Re: [Gimp-user] ?? Status of remembering Layers setting for Canvas Resizing -- in most recent version
Hi, Jay Smith wrote: Image Canvas Size in the Set Image Canvas Size dialog in the Layers section at the bottom there are five different possible settings, including None, All Layers, etc. etc. In Gimp 2.6.6 (Ubuntu Linux 8.04) this defaults to None and ALWAYS remains none EVERY time I go to the dialog, even if I had it changed to something else on this image or a previous image. I believe that this setting should be remembered a) during the session of editing an image; b) during all sessions editing all images; and c) between sessions of shutting down and restarting Gimp. [..] It seems to me that there are quite a few of these situations in Gimp. I know it is a big PITA, but eventually, I think they should all get remembered as the last-used state *where appropriate*. I fully realize that it is *not appropriate* to remember last used state in all situations. Is there an organized checklist of all this stuff that we could work through? Another point of view: Each of these dialog options points at a potential interaction problem. If the dialog remembers an option, the user also has to remember that option. In general, this amounts to additional cognitive burden to keep the mental model in sync with the application state. In consequence, each of these settings is worth beeing questioned and every potential solution to get rid of such an option is worth a posting on the brainstorm. For example, the Image-Canvas Size |resize layers| option, with which you started this thread, can be obliterated by automatic layer size management. regards, peter ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] ?? Status of remembering Layers setting for Canvas Resizing -- in most recent version
2010/3/10 yahvuu yah...@gmail.com: Hi, Jay Smith wrote: I believe that this setting should be remembered a) during the session of editing an image; b) during all sessions editing all images; and c) between sessions of shutting down and restarting Gimp. It seems to me that there are quite a few of these situations in Gimp. Another point of view: Each of these dialog options points at a potential interaction problem. If the dialog remembers an option, the user also has to remember that option. In general, this amounts to additional cognitive burden to keep the mental model in sync with the application state. Hi yahvuu Hmm I don't understand, how would there be additional cognitive burden on users if a dialog remembers a setting across invocations? Or do you mean that the setting itself is additional cognitive burden? If so, then I agree. The more options we can get rid of, the better. BR, Martin ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Removing Matte Texture
I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the scanner. You can see them at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318...@n04/ Img137 is a sample of matte finish processing that even with Gaussian Blur and Unsharpening can't remove the texture look. Img138 is an example of portrait texture that I'm having problems removing/minimizing. Thanks again. Sandi Could you show us an example of what you get? -- Sandi P. (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Removing Matte Texture
On 03/10/2010 08:48 AM, Sandi P. wrote: I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the scanner. You can see them at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318...@n04/ Img137 is a sample of matte finish processing that even with Gaussian Blur and Unsharpening can't remove the texture look. Img138 is an example of portrait texture that I'm having problems removing/minimizing. Thanks again. Sandi Could you show us an example of what you get? Sandi, On Img137 (four people), is the shadow behind the people, especially their heads, in the actual photograph or is that an artifact of scanning? If the latter, then there is some other problem. However, I am impressed that they look as good as they do. My wife just scanned a couple hundred pictures of the same era as yours on all sorts of photographic papers, including matte and textured. Your results are in the 97% percentile as far as I am concerned. When you start with crap -- which most old family photos are -- you can't really improve upon them much. You may be able to minimize further degradation, but you can't create quality where it does not exist. Jay ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Bug in the Gradient tool ?
it happen to me with gimp 2.8 on win XP, Not sure if may be replicated in other OS, before report as a bug i would like to be sure 1)start gimp, change the default gradient with something other you may see in the toolbox the new gradient as the active gradient 2) click on the blend tool In its dialog you will see that ignore the change, if you use it it will draw with the default gradient 3) only way to change it is from the blend tool dialog change again the gradient In a fewer words the change of gradient if done trough the toolbox widget seems ignored, even if apparently the change is accepted Only from the Blend tool dialog seems possible change the gradient That become a problem not only when directly using the blend tool (where at least the problem is visible so easier to correct) but also using filters as Gradient Map ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Removing Matte Texture
Jay Smith j...@jaysmith.com wrote: On 03/10/2010 08:48 AM, Sandi P. wrote: I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the scanner. You can see them at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318...@n04/ Img137 is a sample of matte finish processing that even with Gaussian Blur and Unsharpening can't remove the texture look. Img138 is an example of portrait texture that I'm having problems removing/minimizing. Thanks again. Sandi Could you show us an example of what you get? Sandi, On Img137 (four people), is the shadow behind the people, especially their heads, in the actual photograph or is that an artifact of scanning? If the latter, then there is some other problem. However, I am impressed that they look as good as they do. My wife just scanned a couple hundred pictures of the same era as yours on all sorts of photographic papers, including matte and textured. Your results are in the 97% percentile as far as I am concerned. When you start with crap -- which most old family photos are -- you can't really improve upon them much. You may be able to minimize further degradation, but you can't create quality where it does not exist. Moreover, the samples here are so small that it is impossible to really appreciate the quality and do anything useful. You should scan at 300dpi at the very least. -- Olivier Lecarme ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Removing Matte Texture
On 03/10/2010 08:48 AM, Sandi P. wrote: I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the scanner. You can see them at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318...@n04/ snip Moreover, the samples here are so small that it is impossible to really appreciate the quality and do anything useful. You should scan at 300dpi at the very least. I agree with the comments and would add that if you really want to achieve the best possible than scan at 600dpi and take it from there. Norman ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Removing Matte Texture
