Hi,

On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 19:15 -0700, Valerie wrote:

Half the current default is made up of non-editable round-ish brushes (that in my opinion makes the brush editor hard to discover, because new users end up wondering why the brush editor never works. In fact, I start each new installation of Gimp by sudo rm-ing the extra round brushes and replacing them with one editable one).

What version of GIMP are you using? We replaced all the roundish pixmap brushes with parametric ones for GIMP 2.4. The actual problem is not that the brushes would be pixmap brushes. They are just not editable because they are in the system brush folder. What needs to be done is to add code that makes system brushes editable by transparently copying them to the users folder when the user clicks the "Edit" button.

Sorry, your brush contest sounds like a nice idea. But it would not solve the problem that I tried to outline above. Also there are some more problems to solve before we can accept larger brush collections into the default set of brushes (or even into the gimp-data-extras package). One of these problems is currently being solved as part of the Google Summer of Code. GIMP 2.8 should allow you to organize your brushes using tags. But that still doesn't solve the problem that all brushes (and other resources) are read into memory on startup. See http://svenfoo.geekheim.de/index.php/2005-04-13/brushes-patterns-gradients/

Sven

Valerie wrote:
> The other half is that with brush resize in tool options now > (where everybody can see it), even "non-editable" round brushes > can be rescaled, which means the default distribution should > have not 10 round brushes, but 1 (same with fuzzy brushes > and maybe calligraphy).
I wholly agree. Those un-editable round brushes are constantly in the way. Instead having a nice set of different(square, star, calligraphy etc) parametric brushes that are editable from the start would make much more sense.

> By eliminating those and some of the rectangle brushes, you > can eliminated about 20 entries, nearly half of the current > distribution. Instead, the extra space can be replaced by > a selection of texture brushes.
Adding that many texture brushes makes little sense imho....

> Therefore, without coding, you: > - eliminate redundancy in the default distribution I suppport this one.
> - allow users to access 20 new texture brushes of various types Not entirely sure if that is needed. Texture brushes people use are very much up to individual style...
> - all of which are resizeable
Every brush is resizeable... However, there should be a quick way to "edit" a brush with single click from the tool options. an edit button that opens the brush for editing dependent on brush type. If its a bitmap brush as image, if its parametric, in editor. > - and all without increasing the number of entries in the default > distribution
Decreasing it would be better IMHO.

> Sure, you can tell users to install their own brushes, but: > - 1/3 are too lazy
Because they need nothing more than easy to use parametric brushes. > - 1/3 don't even know where to look or don't even think about it That is IMHO an issue stemming from the fact that gimp hides its resources into the hidden user directory. I believe the best thing that could be done for it is to move the GIMP user resources folder somewhere visible, like the home directory as "GIMP resouces" un *nix and uder My Documents as "My GIMP resources" in Linux.

> - the remaining 1/3 probably isn't thrilled by how the > default set is filled up with redundant brushes too Agreed.

> I also find the redundant round brushes to be especially > bothersome because whenever I Do make an editable brush, I have > to find it among all the non-editable ones, especially when I > accidentally change the name and it gets lumped with the other > round brushes.
Another point I agree to.

> At the same time, I think forcing (Linux) users > to resort to sudo just to get rid of clutter is a bit much > (most windows users likely don't know where the directory is > in the first place).
Actually both Linux and Windows users an get rid of them by deleting system brushes path from preferences but that takes ALL of them away. It might be a solution to simply do a one time copy of a resource template to the user folder at creation and leave the system wide folders empty by default. Then if a sysadmin wants to force a set of whatever resources they can, but they can also make them something that new users get by putting them into the profile template. Then user has most control over what resources are available to this user.

Hi;

Thanks for the reference Valerie. I'm Filsd. :)

I agree with you. GIMP needs a new and revised set of default Brushes.

And in my experience as a professor of "CG Art" (using only open-source: GIMP, blender...) I find many people that don't even think in GIMP as a Digital Painting program until I show then some Brushes and Results made with then. Many Digital artists I know only migrated to GIMP after using it with these sets.

Some nice examples of artists that uses GIMP with my Brushes (the two last are mine :P):

http://detaillibrary.blogspot.com/2007/09/color-concepts.html http://www.eduardodamasceno.com/
http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs17/f/2007/180/8/1/Isabella___B_and_W_by_Filsd.jpg http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs18/f/2007/159/d/8/Aryanneh_by_Filsd.jpg

My Brushes are already Creative Commons Share-Alike. So... anyone can use it already!

PS. Sorry for my poor English...

