user POV they are non-editable clutter that you cant even trim. > As soon as you copy them, they can be edited. Why couldn't that copy be made for the user on profile creation? > Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them > being available in their original size and shape. If that is the intent why does the user need to see them at all? Cant they be hidden and called "api" brushes? That would have more than one benefit. > We need to somehow find a solution for this if we want to change the > default brushes. Scripts probably need a way to specify the brush size > and shape that they want to use instead of using a brush name. Having as set of unlisted "api" brushes would be a sane way to do that. It would also allow for 3rd party scripts that need very specific brushes that are useless for generic use to hide them. -- Alexia ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:26:59AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 18:14 -0700, Valerie wrote: > > > I guess we have drastically different usages of brushes though. > > I NEVER use a "brush of exactly 17 pixels". In fact, a brush of > > "exactly 17 pixels" is pretty much useless to me. Most people > > go by a visual cue instead of specific values, and you can't > > see the exact size of the brushes in the list in the first place. > > Exactly, you need a visual cue. That's why I think it's important to > offer a set of differently sized brushes in the brushes list. So that > people can pick a brush of about the right size. But perhaps we needd to > rethink the user interface for brush selection and try to come up with a > solution that works better? I have a weird obsession. I work with images that are larger than what most other people work with. So I don't need a 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, or 19 pixel fuzzy circle, but I need one that is around 30 pixels wide. Or 50. So, it's nice to have the visual cue, but because there is a simple enumeration, the one I need is never there. Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 ** **Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* Q: It doesn't work. A: Look buddy, doesn't work is an ambiguous statement. Does it sit on the couch all day? Is it unemployed? Please be specific! Define 'it' and what it isn't doing. - Adapted from lxrbot FAQ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
Hi, On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 18:14 -0700, Valerie wrote: > I guess we have drastically different usages of brushes though. > I NEVER use a "brush of exactly 17 pixels". In fact, a brush of > "exactly 17 pixels" is pretty much useless to me. Most people > go by a visual cue instead of specific values, and you can't > see the exact size of the brushes in the list in the first place. Exactly, you need a visual cue. That's why I think it's important to offer a set of differently sized brushes in the brushes list. So that people can pick a brush of about the right size. But perhaps we needd to rethink the user interface for brush selection and try to come up with a solution that works better? > > Sure, that's why we keep asking for someone to improve > > the collection of default brushes collection in GIMP > > for some years now. So far there hasn't been much interest. > > We also don't have a maintainer for the gimp-data-extras package. > > It's not going to help if you oppose every attempt to help > instead of welcoming at least a step in the right direction. In case you did not realize, this was meant as an offer for you to step up and take the job. We would very much like to ship GIMP with a better default set of brushes. We didn't manage to do that for 2.4 except for replacing the pixmap brushes with parametric ones. But we definitely need to add some nice texture brushes. I am not sure if a contest is the best way to achieve that. But I don't really care, as long as something happens. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
> I strongly disagree. It is a lot more convenient to pick a > brush of the right size from a list of brushes than to > always scale the brush. I guess we have drastically different usages of brushes though. I NEVER use a "brush of exactly 17 pixels". In fact, a brush of "exactly 17 pixels" is pretty much useless to me. Most people go by a visual cue instead of specific values, and you can't see the exact size of the brushes in the list in the first place. > Also we simply can't remove the standard brushes > because that would > break lots of scripts. As long as there's no way to > resize brushes from > scripts, we have to keep the standard brushes with their > names. This is a whole different reason though. > > The advantage of a good default is a good first-time > impression, > > and offering greater out-of-the-box functionality to > those who > > don't know better. > > Sure, that's why we keep asking for someone to improve > the collection of default brushes collection in GIMP > for some years now. So far there hasn't been much interest. > We also don't have a maintainer for the gimp-data-extras package. It's not going to help if you oppose every attempt to help instead of welcoming at least a step in the right direction. Goodbye. I'm making my own ideal distribution and replacing the default one with it with every new install. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:27:41PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:10 +0300, Alexia Death wrote: > > Valerie wrote: > > > The other half is that with brush resize in tool options now > > > (where everybody can see it), even "non-editable" round brushes > > > can be rescaled, which means the default distribution should > > > have not 10 round brushes, but 1 (same with fuzzy brushes > > > and maybe calligraphy). > > I wholly agree. Those un-editable round brushes are constantly in the > > way. Instead having a nice set of different(square, star, calligraphy > > etc) parametric brushes that are editable from the start would make much > > more sense. > > Note that these brushes are editable. They are just read-only because > they are in the system folder. As soon as you copy them, they can be > edited. Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them > being available in their original size and shape. > > We need to somehow find a solution for this if we want to change the > default brushes. Scripts probably need a way to specify the brush size > and shape that they want to use instead of using a brush name. I've made silly suggestions before, but allow me to try again. How about new brushes that take a parameter. Wether they are invoked with a different keyword, or just by the new name I dont' know which is easier. Brushes like the default round ones should become aliases that are specified in a global brush-alias file. So the systemwide, default brush-alias file specifies among others: 17circle circle(17) so "circle" is the NEW name of the parametrized brush that has one parameter (in this case "17"). Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 ** **Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* Q: It doesn't work. A: Look buddy, doesn't work is an ambiguous statement. Does it sit on the couch all day? Is it unemployed? Please be specific! Define 'it' and what it isn't doing. - Adapted from lxrbot FAQ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
Hi, On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:10 +0300, Alexia Death wrote: > Valerie wrote: > > The other half is that with brush resize in tool options now > > (where everybody can see it), even "non-editable" round brushes > > can be rescaled, which means the default distribution should > > have not 10 round brushes, but 1 (same with fuzzy brushes > > and maybe calligraphy). > I wholly agree. Those un-editable round brushes are constantly in the > way. Instead having a nice set of different(square, star, calligraphy > etc) parametric brushes that are editable from the start would make much > more sense. Note that these brushes are editable. They are just read-only because they are in the system folder. As soon as you copy them, they can be edited. Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them being available in their original size and shape. We need to somehow find a solution for this if we want to change the default brushes. Scripts probably need a way to specify the brush size and shape that they want to use instead of using a brush name. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
Hi, On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 00:30 -0700, Valerie wrote: > The other half is that with brush resize in tool options now > (where everybody can see it), even "non-editable" round brushes > can be rescaled, which means the default distribution should > have not 10 round brushes, but 1 (same with fuzzy brushes > and maybe calligraphy). I strongly disagree. It is a lot more convenient to pick a brush of the right size from a list of brushes than to always scale the brush. Also we simply can't remove the standard brushes because that would break lots of scripts. As long as there's no way to resize brushes from scripts, we have to keep the standard brushes with their names. Perhaps we can try to improve this for the 2.8 release. > The advantage of a good default is a good first-time impression, > and offering greater out-of-the-box functionality to those who > don't know better. Sure, that's why we keep asking for someone to improve the collection of default brushes collection in GIMP for some years now. So far there hasn't been much interest. We also don't have a maintainer for the gimp-data-extras package. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
Hi; Thanks for the reference Valerie. I'm Filsd. :) I agree with you. GIMP needs a new and revised set of default Brushes. And in my experience as a professor of "CG Art" (using only open-source: GIMP, blender...) I find many people that don't even think in GIMP as a Digital Painting program until I show then some Brushes and Results made with then. Many Digital artists I know only migrated to GIMP after using it with these sets. Some nice examples of artists that uses GIMP with my Brushes (the two last are mine :P): http://detaillibrary.blogspot.com/2007/09/color-concepts.html http://www.eduardodamasceno.com/ http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs17/f/2007/180/8/1/Isabella___B_and_W_by_Filsd.jpg http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs18/f/2007/159/d/8/Aryanneh_by_Filsd.jpg My Brushes are already Creative Commons Share-Alike. So... anyone can use it already! PS. Sorry for my poor English... -- Filipe Soares Dilly dilly.carbonmade.com/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
> I wholly agree. Those un-editable round brushes are > constantly in the way. Instead having a nice set of > different(square, star, calligraphy > etc) parametric brushes that are editable from the start > would make much more sense. > > Not entirely sure if that is needed. Texture brushes > people use are very much up to individual style... They don't have to be texture-only of course. I wholly support more generic shapes: circle, square, triangle, calligraphy, star... Whatever it is that people may find useful. However, the textures are there to give new users a sense of the potential of Gimp brushes. There doesn't have to be too many though; agreed. I've never thought of using texture brushes either though, until I saw a number of speed paintings and sketches using stylized brushes. It opens up horizons. Also, I'm aware of the differences in styles, but that's why I'm against specific shapes, and aiming for textures that are as generic as possible: no plants etc please. Saying that very generic texture brushes conflict with styles, though, is like saying that the Plasma, Coffee Stain, Cloud and other filters conflict with styles as well: although advanced users may want their own custom effects, a whole bunch of us would settle for anything interesting out of the box. (what, you think all of the Photoshop users and all those who have pirated copies of Photoshop actually produce high quality art with unique styles using unique brushes?) Speaking from my own experience, you'd be surprised by how many people like to mess around with their program without necessarily anything professional accomplished. Give them a few good filters and brushes, and they have fun with them for some time, and even if they don't produce high-quality work with them, they still end up with an overall satisfaction and higher opinion of Gimp anyway. Go figure. As for the rest, I do agree, but I'm aiming for an approach that for now minimizes the workload on developers as much as possible. ;) They obviously have many other concerns to address. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