On 10/03/2010 12:02 PM, Norman Silverstone wrote: On 03/10/2010 08:48 AM, Sandi P. wrote: I appreciate you having a look at these. They are unedited, right from the scanner. You can see them at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37318...@n04/ snip Moreover, the samples here are so small that it is impossible to really appreciate the quality and do anything useful. You should scan at 300dpi at the very least. I agree with the comments and would add that if you really want to achieve the best possible than scan at 600dpi and take it from there. Norman ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user I had the same problem as you, scanning more than a thousand family photos and doing some restoration on each of them. When dealing with photos that were on a textured paper, and I had a lot, I used a plugin called 'GREYCstoration' to remove the texture. It is a complicated plugin and I had to do a lot of experimentation to produce acceptable results. But two details that I do remember at this time was to scan at high enough resolution so the texture is well defined, I recall 450 dpi in my case and do not use an unsharp mask until the texture is removed. The plugin has been part of and superseded by G'MIC from the same people and can be obtained at http://gmic.sourceforge.net/gimp.shtml Look in the enhancement section Good Luck Lawrence ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] ?? Status of remembering Layers setting for Canvas Resizing -- in most recent version
Martin Nordholts wrote: 2010/3/10 yahvuu yah...@gmail.com: Each of these dialog options points at a potential interaction problem. If the dialog remembers an option, the user also has to remember that option. In general, this amounts to additional cognitive burden to keep the mental model in sync with the application state. Hmm I don't understand, how would there be additional cognitive burden on users if a dialog remembers a setting across invocations? You are right, that was an invalid generalisation. I was thinking of the 'New Layer' dialog where the 'fill' option tends to get in the way. (If i leave that option to a fixed value -- like a prefs item -- there's no problem, i can just hit enter to create the new layer. If i, however, do change this value, i'd better remember this the next time i create a new layer.) The more options we can get rid of, the better. yep, that's what i was after regards, peter ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] ?? Status of remembering Layers setting for Canvas Resizing -- in most recent version
On 03/10/2010 03:27 PM, yahvuu wrote: Martin Nordholts wrote: 2010/3/10 yahvuu yah...@gmail.com: Each of these dialog options points at a potential interaction problem. If the dialog remembers an option, the user also has to remember that option. In general, this amounts to additional cognitive burden to keep the mental model in sync with the application state. Hmm I don't understand, how would there be additional cognitive burden on users if a dialog remembers a setting across invocations? You are right, that was an invalid generalisation. I was thinking of the 'New Layer' dialog where the 'fill' option tends to get in the way. (If i leave that option to a fixed value -- like a prefs item -- there's no problem, i can just hit enter to create the new layer. If i, however, do change this value, i'd better remember this the next time i create a new layer.) The more options we can get rid of, the better. yep, that's what i was after regards, peter I am not convinced that the 'New Layer' example given presents a better situation as described. In my mind, what is being overlooked is that there IS always a state (setting value). The question is a) whether the program always forces the state back to some constant or b) whether the program remembers what the user last set it to. I think there is more cognitive burden _and_ real physical burden in having to always know that the program will always force a setting to a certain value and that the user might always have to change that value. In the 'New Layer' example given, if I am doing a certain repetitive task, it is *highly* likely that I will want the new layer to have the same fill every time I do that function. There is a significant burden in having to change this setting _every_ time. (And to make it worse, some of these settings are not so easily accessible via keyboard, thus wrecking my shoulder from mousing too much.) So, which is better: a) Knowing that the program will always force a default value and having to change it much of the time (in my case for Canvas Resizing, ALL the time). b) Knowing that the user is responsible to paying attention to what the value says when they get to the dialog and if it is correct for the task (which it will then be, once the user has set it, until later changed by the user). There is another option, but a bit more complicated: 1) Make the force to a default vs use last setting a configurable preference. AND 2) Make the value of the default a configurable preference. Jay ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bug in the Gradient tool ?
Quoting Alchemie foto\grafiche fotocom...@yahoo.it: it happen to me with gimp 2.8 on win XP, There is no GIMP 2.8; perhaps you mean 2.6.8? 1)start gimp, change the default gradient with something other you may see in the toolbox the new gradient as the active gradient 2) click on the blend tool In its dialog you will see that ignore the change, if you use it it will draw with the default gradient 3) only way to change it is from the blend tool dialog change again the gradient In a fewer words the change of gradient if done trough the toolbox widget seems ignored, even if apparently the change is accepted Only from the Blend tool dialog seems possible change the gradient Check your Preferences. On the Tool Options page make sure that the Gradients box is checked under Paint Options Shared Between Tools. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] ?? Status of remembering Layers setting for Canvas Resizing -- in most recent version
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 21:18 -0500, Frank Gore wrote: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:12 PM, David Gowers 00a...@gmail.com wrote: +1 on this; It jars me momentarily every time I open this dialog and the setting is stuck to None instead of what I last selected. What's unfortunate is that most of the tools in the toolbox have the ability to have their default settings changed, but many of the dialogs do not. It would be nice if the Save tool options on exit feature from the preferences could be expanded to the dialogs too. But where does it stop? I often wish my filters remembered their settings, but I'm pretty sure that's beyond the control of the developers. Not really. It's on the TODO for quite a while already. But it's quite a big task and it might take years before it gets enough priority that someone actually sits down and attacks it. Of course if it bothers you so much, you might want to be the one who fixes it... Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