Hi,

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 00:30 -0700, Valerie wrote:

The other half is that with brush resize in tool options now (where everybody can see it), even "non-editable" round brushes can be rescaled, which means the default distribution should have not 10 round brushes, but 1 (same with fuzzy brushes and maybe calligraphy).

I strongly disagree. It is a lot more convenient to pick a brush of the right size from a list of brushes than to always scale the brush.

Also we simply can't remove the standard brushes because that would break lots of scripts. As long as there's no way to resize brushes from scripts, we have to keep the standard brushes with their names. Perhaps we can try to improve this for the 2.8 release.

The advantage of a good default is a good first-time impression, and offering greater out-of-the-box functionality to those who don't know better.

Sure, that's why we keep asking for someone to improve the collection of default brushes collection in GIMP for some years now. So far there hasn't been much interest. We also don't have a maintainer for the gimp-data-extras package.

Sven

Hi,

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:10 +0300, Alexia Death wrote:

Valerie wrote:
> The other half is that with brush resize in tool options now > (where everybody can see it), even "non-editable" round brushes > can be rescaled, which means the default distribution should > have not 10 round brushes, but 1 (same with fuzzy brushes > and maybe calligraphy).
I wholly agree. Those un-editable round brushes are constantly in the way. Instead having a nice set of different(square, star, calligraphy etc) parametric brushes that are editable from the start would make much more sense.

Note that these brushes are editable. They are just read-only because they are in the system folder. As soon as you copy them, they can be edited. Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them being available in their original size and shape.

We need to somehow find a solution for this if we want to change the default brushes. Scripts probably need a way to specify the brush size and shape that they want to use instead of using a brush name.

Sven

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 10:27:41PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:10 +0300, Alexia Death wrote:

Valerie wrote:
> The other half is that with brush resize in tool options now > (where everybody can see it), even "non-editable" round brushes > can be rescaled, which means the default distribution should > have not 10 round brushes, but 1 (same with fuzzy brushes > and maybe calligraphy).
I wholly agree. Those un-editable round brushes are constantly in the way. Instead having a nice set of different(square, star, calligraphy etc) parametric brushes that are editable from the start would make much more sense.

Note that these brushes are editable. They are just read-only because they are in the system folder. As soon as you copy them, they can be edited. Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them being available in their original size and shape.

We need to somehow find a solution for this if we want to change the default brushes. Scripts probably need a way to specify the brush size and shape that they want to use instead of using a brush name.

I've made silly suggestions before, but allow me to try again.

How about new brushes that take a parameter. Wether they are invoked with a different keyword, or just by the new name I dont' know which is easier.

Brushes like the default round ones should become aliases that are specified in a global brush-alias file.

So the systemwide, default brush-alias file specifies among others:

17circle circle(17)

so "circle" is the NEW name of the parametrized brush that has one parameter (in this case "17").

Roger.

Hi,

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 18:14 -0700, Valerie wrote:

I guess we have drastically different usages of brushes though. I NEVER use a "brush of exactly 17 pixels". In fact, a brush of "exactly 17 pixels" is pretty much useless to me. Most people go by a visual cue instead of specific values, and you can't see the exact size of the brushes in the list in the first place.

Exactly, you need a visual cue. That's why I think it's important to offer a set of differently sized brushes in the brushes list. So that people can pick a brush of about the right size. But perhaps we needd to rethink the user interface for brush selection and try to come up with a solution that works better?

Sure, that's why we keep asking for someone to improve the collection of default brushes collection in GIMP for some years now. So far there hasn't been much interest. We also don't have a maintainer for the gimp-data-extras package.

It's not going to help if you oppose every attempt to help instead of welcoming at least a step in the right direction.

In case you did not realize, this was meant as an offer for you to step up and take the job. We would very much like to ship GIMP with a better default set of brushes. We didn't manage to do that for 2.4 except for replacing the pixmap brushes with parametric ones. But we definitely need to add some nice texture brushes. I am not sure if a contest is the best way to achieve that. But I don't really care, as long as something happens.

Sven

On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 08:26:59AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 18:14 -0700, Valerie wrote:

I guess we have drastically different usages of brushes though. I NEVER use a "brush of exactly 17 pixels". In fact, a brush of "exactly 17 pixels" is pretty much useless to me. Most people go by a visual cue instead of specific values, and you can't see the exact size of the brushes in the list in the first place.

Exactly, you need a visual cue. That's why I think it's important to offer a set of differently sized brushes in the brushes list. So that people can pick a brush of about the right size. But perhaps we needd to rethink the user interface for brush selection and try to come up with a solution that works better?

