photocomix wrote:
i knew that Peter Sikking (or somebody else from Gimp UI brainstorm
staff)replied but the message get lost for technical problems (full
storage
disk)
yes, I am (by default) the Gimp UI brainstorm staff, and I had about
3 threads going on here before the list collapsed.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:02 AM, peter sikking wrote:
so that is why I am against this.
--ps
Even that said, anyone is free to develop a save and export plugin and
offer it up for public consumption. It may not make it into the core,
but assuming it is worthwhile, it will find use.
[Looks like every time I post, I kill the list. My apologies; reposting]
On 2009-10-05, photoco...@gmail.com for...@gimpusers.com wrote:
So why do not offer a chance to speed up the workflow, save time and
patience
achieving both result simultaneusly ?
A image is worth 1.000 words ,to
Hi,
On 10/05/2009 02:10 AM, photoco...@gmail.com wrote:
But even if conceptually different in practice , both operation are always
needed for the every edited image:
is needed to Save the original AND to export as jpg or png .
This assumption is wrong. Complex compositions will need to be
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 22:24 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
Hi,
On 10/05/2009 02:10 AM, photoco...@gmail.com wrote:
But even if conceptually different in practice , both operation are always
needed for the every edited image:
is needed to Save the original AND to export as jpg or png .
photoco...@gmail.com wrote:
::snip? SNIP!::
As you may see the idea is not to replace the Export dialog, but to offer a
handy option from the Save dialog, to simultaneously export , with same name
and in the same directory in other file formats
Wouldn't this be fairly straightforward to do as
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:16 PM, James Hughes wrote:
Hello,
Can someone advice me the best place to start in making a patch to the UI to
revert the 2.7 version to using the 2.6 style save dialogue. If someone would
kindly point me in the right direction of which files I need to change would
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:16 PM, James Hughes wrote:
Hello,
Can someone advice me the best place to start in making a patch to the UI to
revert the 2.7 version to using the 2.6 style save
On 09/16/2009 11:16 AM, James Hughes wrote:
Hello,
Can someone advice me the best place to start in making a patch to the UI to
revert the 2.7 version to using the 2.6 style save dialogue. If someone would
kindly point me in the right direction of which files I need to change would
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 10:16 +0100, James Hughes wrote:
Can someone advice me the best place to start in making a patch to the UI to
revert the 2.7 version to using the 2.6 style save dialogue.
If you can bear it, I'd say wait a little longer - the design is still
evolving, and I think it's
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
One notable change is that Ctrl + E is now bound to File-Export by
default instead of View-Shrink Wrap. Hopefully this change will not be
too much of a pain. We may need to consider finding a new keyboard
shortcut for View-Shrink Wrap.
Alexandre wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
One notable change is that Ctrl + E is now bound to File-Export by
default instead of View-Shrink Wrap. Hopefully this change will
not be
too much of a pain. We may need to consider finding a new keyboard
shortcut
peter sikking wrote:
after checking out Inkscape and Scribus, I think Alexandre just
added another valid factor, which means that the balance just
tipped the other way:
Export should be shift-ctrl-E
'Export to org.file' should be ctrl-E
Makes sense, I'll swap the shortcuts. It is quite
Martin Nordholts wrote:
Hi
I have been working on implementing the Save + export spec [1] for a
while.
And I have also merged the base work to GNOME master now, so to try it
out all you have to do is git pull. There is still work to be done (see
the merge commit message) but we are
Michal wrote:
This is a point that Martin and I discussed on irc.
Here is the main point that the changes are clarifying is:
a file is only safe when it is Saved (in xcf)
this means that export is never the solution to unsaved changes and
Export and Export to foo.png cannot be there in
Hi all,
peter sikking schrieb:
foo.png was never inside GIMP. it was an xcf that had foo.png as a
starting point. we try to reflect this in every way. one way that came
up during LGM discussions was that the layer should be always
(even for background) be named after the image that was
peter (yahvuu) wrote:
peter sikking schrieb:
foo.png was never inside GIMP. it was an xcf that had foo.png as a
starting point. we try to reflect this in every way. one way that
came
up during LGM discussions was that the layer should be always
(even for background) be named after the
Can one guarantee GIMP compositions will be at least correctly rendered
with third-party viewers as image browsing is not in GIMP goals? At
least recently xcf has been considered as internal GIMP format. Having
thousands files what cannot be easily and quickly viewed and organized
is not a
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
Pleasant interactive cropping
In fact tools like Lightroom or Rawstudio beat GIMP for me when it
comes to cropping of photos -- for reasons multiple times explained to
GIMP developers.
