> 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
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
> 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
> pe
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 un
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
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 roun
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
> 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 pr
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
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 muc
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 co
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 r
> 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 diffe
13 matches
Mail list logo
