Thanks for opening this discussion, Peter. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM, peter sikking <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > hi all, > > the reason I talked myself into the position of 'maintainer of default > resources' (is that a title like 'floor manager' at mcdonalds?) at the > LGM is that I voiced concern over how they can either enhance or > sabotage the product vision: > > <http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign#product_vision> > 1) the default resource is a 'must-have primitive' for the resource > type. > simply cannot do without it. this is analogous to that a graphics > program > 'must have' a way to draw squares, rectangles, circles, ellipses, lines. It is ironic that you made this statement, as it is the most often repeated criticism I see made about GIMP (how difficult it is to draw shapes). And this (IMOO) should be a requirement under product vision 'GIMP is a high-end application for producing icons, graphical elements of web pages and art for user interface elements;" > or > > 3) the default resource showcases the depths and sophistication of > the resource type. the stress here is on being educational and a > starting point for users to make their own deep, sophisticated > resources. I am not having high hopes for these defaults also > to be 'must-have primitive' or 'general purpose, very versatile,' > so there is not going to be a lot of them and they better be classy. Keeping a good example of GIH brushes is a necessity here, as it is one of the big features that I keep hearing PS users complain about _not_ having. Keeping the cheese factor down might be the issue. Personally, I'm a big fan of the ivy brush for this. I'd also suggest a bokeh brush might be appropriate here(?) and probably some grunge type brushes which are good for photo-manipulations. What is the status of vector brushes for 2.8? > > then here some notes for some of the resource types: > > patterns > a first look here tell me that application of the rules above will > clear out (almost) the whole section. size matters here, large > (thousands instead of 16–128 pix) patterns to avoid visible repetition. Having a small section of halftone/dither patterns would possibly be of value here. I also keep a small 50% grey pattern to quickly build dodge/burn overlay layers when photo retouching. It is faster than having to open up the colour dialog and specifying 50% grey. > > the one thing I can think of we need pronto is one or more believable > film grain patterns for photo manipulation. With resource tagging now a reality, is there any value in maintaining the .pat file type for these, or should they all be .png files with appropriate tags? > > gradients > similar big cull coming Regarding the "icon and web creation" purpose I'd suggest a number of "web 2.0" type gradients, providing gradients the complement what get chosen as default palettes. Please keep in metallic gradients. Regarding photo manipulation, I'd suggest a few cyanotype/duotone/tritone gradients that can be used with the gradient map filter. > > palettes > the websafe/visibone stuff looks really deprecated in 2010. > something like the Tango Icon Theme palette is an excellent example > of a resource the fits with the product vision (GIMP is Free Software > and a high-end application for producing icons). I realize there are restrictions on pantone colours.... but there any GPL compatible alternatives for spot colours? -Rob A> _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