and scaling, required for web are enough
Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
Can one guarantee GIMP compositions will be at least correctly rendered
with third-party viewers as image browsing is not in GIMP goals? At
least recently xcf has been considered as internal GIMP format. Having
thousands files what cannot be easily and quickly
I suspect thumbnailing will not be enough. Let's see an example of
high end workflow for photography. One has taken a bunch of RAW
images. He has to browse them and compare, delete the bad ones. Then the
images need conversion with desired comparing at that stage and the
selection goes on...
Michal wrote:
first of all, thanks for trying it out and commenting.
My comments and observations:
1. When I try to save and I change extension to (for example) .png,
GIMP
message appears:
You can use this dialog to save to the GIMP XCF format. Use File-
Export to
export to other file
While I haven't tried the new behavior, I would like to be able to see
either I have made any changes after the export in the title bar or not.
Now it is indicated with a star. I prefer to see it remained.
2. When I open image foo.png, do some changes and close it, GIMP
message
says:
Save
Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
While I haven't tried the new behavior, I would like to be able to
see either I have made any changes after the export in the title bar
or not. Now it is indicated with a star. I prefer to see it remained.
that would mean we needed two indicators, one that is
I think you are too biased towards xcf as an everyday storage format. It
is not needed very often, at least for now. May I provide my usual workflow?
1. I take pictures in RAW.
2. I convert the pictures I liked in UFRaw and save the result in jpg
with maximum quality (1:1:1, floating point,
Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
I think you are too biased towards xcf as an everyday storage
format. It is not needed very often, at least for now. May I provide
my usual workflow?
I read your workflow and I am confident that when you try it out
you will find that we support it well with
Peter, I think you (or me :) ) will be surprised if know the statistics
on the percentage of photos which really need complex retouching or
complex actions with layers. The most common cases I can give are face
retouching, repairing of a photo with too high dynamic range or
correcting
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
correcting perspective distortion. If a photo is properly exposed, has
not excessive noise and is not a portrait of a person you need to
improve, there is no need to retouch it after proper RAW conversion.
And therefore there is no
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Alexander Rabtchevich
alexander.v.rabtchev...@iaph.bas-net.by wrote:
Peter, I think you (or me :) ) will be surprised if know the statistics
on the percentage of photos which really need complex retouching or
complex actions with layers. The most common cases I
Pleasant interactive cropping and scaling, required for web are enough
reasons. Red eyes reduction sometimes... Why should one use something
other if the tool he uses most of the time is convenient and powerful?
The above mentioned actions are not too complicated to be reproduced in
one
On Thursday, May 7, 2009, 0:24:12, Martin Nordholts wrote:
I have been working on implementing the Save + export spec [1] for a while.
Since it will affect the workflow for basically everyone it would be nice
with getting some testing and comments before we finalize
I built a Windows
Quoting Martin Nordholts ense...@gmail.com:
I have been working on implementing the Save + export spec [1] for a while.
:
:
Comments very much appreciated!
I haven't GITified my development yet and thus have not tried your
implementation. If your request for comments is only on the
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Martin Nordholts ense...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I have been working on implementing the Save + export spec [1] for a while.
Since it will affect the workflow for basically everyone it would be nice
with getting some testing and comments before we finalize, merge
2009/5/7 David Gowers 00a...@gmail.com
patch #0010 fails:
Did you pull from GNOME master before you applied the patches? I should have
said that the patches requires latest GNOME master. If you apply the patches
on top of commit 9c2aae1281d.. you should be fine.
This works REALLY well! I 3
2009/5/7 saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com
If your request for comments is only on the
implementation and you are not expecting comments on the export spec
itself, I apologize for the following question:
Shouldn't the Save a copy... menu item be eliminated since its
functionality can
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 17:08 +0200, Jernej Simončič wrote:
[...]
