Sign up now! · Forgot password?
RSS/Atom feed identi.ca Twitter

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

29 of 32 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x anonforum@gmx.org 30 Jun 09:35
  Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Olivier 30 Jun 10:01
   Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Johannes 30 Jun 11:12
    Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Richard Gitschlag 30 Jun 14:45
     Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x John Coppens 30 Jun 15:10
      Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Alexandre Prokoudine 30 Jun 15:19
       Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x John Coppens 30 Jun 15:54
        Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Alexandre Prokoudine 30 Jun 16:01
         Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x John Coppens 30 Jun 16:24
          Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Alexandre Prokoudine 30 Jun 16:31
          Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Oon-Ee Ng 30 Jun 23:30
           Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Alexandre Prokoudine 30 Jun 23:47
           Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Steve Kinney 01 Jul 01:20
        Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Steve Kinney 30 Jun 16:11
      Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Richard Gitschlag 01 Jul 06:20
     Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Johannes 30 Jun 16:08
   Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Frank Gore 30 Jun 14:33
  Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Alexandre Prokoudine 30 Jun 14:56
  Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Raoghnailt 02 Jul 00:17
   Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Richard Gitschlag 02 Jul 14:32
    Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x pitibonom 16 Jul 16:51
     Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Alexandre Prokoudine 16 Jul 17:08
      Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Richard Gitschlag 17 Jul 12:18
Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Jernej Simončič 30 Jun 10:55
  Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x John Coppens 30 Jun 16:33
Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Francesco Scaglioni 30 Jun 21:06
  Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Daniel Smith 30 Jun 21:33
  Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Johannes 30 Jun 23:47
4FF0251B.1090706@verizon.net 01 Jul 15:57
  Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x Richard Gitschlag 01 Jul 15:56
CAABFPsCNCZL_sTkrK2qZAMA8+q... 02 Jul 00:17
CAABFPsCNCZL_sTkrK2qZAMA8+q... 02 Jul 14:32
anonforum@gmx.org
2012-06-30 09:35:59 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

These are the reasons why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to GIMP 2.6.x:

1.) The free text field in the "Open file" view has been removed, or at least I couldn't find it. A frequent use case for me is to copy a fully qualified file name (i.e. including the path) of an image and to paste it to the "open file" view of GIMP... Not possible anymore? Why? Progress IMHO is if possibilities grow, not if they disappear.

2.) I open a JPEG and I want to save(!) it as JPEG. Why is GIMP starting to domineer over the user now (like e.g. MS Windows has been doing all the time) by changing the file type to XCF and forcing the user to "export" the image (that was opened as a JPEG!) if he wants to save it as a JPEG again? Progress IMHO is if things get easier, not if they get more complicated.

3.) The calculation of the image size of JPEGs when saving in preview mode is buggy, i.e. the size is way too high (GBs instead if MBs). Of course, this is only a minor bug which will be fixed soon (if it isn't already). I just wanted to note it.

Now I am really happy with GIMP 2.6.x again.

Thank you though for GIMP! :-)

Johannes

Olivier
2012-06-30 10:01:20 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

2012/6/30 :

These are the reasons why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to GIMP 2.6.x:

1.) The free text field in the "Open file" view has been removed, or at least I couldn't find it. A frequent use case for me is to copy a fully qualified file name (i.e. including the path) of an image and to paste it to the "open file" view of GIMP... Not possible anymore? Why? Progress IMHO is if possibilities grow, not if they disappear.

Did you search the dialog? Did you see the large button "Type a file name" in the top left corner?

2.) I open a JPEG and I want to save(!) it as JPEG. Why is GIMP starting to domineer over the user now (like e.g. MS Windows has been doing all the time) by changing the file type to XCF and forcing the user to "export" the image (that was opened as a JPEG!) if he wants to save it as a JPEG again? Progress IMHO is if things get easier, not if they get more complicated.

About this point, please refer to the hundreds of mails already exchanged about the matter, and please really try the new behavior, without assuming bad thinking from the developers.

3.) The calculation of the image size of JPEGs when saving in preview mode is buggy, i.e. the size is way too high (GBs instead if MBs). Of course, this is only a minor bug which will be fixed soon (if it isn't already). I just wanted to note it.

This is a known bug, hopefully fixed very soon.

Do you really think these three points, one of them does not exist, and another one is a very small point and a known bug, are enough for not having access to the tremendous new capabilities of version 2.8?

