Re: [Gimp-developer] Why the endless background conversions between linear and regular sRGB TRC?

["Guillermo Espertino (Gez)" <gespertino gmail com>]

El 31/08/12 16:12, Simon Budig escribió:
> Well, it is not just about compatibility, it is also about trust of 
> our userbase.

My question is:
a) Does the existing userbase actually care about it?
b) Wouldn't doing a relevant change like that, but communicating it 
properly wouldn't be enough to avoid problems and keep users happy? (if 
such thing is possible :p)

GIMP has many users, but if you look for artists or designers using it 
for complex artwork the list is rather short, and probably that kind of 
artists will prefer linear blending because it does look better (just 
place a blurred gray circle on a magenta background in gamma and linear 
spaces and ask people which looks better, I bet no one will choose gamma).

I think it's about communication. If GIMP ditches gamma blending, but 
every time you open an old file you get a notice saying that layer modes 
appearance might change, and it is documented clearly that this change 
was made for the better, I doubt anyone will feel betrayed by developers.

And if there's a strategy to "bake" the old look into a layered or 
flattened image, then nobody will complain.
I'm asking some friends about this, and everyone seems to be fine with 
an importer that warns about the appearance chance and offers the 
alternative of baking the appearance losing some editability.
I'm not saying that asking a few friends is enough, but I'd really like 
to know how other users feel about this.

> I think it is important that we do not give the impression that we mess
> around with the users data at the whim of the developers. Some people
> probably have invested lots of time in complex artwork where it is not
> exactly clear what to do to restore the original look, especially if you
> don't know where to steer towards.

I think it's about communication. If GIMP ditches gamma blending, but 
every time you open an old file you get a notice saying that layer modes 
appearance might change, and if it is documented stating clearly that 
this change was made for the better, I doubt anyone will feel betrayed 
by developers.

It's like saying: "this is the right way to do it. Our old core didn't 
let us do it this way, but now we can. Now composites will look as they 
should, but perhaps that means that what you created with an old version 
will now look a little different".

And if there's a strategy to "bake" the old look into a layered or 
flattened image, then nobody will complain.
I'm asking some friends about this, and everyone seems to be fine with 
an importer that warns about the appearance chance and offers the 
alternative of baking the appearance losing some editability.
I'm not saying that asking a few friends is enough. I'd really like to 
know how other users feel about this.

Anyway, I wouldn't be so worried about users feeling betrayed. Users do 
that.
A lot of them felt the save/export separation as a betrayal and even 
some of them claim that they won't be using GIMP anymore because of 
that. Some people even complains about the bulky look of the new 
sliders. Some people even complains about the no-image window introduced 
in 2.6 saying the floating toolbox with a menu was better!

> Anyway, it probably is not that bad. We already discussed the
> possibility of legacy layer modes which would retain the old look but
> are basically unavailable or hidden in the layers dialog.
>
> At the same time new layer modes with the old names can be introduced.
I wonder what's the real benefit of doing such thing. Ok, old files will 
be still functional and users will be able to work with them. But at the 
same time it introduces complexity and odd behavior of the application.
For instance, a user may ask why the overlay mode works in that way in 
his old files but not with the new files. If that happens, the user will 
go to the forums, lists or IRC and ask. Somebody will have to answer why.
Somebody will have to answer why untagged 8bpc images and, say AdobeRGB 
8bpc images look different when blended.
It will also mean that some users will create new files from scratch and 
then say "I want to use the legacy-normal mode, why can't I do that?".
Keeping legacy visible will clutter the UI. Hiding it will mean more 
people asking where is it.

It sounds either like a mess or like a lot of hard work to make those 
situations co-exist, and the benefit is still only for the few guys that 
need to open an overly complicated composition made with an old GIMP to 
modify it, keeping the old look.
I'd prefer that all that effort is put on making GIMP a more powerful 
application and I bet that keeping legacy is a huge PITA for developers 
and it's far more interesting and fun to add new features and 
streamlining the application.

BTW, all this legacy stuff seems to go against the product vision. 
Making a tool for a specific audience means some compromises, and this 
is certainly a compromise that "high-end image manipulation" audience 
wouldn't mind.

 Gez