On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 14:10 +0800, Steven Woody wrote:

in Photoshop, there is a tool 'adjustment layer', what's the equivalent in Gimp? thanks.

Hi.
There isn't an interface to have non-destructive adjustment layers as found in Photoshop.

You can work around this in many situations however. If you want to boost saturation without losing the original image, duplicate the layer, saturate the topmost and then use the opacity slider to control the amount. If you want to bring up the shadows, do a similar process, setting the layer mode to addition, etc. You have to be more specific in what you are trying to achieve.

cheers

On Monday 08 January 2007 23:10, Steven Woody wrote:

in Photoshop, there is a tool 'adjustment layer', what's the equivalent in Gimp? thanks.

GIMP doesn't have any equivalent. I believe it's in the plan for future releases. I know the new graphics engine will make adjustment layers very simple to implement, so I wouldn't expect to see them implemented before the new engine goes in, and I would expect them to be implemented very soon after.

For now, you just have to make the adjustments directly on your image layer. I usually copy the image layer before applying an adjustment to it, in case I decide to remove the adjustment.

Shawn

Steven Woody wrote:

On 1/9/07, Shawn Willden wrote:

On Monday 08 January 2007 23:10, Steven Woody wrote:

in Photoshop, there is a tool 'adjustment layer', what's the equivalent in Gimp? thanks.

GIMP doesn't have any equivalent. I believe it's in the plan for future releases. I know the new graphics engine will make adjustment layers very simple to implement, so I wouldn't expect to see them implemented before the new engine goes in, and I would expect them to be implemented very soon after.

For now, you just have to make the adjustments directly on your image layer. I usually copy the image layer before applying an adjustment to it, in case I decide to remove the adjustment.

Shawn _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

thanks for all the information, but i still expect the adjustment layer to be available in the future releases. anyway, adjustment layer is not wholly in function equal to duplicate a layer.

So, if you 'expect' this functionality in a future release, when do you plan to implement it? :)

Geoffrey -

On 1/9/07, lists wrote:

Steven Woody wrote:

thanks for all the information, but i still expect the adjustment layer to be available in the future releases. anyway, adjustment layer is not wholly in function equal to duplicate a layer.

So, if you 'expect' this functionality in a future release, when do you plan to implement it? :)

Ah, but it is nice to have the talents of a skilled comedian on this list. :-)

Adjustment layers have to be in a future implementation of Gimp if we expect the tool to remain in any way competitive. Both Krita and Pixel, which have not been around for as long as the Gimp, support this feature already!

I've read here that people are trying to hobble along with the duplicate/modify image technique, which I am forced of course to use as well. There are some severe problems with this: 1) When I pull the 10 mp images from my camera and try to make a composition, having several faux adjustment layers means consuming ginormous amounts of memory.
2) After altering a specific layer, I cannot go back and see/alter what I've done. My only recourse is to either delete the layer and add another or to hope that I can undo back to the point that I need. 3) Hand in hand with #1, my Gimp files become painfully large. I do not own a computer for the sole purpose of supporting the Gimp!

Is there no way that the Gimp can leverage some of the work already done by the Krita folks? I'm afraid that if Krita/digiKam was to become integrated in the future, much of the need for the Gimp would simply go away.

Best regards,

Steve

--

On 1/10/07, Brendan wrote:

Adjustment layers have to be in a future implementation of Gimp if we expect the tool to remain in any way competitive. Both Krita and

You must be new. The devs running this list do not care about moving the Gimp forward to compete or about hearing new ideas. Give up now.

I am new, but I was aware of this before joining the list. Still, I am passionate about the Gimp, and its raw potential leaves me optimistic enough to think that with enough people requesting features, someone might decide to make them priorities.

If you check the
archives, many interesting ideas have been proposed. Best idea is to just submit code and code them out of existence.

Were that I had the time!

I guess for now the best option open to me is to use the Gimp until other tools become a little more mature.

Best regards as always,

Steve

--

Steve Thompson (thompson4822@gmail.com) wrote:

Still, I am passionate about the Gimp, and its raw potential leaves me optimistic enough to think that with enough people requesting features, someone might decide to make them priorities.

Please also consider, that the GIMP project is not as big as it might seem to you (have a look at the number of people actively committing in the recent time, read the ChangeLog). The number of contributors in the AUTHORS file is misleading, since these are the people accumulated in more than 10 years of time.