Jernej Simončič
2012-06-30 10:55:50 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:01:20 +0200, Olivier wrote:

Did you search the dialog? Did you see the large button "Type a file name" in the top left corner?

It's not there while you're in the (totally and completely useless) Recent files view. You have to switch to some other folder first. GTK+ devs seem to have some kind of contest on how to make the file dialogs more frustrating to use.

Johannes
2012-06-30 11:12:17 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Am 30.06.2012 12:01, schrieb Olivier:

2012/6/30 :

These are the reasons why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to GIMP 2.6.x:

1.) The free text field in the "Open file" view has been removed, or at least I couldn't find it. A frequent use case for me is to copy a fully qualified file name (i.e. including the path) of an image and to paste it to the "open file" view of GIMP... Not possible anymore? Why? Progress IMHO is if possibilities grow, not if they disappear.

Did you search the dialog? Did you see the large button "Type a file name" in the top left corner?

In the German version of GIMP-2.8.0 (on Windows 7) this button is named "Suche" (search) and has a loupe icon. Maybe this is the reason why I did not find it. I did not want to search, I wanted to point directly to where the file resides. But thank you for the hint!

However, okay, there is a possibility to do this very basic use case I want, but it has become a lot more complicated, compared to GIMP 2.6.x. Please have a look (assuming I have a fully qualified file name in the clipboard):

In GIMP-2.6.x, I do: 1.Ctrl-o
2.Ctrl-v
3.Enter

In Gimp-2.8.0, I have to do: 1.Ctrl-o
2.Cursor-Left
3.Cursor-Up
4.Ctrl-v
5.Enter

Just try these key flows some times to get a feeling of how complicated it is now.

With the mouse (which is not my prefered way to do this use case, because it's a lot less efficient), there is also one click and a couple of mouse cursor inches more to do.

2.) I open a JPEG and I want to save(!) it as JPEG. Why is GIMP starting to domineer over the user now (like e.g. MS Windows has been doing all the time) by changing the file type to XCF and forcing the user to "export" the image (that was opened as a JPEG!) if he wants to save it as a JPEG again? Progress IMHO is if things get easier, not if they get more complicated.

About this point, please refer to the hundreds of mails already exchanged about the matter, and please really try the new behavior, without assuming bad thinking from the developers.

I don't want to complain, but to express my personal opinion, because I like the GIMP. Changing the file type and forcing the user into another use case just isn't my style, and it will never be.

Besides, it makes me think that GIMP assumes the user is a fool who is not aware that there will be some limitations with JPEG compared to XCF.

3.) The calculation of the image size of JPEGs when saving in preview mode is buggy, i.e. the size is way too high (GBs instead if MBs). Of course, this is only a minor bug which will be fixed soon (if it isn't already). I just wanted to note it.

This is a known bug, hopefully fixed very soon.

Do you really think these three points, one of them does not exist, and another one is a very small point and a known bug, are enough for not having access to the tremendous new capabilities of version 2.8?

The basic use cases are the most important to me, as soon as I will have a real need for the new capabilities of GIMP, I will rethink upgrading. Maybe, the opening of files will again be easier then.

Johannes

Frank Gore
2012-06-30 14:33:36 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Olivier wrote:

About this point, please refer to the hundreds of mails already exchanged about the matter, and please really try the new behavior, without assuming bad thinking from the developers.

I read all the emails about this. And I've been trying... I've spent weeks trying to get used to this new way of doing things. And yet every single day, I get nailed by it yet again. And every time I do, I scream out loud in frustration. It's the single-most aggravating new "feature" of Gimp. I despise it to no end. That one feature is almost enough to make me want to downgrade to Gimp 2.6, just as many others have done. A few more screams, and I just might.

-- Frank Gore
THE place to talk photography!
www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com

Richard Gitschlag
2012-06-30 14:45:13 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

2.) I open a JPEG and I want to save(!) it as JPEG. Why is GIMP starting to domineer over the user now (like e.g. MS Windows has been doing all the time) by changing the file type to XCF and forcing the user to "export" the image (that was opened as a JPEG!) if he wants to save it as a JPEG again? Progress IMHO is if things get easier, not if they get more complicated.

About this point, please refer to the hundreds of mails already exchanged about the matter, and please really try the new behavior, without assuming bad thinking from the developers.

