El vie, 01-05-2015 a las 05:40 -0400, Elle Stone escribió: > This is a color managment issue. It's fundamentally important. GIMP > shouldn't make decisions like "use linear here and perceptual there", > other than to offer the user good defaults. A color management issue? You're proposing to let users do whatever they want with the trc, no matter if it's right or wrong. That's a color management issue! How do you ensure correct results when the user can change that at will on every single operation performed? And how do you plan to let users keep track of the flips they intentionally added with a UI that is sequential and doesn't expose the pixel format resulting from each operation? > > I mean, instead of putting toggles on EVERYTHING, why not adding a tool > > that says "from this point, the following operation/s will be performed > > in linear/perceptual gamma"? > > Because there is no "from this point" in RGB image editing. It is not > the case that "until point X use linear RGB" and "after point Y use > perceptual RGB" makes any sense. Yes there is. Most of the tasks performed by a user on an image are sequential, specially with a UI like GIMP's. Back when Peter Sikking was involved in GIMP UI, he proposed to implement non-destructive editing as a stack of operations. With a UI like that it would be really easy to visualize the gamma toggles I mention. They would be extra operations overriding the pixel format requested by each operation, they would be optional and added on demand by users. In a sense it's exactly the same you're asking, but implemented at a workflow level rather than plaging the UI with toogles for everything. It would be easier to visualize and follow too. > EVERYTHING NEEDS A TOGGLE. It's an > operation by operation decision. The user has a right and the *need* to > know and be able to control what's being done with the user's own RGB data. > > GIMP should NOT make such decisions behind the user's back, forcing the > user to use linear RGB in one place and perceptually uniform RGB in > another place without so much as a by your leave. GIMP can't know the > user's technical purposes. GIMP can't know the user's artistic > intentions. Right now the babl flips are a hobble, not a help. "EVERYTHING NEEDS A TOGGLE" is an all-caps overstatement. What's next? Toggles for associated or unassociated alpha on every single operation? And let's go further: If the artist wants to do something in a different color model "just because" the UI of *each tool* should reflect every possible caprice? A program should provide correct results and provide tools for some creative deviations. That's not the same than saying that the program should provide whatever results any user wants regardless if they are technically correct or not. You are proposing to add options to make operations deliberately give wrong results just because the user wants it. You want to completely take the decision of what's technically correct away from developers. If I remember correctly you criticized pippin because he wanted to do the same in the opposite end (make the program make all the decisions and assumptions, deny the users the freedom to choose). As a user, I would like to see a program that makes both the right technical choices AND allows me some flexibility. That's usually a job for a good UI, and that's why it's critical that functions are designed with both techical correctness and user interaction in mind, from day 1. Nodal interfaces allow a great degree of flexibility by keeping operations as single units that can be connected in different ways. Current GIMP's UI is sequential. One thing comes after another. Each operation (except layer blending) is sort of "modal". You do one thing at a time, and you can't go back in time without undoing what you've already done. This means that any time you run an operation on pixels you'll get a dialog with the possibilities of that tool. The more possibilities the tool has, the more controls and more cluttered interface. That's what I'm against. No sane and fast workflow can result from dialogs plagued by dozens of options. It's a problem that has to be dealt in a different way. We don't need tools that allow every different possibility. We need different tools for every possibility. The tools should remain simple and correct, and if you need to do something crazy, there should be a tool to "bend" how things work. Gez. _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