Show me one person outside GIMP developer community that thinks this
is a sane change.
I don't think many people think it's a sane change, but that's
not the right question. The question is, will the resulting
interface be good?
Show me one person outside GIMP developer community that thinks this
is a sane change.
Totally irrelevant comment, if you ask me; this is a patch on a
development version. Not many
users will have tried it. Sure, there's the windows installer, but it
remains a development version
and an
On 9 Mar 2009, at 1:06, David Gowers gave gg a washing.
and then...
Open, edit, export as XXX (where XXX is original file -- one of the
actions described in the spec.), export settings could be taken from
the info in the original file.
thanks for bringing that up.
looks like for something
Hi,
On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 18:27 +0100, peter sikking wrote:
first, Copy visible as new image could easily turn out too smart,
but since the bottom Background layer prefers to be one without alpha,
I can see something like: when ‘visible’ has effectively universal
full opacity, then omit
Hi,
On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 16:03 +0100, peter sikking wrote:
no, squeezing these export options in the save dialog is not possible.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. What people suggested is not
to put the export options into the Save file-chooser but into the dialog
that the save
Hi,
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 11:15 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
Not all save plug-ins do this, but for
those that do it seems to make a lot of choice to integrate the export
questions there.
That was supposed to read ... it seems to make a lot of sense
Sven
Sven wrote:
On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 16:03 +0100, peter sikking wrote:
no, squeezing these export options in the save dialog is not
possible.
I think there is a misunderstanding here.
OK, I looked to much at that attached mock-up.
What people suggested is not
to put the export options
On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 18:27 +0100, peter sikking wrote:
first, Copy visible as new image could easily turn
out too smart,
but since the bottom Background layer prefers to be
one without alpha,
The first basic assumption is wrong...so maybe what build on that need
reconsideration
A
yahvuu wrote:
what an inspiring post.
peter sikking schrieb:
I must also point out that this save + export change is also a
change in attitude for GIMP. it clearly supports that our high-end
users work in no-loss xcf all the time (if they want to store
results) and that also means avoiding
peter sikking wrote:
Liam wrote:
I had a careful look at this:
My own workflow for www.fromoldbooks.org tends to be,
1. scan image with xsane plugin
2. crop if needed
3. save as 306-svens-ankles-raw.png
4. either quit after doing several of these, or continue with one...
5. use levels,
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:09 AM, gg g...@catking.net wrote:
there is a problem with this new attitude. Why does GIMP try to impose
this you will work with xcf or die dictate?
Because it has always been an XCF editor, not an anything else editor.
Being able to modify images loaded from
David Gowers wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:09 AM, gg g...@catking.net wrote:
there is a problem with this new attitude. Why does GIMP try to impose
this you will work with xcf or die dictate?
Because it has always been an XCF editor, not an anything else editor.
Being able to
gg (g...@catking.net) wrote (in part) (on 2009-03-08 at 20:55):
Sounds good. If exporting to original name with original options is
readily accessible from a top level menu without having to retype the
name that would be pretty good.
I am concerned about whether this would require you
Sven wrote:
Let's have a look at the capabilities that the save plug-ins announce:
thanks for this overview, good for reference.
I saw yesterday how these questions get combined in one dialog.
that is a good thing.
now that with the new spec the Export part is explicit,
I want to make one
Sven wrote:
PS: In your particular workflow, basically you are already doing the
export conversion yourself. What's breaking your workflow is the
fact that Copy visible as new image introduces an alpha channel.
To improve your workflow we should have a look at that and try to
I know this thread is already getting long, but I'd prefer to see
Export behave similar to:
1. Create a new, multilayer XCF
2. File-Export
3. Name it something.png, click Next
4. Set options, click Save
At no point do I want to be nagged about layers, masks, or anything
else. If there were a
Liam wrote:
I had a careful look at this:
My own workflow for www.fromoldbooks.org tends to be,
1. scan image with xsane plugin
2. crop if needed
3. save as 306-svens-ankles-raw.png
4. either quit after doing several of these, or continue with one...