I don't want to complain, but to express my personal opinion, because I like the GIMP. Changing the file type and forcing the user into another use case just isn't my style, and it will never be.

Besides, it makes me think that GIMP assumes the user is a fool who is not aware that there will be some limitations with JPEG compared to XCF.

The decision to split XCF from standard file formats during saving operations was not arbitrary. It just wasn't given enough public exposure before release, and this is the aftermath of mishandling the all-important PR side of things. There have been hundreds of emails on this topic already - and mind the fact that most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the subject.

The problem with 2.6 was when people were working on multi-layer compositions and they save a copy in a standard file format (and I am not going to argue semantics of the word "save" here) ... if you used "Save a Copy" then everything was fine, but I guess a lot of people just used "Save As..." with a different file extension, result being that GIMP does not ask to save changes back to their XCF file (since after a 2.6 Save As, the open document is not guaranteed to be associated with an XCF file on disk) when they shut GIMP down, resulting in some very real loss of time and effort.

The Save/Export distinction is relatively easy to adjust to if you just keep telling yourself to hit Ctrl+E instead of Ctrl+S. Then you will be able to output standard file formats in no more time than 2.6 required, and with FEWER prompts and warnings than 2.6 too (remember the constant nags about losing transparency and multiple layers? Gone in 2.8.) Yes it is a very breaking change for some users, but if you take a moment to work with the new system you'll actually get things done faster.

I am not all that thrilled with the new distinction either, but for me it doesn't outweigh the other new features that 2.8 adds, one of the biggest being its new single-window mode.

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-06-30 14:56:35 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM, wrote:

These are the reasons why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to GIMP 2.6.x:

1.) The free text field in the "Open file" view has been removed, or at least I couldn't find it. A frequent use case for me is to copy a fully qualified file name (i.e. including the path) of an image and to paste it to the "open file" view of GIMP... Not possible anymore? Why? Progress IMHO is if possibilities grow, not if they disappear.

Apart from switching view you can also:

a) drag'n'drop the file to gimp's window onto the toolbar b) drag'n'drop the file onto Open file dialog

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

John Coppens
2012-06-30 15:10:32 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 07:45:13 -0700 Richard Gitschlag wrote:

There have been hundreds of emails on this topic already - and mind the fact that most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the subject.

That is just wishful thinking... Dp you have stats to prove that statement?

John

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-06-30 15:19:13 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 7:10 PM, John Coppens wrote:

There have been hundreds of emails on this topic already - and mind the fact that most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the subject.

That is just wishful thinking... Dp you have stats to prove that statement?

Stats that there have been hundreds of mails? That most people who like it have nothing much to say about it?

Do _you_ have stats that prove the opposite? :)

Because so far I've only seen people who say "Yeah, that's how it should work, makes sense" moving on and never going returning to the subject. As seen in blenderartists thread, on Google+ and in other places. I wouldn't say that amounts to having stats, but I also wouldn't say that nitpicking Richard is an idea with a bright and glorious future.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

John Coppens
2012-06-30 15:54:21 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:19:13 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

Stats that there have been hundreds of mails? That most people who like it have nothing much to say about it?

Do _you_ have stats that prove the opposite? :)

No Alexandre... This was a serious question. It's easy to say 'there is a silent majority who says...'. I can always say 'I changed this, and almost everyone is fine with it' because I don't get any feedback.

Why not do a _real_ poll on the opinion of the users re: the new 'save feature'?

John

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-06-30 16:01:32 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 7:54 PM, John Coppens wrote:

Stats that there have been hundreds of mails? That most people who like it have nothing much to say about it?

Do _you_ have stats that prove the opposite? :)

No Alexandre... This was a serious question. It's easy to say 'there is a silent majority who says...'. I can always say 'I changed this, and almost everyone is fine with it' because I don't get any feedback.

You obviously didn't understand a bit from the initial statement made by Richard.

Let's read it again:

"most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the subject."

Most of the people _who like it_, not just "most of the people".

Why not do a _real_ poll on the opinion of the users re: the new 'save feature'?

What ever for?

