Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP useability - choosing linear vs perceptually uniform RGB

Offering another perspective on this topic, I don't personally care at all
about switching back and forth for specific operations if the results are
generally pleasing. Most people learn GIMP, PhotoShop, etc. by using the
tools and seeing what they do, then using those operations to fit their
specific workflow. For the average, or even "expert" GIMP users to know
something isn't right about an operation, they would have had to already
know the outcome from somewhere else. This is why only a very very small
subset of users are going to care. They simply didn't know there was a
difference in the first place.

However I do see the value in adding a drop-down box in the GEGL operations
where a switch would be most beneficial. You could hide them under an
"advanced settings" link at the end of each of the appropriate GEGL boxes,
which could expand to show the "everything and the kitchen sink" options
that most users will avoid like a breathmint on the sink of a public

This way, there is no restriction, and not really much extra clutter, and
if you're super explorative about the "advanced settings", you can find out
what they do and incorporate into your workflow.

I would love to see more options in the layer blending modes, as I use them
all the time. Heck, you could toss them way down at the end if needed, or
categorise them by Linear and Perceptual if you want. It doesn't matter as
long as the most commonly used ones are at the top (maybe the first three
could be a list of the last three used by the user, for example.

Failing that, why not have the toggles be a separate package that can be
installed as an addon to GIMP? This way 2.9 can be released asap, while the
toggle code for each GEGL action is being coded. Seems odd to try to fork
GIMP just for some toggles. :)

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Robert Krawitz <rlk alum mit edu> wrote:

On Sun, 03 May 2015 02:34:26 -0300, Gez wrote:
El sáb, 02-05-2015 a las 12:40 -0400, Elle Stone escribió:

Well, you might be able to answer that question. I'm not qualified.
Personally I don't use alpha channels except in the extremely rare
instance when I'm exporting a png with a transparent background for use
on a website.

See, this is exactly what I intended to discuss.
You know a lot about linear and perceptual gamma, so in your opinion
everything has to be tailored to allow you to play as you wish with
gamma. For you it is essential.
Now, you think you don't use alpha channels, so you don't care much
about the options provided. But you actually use alpha channels a lot:
every time you create a layer mask you're creating an alpha channel for
that layer, and if that alpha is associated or unassociated makes a big

I agree, but draw a very different conclusion (my conclusion is in
line with Elle's).

AFAIK, most of the time alpha channel is unassociated in GIMP, but when
you have to apply any convolution you have to "pre-multiply" it.
And what about alpha channels being linear or perceptual? Why don't you
In that case, developers chose for you, and you don't seem to feel too
bad about it.

Right.  The problem is when you're one of the people who *do* care
about it.

And believe me, when it comes to alpha channel THERE IS right and wrong,
no matter what the artist says.

Perhaps, but someone may have a reason to want a particular workflow,
even if that reason is nothing more than demonstrating what's wrong
with it.

Robert Krawitz                                     <rlk alum mit edu>

***  MIT Engineers   A Proud Tradition  ***
Member of the League for Programming Freedom  --
Project lead for Gutenprint   --

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:    gimp-developer-list gnome org
List membership:
List archives:

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]