There are a lot of interesting problems in the GIMPs codebase and we can only program on the GIMP when we have an interest in the problems to solve. Users requesting features usually don't make these features more interesting, hence the "we don't program for market share" stance.

Producing a wild hack to satisfy the immediate need of some users for adjustment layers is more disgusting than interesting.

In contrast an interesting problem is e.g. to substitute the internal pixel representation with a more flexible and powerful system. Incidentially this will result in adjustment layers for free.

Oh, there is someone working on it: http://www.gegl.org/ ;)

Bye, Simon

Steve Thompson wrote:

Adjustment layers have to be in a future implementation of Gimp if we expect the tool to remain in any way competitive.

Okay, Steve. Your reality check just bounced. Maybe you're unclear on the word "volunteer" and how most FOSS works. It's generally just a bunch of people (or sometimes just one or two) that find a problem interesting to solve; either as a solution or because they have an abstract interest in solving that class of problems, and they think they can do it "better" in some way than existing solutions.

Telling them their work isn't competitive is probably not a way to involve them in your request.

Both Krita and
Pixel, which have not been around for as long as the Gimp, support this feature already!

I haven't played with pixel. Krita has some interesting concepts, but as of 1.5.2, it's got a long ways to go before I'd be willing to swap out GIMP for it.

1) When I pull the 10 mp images from my camera and try to make a composition, having several faux adjustment layers means consuming ginormous amounts of memory.

Welcome to the world of digital photo processing. My 6x7 and 4x5 scans are an order of magnitude bigger yet. There is light at the end of this tunnel, but it depends on the people I alluded to above. see GEGL. As it happens, I was using cine-gimp for the 16 bit color channels, but the large scan sizes kept blowing it up.

2) After altering a specific layer, I cannot go back and see/alter what I've done. My only recourse is to either delete the layer and add another or to hope that I can undo back to the point that I need.

okay

3) Hand in hand with #1, my Gimp files become painfully large. I do not own a computer for the sole purpose of supporting the Gimp!

Well, when you're doing serious digital photo processing, yes you do. The demands on display, cpu, memory and storage are probably only exceeded by CG animation artists (actually, movie frames are not that high rez). Take a look at what the suggested requirements for PS CS2 are.

Is there no way that the Gimp can leverage some of the work already done by the Krita folks?

One of the devo's would have to answer this, but I'd suspect mostly no.

I'm afraid that if Krita/digiKam was to

become integrated in the future, much of the need for the Gimp would simply go away.

The purpose of digiKam, Adobe Bridge, Aperture (as I understand it), F-Spot and their ilk is to organize collections of photos and perform basic alterations. GIMP has never tried to be that. From a work flow perspective, it probably makes more sense to go the other way (browser to editor). If you're working with a large volume of images like your typical wedding shooter, you blast the whole collection with your standard tweaks (exposure comp, WB, unsharp mask and noise suppression), then go back and cull/fine tune with an image editor the keepers that need it. You might be interested in blueMarine.

jim

On 1/11/07, jim wrote:

Steve Thompson wrote:

Adjustment layers have to be in a future implementation of Gimp if we expect the tool to remain in any way competitive.

Okay, Steve. Your reality check just bounced. Maybe you're unclear on the word "volunteer" and how most FOSS works. It's generally just a bunch of people (or sometimes just one or two) that find a problem interesting to solve; either as a solution or because they have an abstract interest in solving that class of problems, and they think they can do it "better" in some way than existing solutions.

Telling them their work isn't competitive is probably not a way to involve them in your request.

Not at all. And I have been involved in creating my own "volunteer" coding projects in the past, so I know exactly what it is of which I speak. Coding is much like conceiving and raising a child. We even like to say that our projects are our babies. What does every parent want for their children? They want them to succeed, and to do so as tremendously as possible.

I've worked most of my life in corporate programming environments, and there was nothing more disheartening than having a project cancelled when you knew the code was great, when you'd poured every damn ounce of your fiber into it, when it was what made you jump out of bed every morning. It was not uncommon for team members to fall into a depression which would usually impact the next project's timeline. Please don't talk to me again about bouncing reality checks - I know what creating a project of some scale means to the human psyche, whether you get a paycheck or not.