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Johannes
2012-06-30 16:08:41 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Am 30.06.2012 16:45, schrieb Richard Gitschlag:

The problem with 2.6 was when people were working on multi-layer compositions and they save a copy in a standard file format (and I am not going to argue semantics of the word "save" here) ... if you used "Save a Copy" then everything was fine, but I guess a lot of people just used "Save As..." with a different file extension, result being that GIMP does not ask to save changes back to their XCF file (since after a 2.6 Save As, the open document is not guaranteed to be associated with an XCF file on disk) when they shut GIMP down, resulting in some very real loss of time and effort.

This is interesting, as it puts a light on the root cause for this usability change.

I have following remarks to your theory:

* As you already stated, in GIMP 2.6.x, there is a operation named "Save a Copy" (which does not change the file format of the current image) and a different operation named "Save as..." (which changes the file format of the current image).

* If users are too dumb (sorry) to use the right operation and lose time and effort by choosing the "Save as..." operation instead of the "Save a Copy" operation for their XCF files, then it's the "Save as..." operation which should be

:* made less accessible or :* optionally hidden or
:* enriched by warnings if the chosen file type is less powerful than the current

or whatever.

- Making all the smart users ;-) suffer from the incompetence of a few other users who are not able to use the right operation (although it is there!) is like fighting fire with gasoline (or "Es ist, wie den Teufel mit dem Beelzebub auszutreiben." in German).

IMHO, this usability change remains questionable.

Steve Kinney
2012-06-30 16:11:17 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On 06/30/2012 11:54 AM, John Coppens wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:19:13 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

Why not do a _real_ poll on the opinion of the users re: the new 'save feature'?

I have not seen the new "save" function yet - I use the GIMP for daily production work and I find it advantageous to stay a little bit behind the curve on new versions: Let any stray bugs get squashed, let the community plugins catch up somewhat, and let new howto docs start to show up before switching over.

Even so, count my vote in favor of the new feature.

I do not "need" control-s to automatically save as XCF, but it happens to be consistent with the way I nearly always work with images: Build it in the editor's native format, export the finished product in the scale/format/etc. as required for publication. Vector editors, sound editors, video editors, desktop publishing packages, and even word processing programs (export to PDF for distribution) work this way.

If the new feature makes new users "think about" file formats and electronic document control early in their learning curve, so much the better. Their work will be more reliable and their file management skills will be better for it.

:o)

Steve

John Coppens
2012-06-30 16:24:29 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:01:32 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

"most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the subject."

Which means that _you_ take the liberty of assigning sentiments to people who do not express their opinion. You effectively say:

'The people who say nothing much on the subject, like it change'.

So, how do you know, if they don't say anything, that they actually _like_ it? Maybe they don't like it, but don't want to add to the 'hundreds of mails already exchanged about the matter'.

John

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-06-30 16:31:18 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 8:24 PM, John Coppens wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:01:32 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

"most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the subject."

Which means that _you_ take the liberty of assigning sentiments to people who do not express their opinion. You effectively say:

'The people who say nothing much on the subject, like it change'.

No, I don't effectively say that and I'm asking you to stop attributing things I didn't say or mean to me.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

John Coppens
2012-06-30 16:33:01 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:55:50 +0200 Jernej Simončič wrote:

Did you search the dialog? Did you see the large button "Type a file name" in the top left corner?

It's not there while you're in the (totally and completely useless) Recent files view. You have to switch to some other folder first. GTK+ devs seem to have some kind of contest on how to make the file dialogs more frustrating to use.

There is thread on the 'Recently used' 'feature' here:

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=658280

You could add your opinion there too. (It does not help complaining on the Gimp list ;)

John

Francesco Scaglioni
2012-06-30 21:06:40 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Hi,

I seem to be in a minority opinion on this list. For my workflow the new behaviour is great. Raw to GIMP, work on image for a bit, saves as xcf, come back another time, do more work on xcf and when finally happy export to jpeg. If I wanted bulk raw to jpeg then I would simply do all adjustments necessary in either rawstudio or darktable. For those "special" images a default "save to xcf" suits me absolutely fine.

Just my 2d worth.