Valerie wrote: > The other half is that with brush resize in tool options now > (where everybody can see it), even "non-editable" round brushes > can be rescaled, which means the default distribution should > have not 10 round brushes, but 1 (same with fuzzy brushes > and maybe calligraphy). I wholly agree. Those un-editable round brushes are constantly in the way. Instead having a nice set of different(square, star, calligraphy etc) parametric brushes that are editable from the start would make much more sense. > By eliminating those and some of the rectangle brushes, you > can eliminated about 20 entries, nearly half of the current > distribution. Instead, the extra space can be replaced by > a selection of texture brushes. Adding that many texture brushes makes little sense imho > Therefore, without coding, you: > - eliminate redundancy in the default distribution I suppport this one. > - allow users to access 20 new texture brushes of various types Not entirely sure if that is needed. Texture brushes people use are very much up to individual style... > - all of which are resizeable Every brush is resizeable... However, there should be a quick way to "edit" a brush with single click from the tool options. an edit button that opens the brush for editing dependent on brush type. If its a bitmap brush as image, if its parametric, in editor. > - and all without increasing the number of entries in the default > distribution Decreasing it would be better IMHO. > Sure, you can tell users to install their own brushes, but: > - 1/3 are too lazy Because they need nothing more than easy to use parametric brushes. > - 1/3 don't even know where to look or don't even think about it That is IMHO an issue stemming from the fact that gimp hides its resources into the hidden user directory. I believe the best thing that could be done for it is to move the GIMP user resources folder somewhere visible, like the home directory as "GIMP resouces" un *nix and uder My Documents as "My GIMP resources" in Linux. > - the remaining 1/3 probably isn't thrilled by how the > default set is filled up with redundant brushes too Agreed. > I also find the redundant round brushes to be especially > bothersome because whenever I Do make an editable brush, I have > to find it among all the non-editable ones, especially when I > accidentally change the name and it gets lumped with the other > round brushes. Another point I agree to. > At the same time, I think forcing (Linux) users > to resort to sudo just to get rid of clutter is a bit much > (most windows users likely don't know where the directory is > in the first place). Actually both Linux and Windows users an get rid of them by deleting system brushes path from preferences but that takes ALL of them away. It might be a solution to simply do a one time copy of a resource template to the user folder at creation and leave the system wide folders empty by default. Then if a sysadmin wants to force a set of whatever resources they can, but they can also make them something that new users get by putting them into the profile template. Then user has most control over what resources are available to this user. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp default brush set contest
> What version of GIMP are you using? We replaced all the roundish > pixmap brushes with parametric ones for GIMP 2.4. The actual > problem is not that the brushes would be pixmap brushes. They > are just not editable because they are in the system brush > folder. What needs to be done is to add code that makes system > brushes editable by transparently copying them to the users > folder when the user clicks the "Edit" button. Actually, I recently installed Gimp 2.5.1. on Kubuntu... I may not have explained myself clearly: the editable part is only half of it. The other half is that with brush resize in tool options now (where everybody can see it), even "non-editable" round brushes can be rescaled, which means the default distribution should have not 10 round brushes, but 1 (same with fuzzy brushes and maybe calligraphy). By eliminating those and some of the rectangle brushes, you can eliminated about 20 entries, nearly half of the current distribution. Instead, the extra space can be replaced by a selection of texture brushes. Though... I'm personally in favor of "redoing the entire default" rather than "adding to the current", no offense? Therefore, without coding, you: - eliminate redundancy in the default distribution - allow users to access 20 new texture brushes of various types - all of which are resizeable - and all without increasing the number of entries in the default distribution Sure, you can tell users to install their own brushes, but: - 1/3 are too lazy - 1/3 don't even know where to look or don't even think about it - the remaining 1/3 probably isn't thrilled by how the default set is filled up with redundant brushes too The advantage of a good default is a good first-time impression, and offering greater out-of-the-box functionality to those who don't know better. For example, without adding code, you can tell users "Gimp has brushes that allows you to do watercolor or carbon sketches out of the box!" I also find the redundant round brushes to be especially bothersome because whenever I Do make an editable brush, I have to find it among all the non-editable ones, especially when I accidentally change the name and it gets lumped with the other round brushes. At the same time, I think forcing (Linux) users to resort to sudo just to get rid of clutter is a bit much (most windows users likely don't know where the directory is in the first place). ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
