On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:45:56PM +0000, "Adam D. Moss" <adam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> it's quite equivalent to letting the user take the saturation
> knob down to zero and then coming back later, turning up
> the saturation again and wondering where the original colours
To just throw in another personal opinion: The behaviour you describe
wrt. saturation would be hilarious. It's even implemented that way in
current gimp _until_ you say "OK". After which you have to
(comparatively) clumsily have to re-adjust it.
Being able to change the saturation later by moving it up again would be
rather desirable, even if it will not likely to be done that way for the
next decade or so.
However, the "layer effects" people want is (in my eyes) exactly that:
apply some saturation effect to a layer that you can later change
without loss of fidelity.
> mask. The solution to just about all the 'I want my RGB data
> preserved orthogonally to the alpha in my file!' objections is to
Orthoginality is a different argument (and can be rather valid, too).
Tools in the current gimp don't work like alpha behaves. If you press
OK, the old image is gone.
While I sometimes find the erase tool conceptually difficult to use
(maybe because it's so unusual), the question is wether this is just a
weird added feature (as most people including me _seem_ to view it), or
something that hinders people.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