Now if what you are trying to articulate is that the Gimp developers just don't care about their user base and are only interested in incorporating their latest pet ideas, let me know now. This type of rudderless approach, in a project of this size, is a recipe for doom. Been there, done that, burnt the stinkin' T-shirt.

Both Krita and
Pixel, which have not been around for as long as the Gimp, support this feature already!

I haven't played with pixel. Krita has some interesting concepts, but as of 1.5.2, it's got a long ways to go before I'd be willing to swap out GIMP for it.

It does have a ways to go, but it is making incredible progress. Again, were it me I would want to make my tool as successful as humanly possible, which would mean finding out those things that my user base really needed. Ideally I'd allow these users to help create a priority list, and this would define my development focus, volunteer project or no. In visiting the Gimp/Gimp Developer sites, I saw no mention of there being a roadmap that I could have a look at. If I've overlooked the obvious, please take me to task.

1) When I pull the 10 mp images from my camera and try to make a composition, having several faux adjustment layers means consuming ginormous amounts of memory.

Welcome to the world of digital photo processing. My 6x7 and 4x5 scans are an order of magnitude bigger yet. There is light at the end of this tunnel, but it depends on the people I alluded to above. see GEGL. As it happens, I was using cine-gimp for the 16 bit color channels, but the large scan sizes kept blowing it up.

GEGL is something that we've been hearing about for a very long time. Admittedly, it seems to finally be making some strides. But I have no notion of timeframe, other than sometime after 2.4. If 'someday' is the best answer anyone can apply, it is as good as meaningless.

2) After altering a specific layer, I cannot go back and see/alter what I've done. My only recourse is to either delete the layer and add another or to hope that I can undo back to the point that I need.

okay

3) Hand in hand with #1, my Gimp files become painfully large. I do not own a computer for the sole purpose of supporting the Gimp!

Well, when you're doing serious digital photo processing, yes you do. The demands on display, cpu, memory and storage are probably only exceeded by CG animation artists (actually, movie frames are not that high rez). Take a look at what the suggested requirements for PS CS2 are.

Wrong answer. Again, if I did not have to duplicate entire images over and over to simulate adjustment layers, file size would not be the unruly monster that it is. This is all about the tool, and not about whether someone is doing 'serious digital photo processing'.

Is there no way that the Gimp can leverage some of the work already done by the Krita folks?

One of the devo's would have to answer this, but I'd suspect mostly no.

Is anyone looking into this? Could some sort of adapter code be written to make this happen? These are things I'd be very interested to find out, and it seems that this is the place in which to get an answer.

Both projects are open source. Again, if this was my baby (which it is in a way, as I feel quite passionate about the Gimp) I'd beg, borrow, and steal whatever I could from other developers. I would be focused like a laser on finding or developing common ground in order to please my user base if they were telling me it was of high priority to them.

I'm afraid that if Krita/digiKam was to

become integrated in the future, much of the need for the Gimp would simply go away.

The purpose of digiKam, Adobe Bridge, Aperture (as I understand it), F-Spot and their ilk is to organize collections of photos and perform basic alterations. GIMP has never tried to be that. From a work flow perspective, it probably makes more sense to go the other way (browser to editor).

This is exactly what I mean to say. If I can manage my photos and make alterations where I need (and BTW, I was amazed to see this weekend that digiKam already has some very useful things that it allows one to do without launching Krita/Gimp) and I can seamlessly invoke a full bore image editing tool where necessary, this is going to be a much more compelling solution than having the image editing tool alone. Word is that neither the digiKam or Krita folks are thinking along these lines as yet (they don't have the time), but it seems, IMHO, a natural direction for both to take.

If you're working with a large volume of images like your typical wedding shooter, you blast the whole collection with your standard tweaks (exposure comp, WB, unsharp mask and noise suppression), then go back and cull/fine tune with an image editor the keepers that need it. You might be interested in blueMarine.

Thanks for the reference, I will have a look at this.

Please don't misunderstand my position. If I didn't care about the Gimp I wouldn't be writing to this list. The fact of the matter is that the more I use the tool, the greater the investment that I have made into it, and the higher my anxiety about its future. I would love for the Gimp to be better than the rest of the competition, and I know that if it were my development project, this would be my motivation. But there doesn't appear to be a roadmap, and the general attitude I've been picking up is 'we'll get to that if we ever feel like it'. Look, adding cute tools like foreground selection is all very nice (even if it doesn't usually help speed up the selection process), but things like adjustment layers have a much greater payoff and would have done a lot to deflate the perceived Photoshop -vs- Gimp imbalance. You may be 'volunteers', but it is hard for me to believe this to mean that you don't have the desire to see your tool be as successful as it can.

