3 ms·

I'm not even sure the first hack at this will remotely approach the full potential of non-destructive editing: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/9244

I'm not even sure the first hack at this will remotely approach the full potential of non-destructive editing: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/9244 https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/9244

bemusedthrow75 3y ago
Part of the problem GIMP has is that they chase perfect ideas at the expense of good ones. Adobe don't. The Adobe codebase is cruft that has taken a similarly long time to shake out. Lightroom was seemingly built like a skunkworks project almost like a desktop webapp (scripting around a core renderer, SQLite, simpler mode-oriented GUI) to avoid the intransigence and friction of Photoshop's codebase. But this is what GIMP is up against. Cruft that earns money, that is driving not just what users want but how they think about what they want. For GIMP to be more successful it doesn't need live non-global filters like blurs, but it would have been enormously beneficial to the project if it had global adjustment layers, say, 15 years ago. Then youtube would have been filled with tutorials, there would have been momentum around the project, some commercial support interest, etc. Kicking the can down the road has consequences. This great Ondsel blog article about how difficult it is to merge major changes into an open source project goes into it in some detail: https://ondsel.com/blog/freecad-topological-naming/ https://ondsel.com/blog/freecad-topological-naming/ Some decisions need to be taken at the right time; if you don't, you need a whole separate kind of energy to get them done without stopping everyone else. (The successful Affinity suite is a result of taking some right decisions back in 2010 or 2011)
bemusedthrow75 3y ago
Also here it is -- a moment of can-kicking in action, from that thread: > Hey! I also think Adjustment Layers are really important for GIMP. However, Layer Effects will be simpler to start with since they only affect one layer.
- CmykStudent 3y ago
  As the person who said that, I don't 100% disagree - but also, I was just starting to look into non-destructive editing and had no idea of the scope. Since I didn't want to impact the much bigger kicked-can of GIMP 3.0, I thought having some form of NDE would be better than none at all - your "good solution" rather than "perfect solution". (Also, it's not just non-destructive blur. All the color tools like Color Balance, Hue-Saturation, Levels, Brightness-Contrast, etc are internally GEGL filters and thus are now non-destructive. It's still early but we've already gotten positive feedback from users on how it's improved their workflow, or at least made it "less bad") The good news is that now that we've worked on NDE, I have much better idea of how adjustment layers could be implemented and hope to implement those (or at least an intermediate step of adjustment layer groups) for 3.0.2. From other people's comments, it seems like that's the next really useful feature to have. :)

bemusedthrow75 3y ago

Part of the problem GIMP has is that they chase perfect ideas at the expense of good ones. Adobe don't. The Adobe codebase is cruft that has taken a similarly long time to shake out. Lightroom was seemingly built like a skunkworks project almost like a desktop webapp (scripting around a core renderer, SQLite, simpler mode-oriented GUI) to avoid the intransigence and friction of Photoshop's codebase. But this is what GIMP is up against. Cruft that earns money, that is driving not just what users want but how they think about what they want. For GIMP to be more successful it doesn't need live non-global filters like blurs, but it would have been enormously beneficial to the project if it had global adjustment layers, say, 15 years ago. Then youtube would have been filled with tutorials, there would have been momentum around the project, some commercial support interest, etc. Kicking the can down the road has consequences. This great Ondsel blog article about how difficult it is to merge major changes into an open source project goes into it in some detail: https://ondsel.com/blog/freecad-topological-naming/ https://ondsel.com/blog/freecad-topological-naming/ Some decisions need to be taken at the right time; if you don't, you need a whole separate kind of energy to get them done without stopping everyone else. (The successful Affinity suite is a result of taking some right decisions back in 2010 or 2011)

bemusedthrow75 3y ago

Also here it is -- a moment of can-kicking in action, from that thread: > Hey! I also think Adjustment Layers are really important for GIMP. However, Layer Effects will be simpler to start with since they only affect one layer.

CmykStudent 3y ago
As the person who said that, I don't 100% disagree - but also, I was just starting to look into non-destructive editing and had no idea of the scope. Since I didn't want to impact the much bigger kicked-can of GIMP 3.0, I thought having some form of NDE would be better than none at all - your "good solution" rather than "perfect solution". (Also, it's not just non-destructive blur. All the color tools like Color Balance, Hue-Saturation, Levels, Brightness-Contrast, etc are internally GEGL filters and thus are now non-destructive. It's still early but we've already gotten positive feedback from users on how it's improved their workflow, or at least made it "less bad") The good news is that now that we've worked on NDE, I have much better idea of how adjustment layers could be implemented and hope to implement those (or at least an intermediate step of adjustment layer groups) for 3.0.2. From other people's comments, it seems like that's the next really useful feature to have. :)