5. use levels, curves, rotate, flatten,
Rob Antonishen wrote:
Read this with intrest (as a user) what is the intrinsic difference
between save a copy and save as? I am assuming the working document
changes in the save as case to the new saved as file. In the save a
copy case I assume the working doment is unchanged.
yes it works
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 11:50 +0200, Alexia Death wrote:
Does this mean that the annoying pop-up asking If I want to export
will go away if I choose export?
The dialog does not really ask you if you want to export. It informs you
that the image can't be saved because the format you have
Quoting peter sikking pe...@mmiworks.net:
we have discussed this intensely before, the ambiguity of what you
really
got in your document window after opening--or saving to--a non-GIMP-type
image (e.g. jpeg, png).
:
:
So here is a short spec:
On Friday 06 March 2009, Sven Neumann wrote:
So we probably need to add specific actions to save a layer, a
channel or a layer mask.
If that (plus to save all of a kind, e.g. all layers) could go into the
generic save dialog, we would have another 10% questions less on irc :)
Daniel
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 07:33 -0500,
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote:
I also think that it must be possible to export to GIMP file types.
This is necessary so that more than one version of GIMP data files can
be supported. (ie, GIMP 4.0 might still need to create GIMP 2.x
Sven wrote:
Alexia wrote:
Does this mean that the annoying pop-up asking If I want to export
will go away if I choose export?
The dialog does not really ask you if you want to export. It informs
you
that the image can't be saved because the format you have chosen can
not
handle some
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 14:17 +0100, peter sikking wrote:
right. one thing I have no overview of is how many ‘topics’
there are for which there are dialogs. Up to now I have seen
layers, transparency, bit-depths.
Let's have a look at the capabilities that the save plug-ins announce:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Sven Neumann s...@gimp.org wrote:
This results in a variety of possible dialogs:
And? If I save to a format it can be assumed that I know its limitations.
Being warned once about the information loss is good enough. Mind, gimp does
not even do that right now.
great this gets tracked down.
One minor suggestion, a simple renaming:
Export...= Export as...
Save back= Export
this way, 'Export' resembles 'Save' as a one-click-action
and 'Export as...' parallels 'Save as'.
Additionally, the association between 'Save' and safe is kept
oops, just recognized i'm replicating a previous post, sorry
yahvuu schrieb:
One minor suggestion, a simple renaming:
Export...= Export as...
Save back= Export
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
yahvuu wrote:
One minor suggestion, a simple renaming:
Export...= Export as...
Save back= Export
this way, 'Export' resembles 'Save' as a one-click-action
and 'Export as...' parallels 'Save as'.
That sounds good to me. Save back would be something I've never seen in any
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Sven Neumann s...@gimp.org wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 17:37 +0200, Alexia Death wrote:
And? If I save to a format it can be assumed that I know its
limitations. Being warned once about the information loss is good
enough.
That is not what GIMP is
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 18:03 +0200, Alexia Death wrote:
Why would I convert it beforehand? Why would a user need to do a bunch
of actions that serve no purpose, are mostly 100% automatic and even
hinder when I want to follow the export action up with a native save?
Because they are not
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 17:24 +0100, Jon Senior wrote:
Just to present the opposing case.
My workflow is:
1) Open raw image via the ufraw plugin.
2) Retouch as necessary, saving as xcf file.
3) Copy visible as new image
4) Resize new image for print or web + sharpen as neccessary.
5)
Apologies. I think I hit reply, not reply-all.
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:40:36 +0100
Sven Neumann s...@gimp.org wrote:
Sure, we all just want the computer do do what we want, without being
asked. But unfortunately mind-reading devices are not yet available. So
the only thing we can do is to ask
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 17:40 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
[...]
I am all for improving this situation. But so far no one has come up
with a good idea how this could be done. We can't just guess what the
user might want to do.
We could do better than today. E.g. export to tiff should be probably
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 23:36:52 +0100
peter sikking pe...@mmiworks.net wrote:
Hi all,
we have discussed this intensely before, the ambiguity of what you
really
got in your document window after opening--or saving to--a non-GIMP-type
image (e.g. jpeg, png).
The discussion returned on the
69 matches
Mail list logo