Francesco

--- (Apologies for brevity, top posting and poor citation - this email was sent from a mobile device) ---

Daniel Smith
2012-06-30 21:33:01 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Can't we all get along?
http://abcnews.go.com/meta/search/imageDetail?format=plain&source=http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ap_obit_rodney_king_swimming_pool_jt_120617 Thanks,
Dan

On 6/30/12, Francesco Scaglioni wrote:

Hi,

I seem to be in a minority opinion on this list. For my workflow the new behaviour is great. Raw to GIMP, work on image for a bit, saves as xcf, come back another time, do more work on xcf and when finally happy export to jpeg. If I wanted bulk raw to jpeg then I would simply do all adjustments necessary in either rawstudio or darktable. For those "special" images a default "save to xcf" suits me absolutely fine.

Just my 2d worth.

Francesco

--- (Apologies for brevity, top posting and poor citation - this email was sent from a mobile device)
---
_______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Oon-Ee Ng
2012-06-30 23:30:24 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Jul 1, 2012 12:24 AM, "John Coppens" wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:01:32 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

"most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the

subject."

Which means that _you_ take the liberty of assigning sentiments to people who do not express their opinion. You effectively say:

'The people who say nothing much on the subject, like it change'.

I think it's generally acceptable to all that this particular conversion had been dominated by a relative handful of loud complainers. Besides the original thread, the other ones which keep popping up seem to indicate authors which have specifically signed up for this list to rant (since they obviously did not read the previous complaints).

It gets boring after a while, more so for devs even. Just give it a rest and stop using gimp if this is such a pain. Despite the noise, I haven't actually seen much evidence for there being a significant number affected. Not that an open source project is necessarily a democracy anyway.

So, how do you know, if they don't say anything, that they actually _like_ it? Maybe they don't like it, but don't want to add to the 'hundreds of mails already exchanged about the matter'.

Johannes
2012-06-30 23:47:23 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Am 30.06.2012 23:06, schrieb Francesco Scaglioni:

I seem to be in a minority opinion on this list. For my workflow the new behaviour is great. Raw to GIMP, work on image for a bit, saves as xcf, come back another time, do more work on xcf and when finally happy export to jpeg. If I wanted bulk raw to jpeg then I would simply do all adjustments necessary in either rawstudio or darktable. For those "special" images a default "save to xcf" suits me absolutely fine.

The question is whether your opinion is targeted at the same scenario.

Of course, if you come from RAW or XCF, then everything is fine, as you are only "forced" to stay(!) in XCF (which is the format you want in this scenario).

But, the scenario I am talking about is coming from JPEG, manipulating the image in a single GIMP session and finally saving it to JPEG again. If you are in this workflow, then getting forced to change the image format to XCF is annoying. There could at least be an option to diable this smart-alecky behaviour.

Besides, if you have just exported(!) the JPEG to a JPEG file in GIMP 2.8.0, you cannot directly close the image file afterwards. Instead, you get an (annoying) dialogue asking to save the image as a XCF.

And another one (according to the first topic of my first posting): Pasting a fully qualified file name into the "search" text field does not work reliably if the MS Windows indexing service is not enabled. This leads to an error message... That's not cool, is it?

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-06-30 23:47:40 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:

Not that an open source project is necessarily a democracy anyway.

It's a doacracy :)

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Steve Kinney
2012-07-01 01:20:40 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On 06/30/2012 07:30 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:

authors which have specifically signed up for this list to rant (since they obviously did not read the previous complaints).

I resemble that remark: I joined up to rant about the single window "innovation." I did rant. But only once. Opinion vehemently registered, end of story.

And yes, I understand that the single window configuration can be turned off easily. About as easily as control-s and control-alt-s can be mapped to "export as" instead of "save as .xcf" if memory serves... there's even a GUI interface for remapping key bindings. I personally LOVE the fact that the GIMP can be so extensively customized.

I stayed on the list and still post for several reasons:

1) To watch progress toward the big new release.

2) After the event, to follow current reports that will indicate when it is "safe" to upgrade in an occasionally intensive production environment with some high priority deadlines.

3) Because from time to time somebody asks a question I can answer, and that's my kind of fun. Not to mention learning from other people's answers, and maybe asking a few questions myself.

4) And for posts like this:

On 06/30/2012 07:47 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: It's a doacracy :)

I used to do a lot of technical and engineering work and I really miss the twistid humor, pointed barbs and all. Normal people, so called, just don't get it. Again, my kind of fun.

:o)

Steve

Richard Gitschlag
2012-07-01 06:20:54 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:10:32 -0300 From: john@jcoppens.com
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 07:45:13 -0700 Richard Gitschlag wrote:

There have been hundreds of emails on this topic already - and mind the fact that most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the subject.