I have a weird obsession. I work with images that are larger than what most other people work with.

So I don't need a 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, or 19 pixel fuzzy circle, but I need one that is around 30 pixels wide. Or 50.

So, it's nice to have the visual cue, but because there is a simple enumeration, the one I need is never there.

Roger.

Sven Neumann wrote:
> Note that these brushes are editable. They are just read-only because > they are in the system folder.
I am well aware of the technical reasons. That does not change it for the user. From user POV they are non-editable clutter that you cant even trim.

> As soon as you copy them, they can be edited. Why couldn't that copy be made for the user on profile creation?

> Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them > being available in their original size and shape. If that is the intent why does the user need to see them at all? Cant they be hidden and called "api" brushes? That would have more than one benefit.

> We need to somehow find a solution for this if we want to change the > default brushes. Scripts probably need a way to specify the brush size > and shape that they want to use instead of using a brush name. Having as set of unlisted "api" brushes would be a sane way to do that. It would also allow for 3rd party scripts that need very specific brushes that are useless for generic use to hide them.

-- Alexia

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:34 +0300, Alexia Death wrote:

As soon as you copy them, they can be edited.

Why couldn't that copy be made for the user on profile creation?

Last time we discussed this, we decided against copying all resource files to the user folder. But perhaps we need to reconsider this. There are some questions that need to be solved before we can do this though:

- How can the user resurrect brushes that she removed? - How can we make sure that scripts don't break. - Is copying really the best solution?

Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them

> being available in their original size and shape. If that is the intent why does the user need to see them at all? Cant they be hidden and called "api" brushes? That would have more than one benefit.

That's a possible solution. But I would prefer if we added API that allows scripts to set brush parameters. For backward compatibility, we could add some code that checks for standard brush names and creates the appropriate brush on the fly.

Sven

Hi,

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 23:54 -0700, Valerie wrote:

I was actually thinking along the lines of choosing from a drop down which brush you need for a script (script message: please choose a round-ish brush of about x pixels). It'd offer more possibilities for effects too (by selecting different brushes available).

Scripts can alreadz do that. But some scripts just need a fixed brush and existing scripts do that by refering to the brush by name. And so far we paid attention not to break those scripts.

Sven

Von: Valerie

Sure, that's why we keep asking for someone to improve the collection of default brushes collection in GIMP for some years now. So far there hasn't been much interest. We also don't have a maintainer for the gimp-data-extras package.

It's not going to help if you oppose every attempt to help instead of welcoming at least a step in the right direction.

It seems like "right direction" is highly subjective :)

I do not see how a brush contest is going to solve the two issues Sven has described.

Michael

Von: Valerie

Scripts can alreadz do that. But some scripts just need a fixed brush and existing scripts do that by refering to the brush by name. And so
far we paid attention not to break those scripts.

And what would be the easiest way around it? We're not going to keep all those round brushes variations around forever in the selector just because some of the scripts use them?

A solution that had been discussed in the past was to create a brush with the properties of the current brushes whenever a script asks for one of the default ones.

Michael

Sven Neumann wrote:

There are some questions that need to be solved before we can do this though:

- How can the user resurrect brushes that she removed?

"Reset default brushes" button somewhere near brushes paths in preferences that recopies them. Or the user can manually copy the ones user wants from the system wide readable profile sample.

- How can we make sure that scripts don't break.

"api" brushes that are unlisted in UI, but available by name for scripts.

- Is copying really the best solution?

Simple. IMHO yes.

Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them

> being available in their original size and shape. If that is the intent why does the user need to see them at all? Cant they be hidden and called "api" brushes? That would have more than one benefit.

That's a possible solution. But I would prefer if we added API that allows scripts to set brush parameters. For backward compatibility, we could add some code that checks for standard brush names and creates the appropriate brush on the fly.

Scripts may rely on the existence of default bitmap brushes as well as parametric ones, so allowing dynamic creation of the brush by name feels far from a generic solution, tho it would be a good feature to have. Having an "api" brushes folder would IMHO be much more cleaner and allow for script creators to make use of it.

-- Alexia

Rogier Wolff writes:

I have a weird obsession. I work with images that are larger than what most other people work with.

So I don't need a 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, or 19 pixel fuzzy circle, but I need one that is around 30 pixels wide. Or 50.

I'm not sure that's all that unusual. With cheap consumer cameras makng 6 or 8 megapixel images or even more, the standard brushes are quite small. I've been making a lot of use of the brush scaling control to make the brushes big enough to be useful on photographs.

