Re: [Gimp-user] I'm finding it hard to work with brush sizes in 2.8

2013-02-03 Thread scl
On 01.02.13 at 8:26 PM Steve Kinney wrote: On 02/01/2013 01:18 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: sizes varying between about 5 and 50 pixels, with relatively high precision. The new dialog devotes the left 5% of the slider to this range. To set the brush size precisely you can also click the number

[Gimp-user] I'm finding it hard to work with brush sizes in 2.8

2013-02-01 Thread Matthew Miller
sizes varying between about 5 and 50 pixels, with relatively high precision. The new dialog devotes the left 5% of the slider to this range. I know there was some talk about changing this slider to be logarithmic. Is there any progress on that? -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org

Re: [Gimp-user] I'm finding it hard to work with brush sizes in 2.8

2013-02-01 Thread Ville Sokk
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: sizes varying between about 5 and 50 pixels, with relatively high precision. The new dialog devotes the left 5% of the slider to this range. I know there was some talk about changing this slider to be logarithmic. Is there

Re: [Gimp-user] I'm finding it hard to work with brush sizes in 2.8

2013-02-01 Thread Steve Kinney
On 02/01/2013 01:18 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: sizes varying between about 5 and 50 pixels, with relatively high precision. The new dialog devotes the left 5% of the slider to this range. I know there was some talk about changing this slider to be logarithmic. Is there any progress on that?

Re: [Gimp-user] I'm finding it hard to work with brush sizes in 2.8

2013-02-01 Thread Gary Aitken
On 02/01/13 12:27, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 08:55:55PM +0200, Ville Sokk wrote: The new dialog devotes the left 5% of the slider to this range. I know there was some talk about changing this slider to be logarithmic. Is there any progress on that? I don't know if you