That is just wishful thinking... Dp you have stats to prove that statement?

John

If I may sort my mail folder by conversation:

- "HATE the new Save vs Export behavior" - (120+ emails and apparently still counting) - "Bring back normal handing of other file formats" (60+ emails) - "GIMP 2.8.0 - saving in .jpg or .png hmmmm" (50+ emails) - "present xcf as what it is, a GIMP project file format" (45 emails) - "Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to GIMP 2.6" - (20+ emails)

Yes :)

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

Richard Gitschlag
2012-07-01 15:56:45 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:23:23 -0700 From: kwarner000@verizon.net
To: strata_ranger@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

....nor do they explain the stubbornness of the developers on this issue....

Wow, I never thought my sig might one day actually be relevant to the conversation at hand.

Any rate, developers do have a certain 'right' to be stubborn, as they're the ones personally investing their time/effort (or should we say blood, sweat, and tears) into the thing. Everyone else is just . . . talking. Talking is a free action.

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

2012-07-02 00:17:04 UTC (almost 2 years ago)
postings
1
contact
Send private message

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Why I switched back to 2.6:

Sliders- too weird for digital painting with a tablet. I would like more visual feedback perhaps, like changing the color of the actual bar, or something more obvious. Still, it's tough to quickly just do what you need. Other options: shift or ctrl drag for fine tuning, or just slow it down once it gets below a user set size.

I also really miss simple checkboxes for tablet dynamics, much quicker than a menu of presets.

Personally I love everything else, but these two things are a bigger part of mt digital painting workflow than the rest, so 2.6 is back.

Richard Gitschlag
2012-07-02 14:32:14 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 02:17:04 +0200 From: forums@gimpusers.com
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
CC: team@gimpusers.com
Subject: [Gimp-user] Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Why I switched back to 2.6:

Sliders- too weird for digital painting with a tablet. I would like more visual feedback perhaps, like changing the color of the actual bar, or something more obvious. Still, it's tough to quickly just do what you need. Other options: shift or ctrl drag for fine tuning, or just slow it down once it gets below a user set size.

I also really miss simple checkboxes for tablet dynamics, much quicker than a menu of presets.

Personally I love everything else, but these two things are a bigger part of mt digital painting workflow than the rest, so 2.6 is back.

1 - The only weird part about the sliders (to me) is how dragging along the upper half adjusts the value along the slider's whole range, while dragging along the bottom half adjusts relative to the current value. That definitely takes getting used to.

2 - Indeed, brush dynamics are not as easy to adjust in 2.8 as they were in 2.6 :( You can hit the Edit button, unfortunately now that dynamics are made into their own resource type this means you can't "just" edit them any time you want, you have to Duplicate one of them before you will have a customizable dynamics matrix. Smooth sailing once you do that, though.

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

2012-07-16 16:51:37 UTC (almost 2 years ago)
postings
13
contact
Send private message

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

I did the same, and also have 2 friends, frequent users of gimp that went back to 2.6. Though it's somewhat more unstable than 2.8, 2.6 is much more efficient, comfortable, intuitive, fast, and convenient. From my own part, what decided me to get back to 2.6 is the lame impossibility to choose page format: portrait or landscape. One day, gimp will choose it's better for my life and for the planet and for the universe to edit only red bitmaps. This day, i'll still be on the 2.6 ;-P then i dun care.
GL for your future lame choices developpers !

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-07-16 17:08:29 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:51 PM, pitibonom wrote:

From my own part, what decided me to get back to 2.6 is the lame impossibility to choose page format: portrait or landscape.

http://i.imgur.com/cb85t.jpg

GL for your future lame choices developpers !

Thx, much appreciated :)

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Richard Gitschlag
2012-07-17 12:18:08 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:08:29 +0400 From: alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:51 PM, pitibonom wrote:

> From my own part, what decided me to get back to 2.6 is the lame impossibility to choose page format: portrait or landscape.

http://i.imgur.com/cb85t.jpg

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org
_______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Bundling that under the "Print" command when nearly every other application that ever existed keeps them as separate commands may not be a good design choice here. Granted, unlike word processors GIMP generally doesn't have to deal with pagination, but it would be like ... I dunno, bundling the "Save" command as a checkbox inside the "Save As" dialog.

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.