Re: [Gimp-developer] Pencil - Tool Options and Hardness

[C R <cajhne gmail com>]

To recap:

1. I think the pencil tool should be renamed "Pixel Tool" if it's to stay
in the Tool box.
Reasons:
  A. Jaggies don't make for realistic simulated pencil marks
  B. There are better pencil-simulation tools in the Brush palate

2. I think Brush settings should be brush specific instead of tool
specific, and the brush should remember the modifications made to it
instead of the tool storing that information.
Reason: I can't think of a situation where you would want to use the
current Pencil tool, and Brush tool in tandem. If we're keeping it in the
Tool Box just to remember values between brushes, I'm not sure who it's
benefiting. :)

3. The Pencil Tool could be gotten rid of entirely if #2 is done, and an
anti-aliasing checkbox is added to the brush options.
Reasons:
  A. It extends any benefits of aliased lines and makes it available as a
mixing item to make brushes more varied and flexible.
  B. It could be represented better and more visibly as a MyPaint brush,
rather than one more thing to clutter the tool box and accidentally click
instead of the brush tool. :)
  C. It may improve first impressions of GIMP, because all modern digital
illustration programs have pencil simulators, and the natural thing to do
is click on the first pencil icon you see and start sketching. The user is
currently greeted with jaggy pixel lines that you can't make look like real
pencil marks no matter how many options you tweak. :)

4. The Pencil tool, renamed Pixel Tool, could be improved upon by keeping
the hardness value slider, and dithering the resulting gradient on soft
brushes. This would be an excellent improvement, as it would make things
like pixel shading that much easier while preserving the retro. :)

I think that's it so far. :)

Thoughts?




On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:20 AM, C R <cajhne gmail com> wrote:

> In the interests of moving on with more important things than the
> symantics of "we", I can attempt to extract the team aspect from my
> verbiage.
>
> I can say for example: "It can be done this way." or "It might be decided
> that."
> It sounds cold, and impersonal to me, but if it allows us to move forward
> with discussing GIMP UI and features, then I'll do my best.
>
> -C
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:06 AM, C R <cajhne gmail com> wrote:
>
> > So when I say "we can do this", I should say "I can do this"?
> > I do wonder if people actually read what I post. :)
> >
> > -C
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:34 AM, JLuc <jluc no-log org> wrote:
> >
> > > As for the "we"
> > > Le 22/06/2016 22:48, C R a écrit :
> > >
> > > > I admit that I don't care at all who "we" includes. Substitute with
> > > > "interested parties". I'm well aware that even great ideas might never
> > > > get
> > > > priority. There are no promises, no guarantees. Right now "we" includes
> > > > just who is here. If we are not allowed to discuss what we, might do or
> > > > might want to do in the future, then I've missed the point entirely.
> > >
> > > Just a remark.
> > >
> > > Maybe you imagine that speaking as "we" or "interested parties"
> > > gives more weight to your words.
> > > But how do you know that all the 'I' we are dont disagree with
> > > what you think 'we' think or experience ?
> > > As a gimp user's, i havent granted anybody the right to speak on my
> > > behalf !
> > >
> > > So, I appreciate when contibutors speak as 'I', not 'we',
> > > - all the more when you "dont care at all who 'we' is" -.
> > >
> > > Beside being more honest,
> > > a clear "I" testimony will sound much stronger than a twisted "we".
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > :-)
> > > JLuc
> > >
> > >
> > > On 22 Jun 2016 8:31 pm, "Tobias Ellinghaus" <houz gmx de> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 22 June 2016 18:28:45 C R wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Already answered this before. "We" is the community. The community is
> > > > > >
> > > > > made
> > > > >
> > > > > > of everyone involved in the GIMP project who can act to improve it.
> > > > > > So if
> > > > > > we as a community decide it's worth changing, then we can change it. I
> > > > > > mean, that's usually the point the point of the developer mailing
> > > > > > list,
> > > > > no?
> > > > >
> > > > > There seems to be a misunderstanding of how this software works. The
> > > > > "community" (whoever that might include) can decide whatever it wants,
> > > > > but
> > > > > this is not a democracy, so the real decision is made by others. Mostly
> > > > > mitch.
> > > > > Who seems to stay away from all the bike shedding on this list more and
> > > > > more.
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Tobias
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > gimp-developer-list mailing list
> > > > > List address:    gimp-developer-list gnome org
> > > > > List membership:
> > > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> > > > > List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > gimp-developer-list mailing list
> > > > List address:    gimp-developer-list gnome org
> > > > List membership:
> > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> > > > List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gimp-developer-list mailing list
> > > List address:    gimp-developer-list gnome org
> > > List membership:
> > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> > > List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list