Hi, On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 20:59 -0500, Rob Antonishen wrote: > That might not have been the best example. > > A guess a more useful example would be that after building a > complicated selection to isolate a portion of an image (say the sky) > the user wants to save that selection, then modify the entire image > (say gamma correction, or colour balance, even desaturate) then load > up the original selection quickly to perform another action on it. > > I guess it is a question on that the point of the channels is. Most > people I know who actually use them, use them as "named selections" > that they can work with later. Very few that I know actually perform > any editing on them directly, partially because, as David pointed out, > directly editing channels is awkward and confusing, and using > quickmask is much easier. As I said already, I agree with you in all points and I am all for changing this. But I wanted you to provide a better workflow example to persuade the UI team to give OK for this change. Peter, what do you think? Sven _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