Alexia thought 50 was surprisingly large, but remember, brushes aren't just for painting colors and fine clone jobs -- they're also useful for running dodge/burn or blur/sharpen over areas of an image, or painting areasin a layer mask or quickmask. 50 pixels isn't big at all for jobs like that, and even 190 (the largest stock round brush you can get right now, Circle(19) scaled to the maximum of 10x) isn't all that big. Try it against an 8 megapixel photo.

...Akkana

I wrote:

Alexia thought 50 was surprisingly large, but remember, brushes

Oops, that was Valerie, sorry.

...Akkana

On Wednesday 09 July 2008 19:23:33 Akkana Peck wrote:

I wrote:

Alexia thought 50 was surprisingly large, but remember, brushes

Oops, that was Valerie, sorry.

I was about to correct you on that :) Actually for me, its either small hard brushes - 0.5-5px or very large soft ones 50-150px that I use most. And yes, for a 10mpx photo, that's not a lot at all.

-- Alexia

On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 11:29:45AM +0300, Alexia Death wrote:

Sven Neumann wrote:

- Is copying really the best solution?

Simple. IMHO yes.

Then you have to "maintain" the user directory if the next release adds/deletes/moves some default brushes.

In MyPaint I have solved this by copying the brush into the user directory only when user modifies it. There is also a text file listing deleted system brushes.

Martin

The root of the problem, really, is that gimp currently shows every brush in its search path. There won't be any major improvement until that basic problem is fixed, and the user is given control over which brushes are available at any given moment. Fortunately, there is an ongoing Summer of Code project aimed at fixing it, and it seems to be progressing pretty well. Once the user has control over what is shown, it won't matter very much what the "default" brushes are.

-- Bill

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 19:53 +0200, Martin Renold wrote:

Then you have to "maintain" the user directory if the next release adds/deletes/moves some default brushes.

Good point.

In MyPaint I have solved this by copying the brush into the user directory only when user modifies it.

Yeah, that has been suggested before, even in this thread. It's really something that should happen transparently. Currently the user has to hit the "Copy" button herself.

There is also a text file listing deleted system brushes.

For GIMP 2.8, we are likely going to get tags for resources files. The plan is to use some special tags to do things such as hiding deleted system brushes.

Sven

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 19:39 -0700, Valerie wrote:

Basically, I'm aiming for a decent improvement with (for now) little work and that can deliver results pretty fast. For this, I'm trying to avoid the issues that will deliver improvements on the same scale but take a lot more time.

Sorry, but I explained you in much detail that we have to keep the default brushes for now (until we have coded a solution that doesn't break scripts). Our only simple option at this point is to add some more brushes to the set of default brushes. I would very much welcome if that could still happen for 2.6. Which means that it would have to happen very soon now...

Sven

Von: Valerie

Actually, I still don't see why Gimp can't either: - move those fixed brushes to another directory - or on the contrary, make a new default brush directory with a new name, link the default brush directory to That, while leaving scripts pointing to the old directory untouched.

This won't work. The brushes will still have to be available to the user.

Perhaps I have missed the explanation?

(gimp-context-set-brush name)

does use the name of the brush as it is shown in the UI, not a filename. If you hide the brushes from the user by moving them to a different directory, then they won't be avaialbe for the script, either.

Regards, Michael

Hi,

Sven Neumann wrote:

Sorry, but I explained you in much detail that we have to keep the default brushes for now (until we have coded a solution that doesn't break scripts). Our only simple option at this point is to add some more brushes to the set of default brushes. I would very much welcome if that could still happen for 2.6. Which means that it would have to happen very soon now...

IIRC, I've seen somthing like that in the KDE font manager: when disabling a certain font, the file is just renamed to a dot file, e.g. brushxyz -> .brushxyz.
For scripts it is still available, for the brush selector hidden: the brush selector just need to ignore the dot files.

Just an idea ...

Regards, Stephan.

Hi!

My nome is Filipe.

Valerie and I have done in recent weeks a package of paintbrushes and stripped down to the GIMP. We hope that you, developers take a look at it. He was evaluated by some GIMP artists and approved. :)

I posted it on DeviantArt using the "Creative Commons License Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported". We can change the license if its needed.

Link: http://filsd.deviantart.com/art/GIMP-possible-Defaut-set-92263636

We really hope you Devs and users take a look. Would be great if the GIMP had such Brushes.

Thanks.

-- Filipe Soares Dilly
dilly.carbonmade.com/