Best regards,

Steve

--

Steve,

your mail clearly shows that you worked too long in corporate programming environments in order to understand how free software development works. But rest assured that we have a roadmap (guess what we are doing on our annual developer meetings) and that we care about our users. Now instead of wasting more time with this pointless discussion, why don't you do something useful with it like helping us to get 2.4 released so that we can finally start integrating GEGL with the GIMP core?

Sven

Sven -

On 1/11/07, Sven Neumann wrote:

your mail clearly shows that you worked too long in corporate programming environments in order to understand how free software development works.

Well, you got me there. Having only worked on about a half dozen open source projects, I'm just too incredibly inept to understand your development model. Thank you for the enlightenment.

But rest assured that we have a roadmap (guess what we are doing on our annual developer meetings) and that we care about our users. Now instead of wasting more time with this pointless discussion,

I guess that about says it all, right? We listen to our users, but adjustment layers is a pointless discussion.

Good luck to you and your merry band of 'volunteers'. I'll invest no more time into this list, and I will make due with your application until I can supplant it with something better. And if I can find the time, perhaps I will write some code. Unfortunately though your attitude has put me off a bit, and if I wanted to contribute it would not be to the Gimp.

Sincerest regards,

Steve

Steve Thompson (thompson4822@gmail.com) wrote:

I guess that about says it all, right? We listen to our users, but adjustment layers is a pointless discussion.

I really sometimes get the impression that my mails simply get ignored. Why is that? Are they too reasonable? Not flame-provoking enough?

To spell it out clearly: "Adjustment layers" is basically a solved problem. It won't be in 2.4 since we cannot make this depend on GEGL obviously, but it will be in there as soon as the gimp core with GEGL works, the work on that will start post-2.4. Sorry, that we cannot give a complete schedule, we are not enough people with a too uncertain amount of time to be able to spent on the GIMP.

So what is not pointless about this discussion?

And if you consider GEGL to be vaporware, I'd like to ask you to reconsider and look for the existing stuff.

Bye, Simon

Simon Budig wrote:

Steve Thompson (thompson4822@gmail.com) wrote:

I guess that about says it all, right? We listen to our users, but adjustment layers is a pointless discussion.

I really sometimes get the impression that my mails simply get ignored. Why is that? Are they too reasonable? Not flame-provoking enough?

That's the same feeling I get from the lack of reply to some of my mails.

BTW, am I the only one who did notice that the agent provocateur in this thread has neither been Steve nor Sven and that the flame war got started by a non-public mail?

HTH, Michael

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 13:46 -0700, Steve Thompson wrote:

I guess that about says it all, right? We listen to our users, but adjustment layers is a pointless discussion.

I think we have made it very clear, several times even, that adjustment layers are very hight up on our priority list. That's what makes this discussion pointless.

The non-destructive image manipulation that we are targetting with GEGL even goes far beyond adjustment layers as seen in other applications.

Sven

On Thursday 11 January 2007 13:46, Steve Thompson wrote:

I guess that about says it all, right? We listen to our users, but adjustment layers is a pointless discussion.

You're not listening.

It's pointless because adjustment layer support is already in the roadmap.

Need heard. Need understood. Approach to resolving need defined. Work toward that end in progress.

What more do you want? You want Sven and company to drop everything else they're doing in order to implement adjustment layers RIGHT NOW, integrating this new feature into an architecture that will be immediately abandoned and replaced as soon as 2.4 is out the door?

Doing what you seem to want will:

1. Delay 2.4 2. Delay the next, GEGL-based version which will... 3. Delay > 8bpc support
4. Delay CMYK support
5. Delay a whole raft of other desireable features

All so that you can have adjustment layers just a bit sooner -- maybe. Depending on the complexity of implementing adjustment layers in the current engine, it's entirely possible that you'll get your feature *LATER* than if you wait for the GEGL-based version!!!

Sheesh. Even as a corporate developer, I'd get pissed off at a manager who tried to push that kind of stupid decision on me. Why would anyone be surprised that VOLUNTEER developers would get annoyed at similar pressure from people that have no authority over them, and are unwilling to help out?

Shawn.