GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 589371
Improve default set of resources
Last modified: 2018-05-24 12:38:19 UTC
With the introduction of resource tagging we can now manage a bigger set of default resources. See http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2009-July/022823.html. In this enhancement request, we will collect resources to be added to GIMP 2.8.
Created attachment 139014 [details] Hard-edged gradient from FG to BG This is a gradient file (.ggr) for a gradient which provides a hard transition from the FG color to the BG color. The gradient, named "Hardedge FG to BG", is useful for making simple shapes such as circles, boxes, blinds, bullseyes, and spirals.
For easy reference, here is the list we worked out on the mailing list: * Add rake brushes * Add more bristle brushes * Add more realistic patterns from commonly used artistic media * Add more complex vector based brushes because of their good scaling properties * Add "Hardedge FG to BG" gradient * Add dynamics enabled presets for paint tools * Add large round brushes and remove all smaller duplicates * Add a selected subset of GIMP Paint Studio brushes and presets * Add texture/grunge brushes * Remove the outline squares * Convert small bitmap brushes to larger variants * Either create better example brushes of GIMP's capabilities, or keep existing ones
Thanks for the gradient Saul, I've commited the gradient as an internal gradient to make it appear at the top of the gradient list: commit 966b81992b3a614542ba8413a50fea49dad7ffe9 Author: Martin Nordholts <martinn@src.gnome.org> Date: Sat Aug 15 11:58:08 2009 +0200 app: Add "FG to BG (Hardedge)" gradient Add internal gradient "FG to BG (Hardedge)" based on gradient by Saul Goode. See bug #589371.
how big would brushes have to be instead? adding an square, a rhomb and it's possible to add vector brushes?? I want to contribute by making new style brushes(something like spirals or anything new)
Dan, please ask such questions on the gimp-developer list.
Created attachment 142080 [details] 6 animated artistic/structure brushes with 4-5frames I made some custom brushes and would like to contribute them to the new release. The brushes had every layer doubled and in some kind transformed (rotated/mirrored) to have some more variety; I removed the doubles because since 2.7 random rotation is possible (as far as I understood, correct me if I am wrong). Tell me wether you like them or not and wether the resolution is ok. I have some more and can create more. I also have some high resolution patterns of structures (rocks, waves, etc) - can I attatch them here as well?.
Created attachment 142270 [details] 16 brushes (some animated) and 2 pattern I made new brushes and named them all (but the names are not very creative...). The brushes named "rake" are ment to be used angular (understandable?). I hope the patterns are ok.
Thanks, I've commited the named brushes: commit e431f84dae189d336b6d0466842aa7c247eed0f7 Author: Martin Nordholts <martinn@src.gnome.org> Date: Thu Sep 3 21:52:43 2009 +0200 data: Add texture/grunge brushes made by Johannes Engelhardt Add texture/grunge brushes made by Johannes Engelhardt. See bug #589371. data/brushes/Acrylic1.gih | Bin 0 -> 129906 bytes data/brushes/Acrylic2.gih | Bin 0 -> 176712 bytes data/brushes/Acrylic3.gih | Bin 0 -> 129912 bytes data/brushes/Acrylic4.gih | Bin 0 -> 169106 bytes data/brushes/Chalk1.gih | Bin 0 -> 193904 bytes data/brushes/Chalk2.gih | Bin 0 -> 264852 bytes data/brushes/Grass1.gih | Bin 0 -> 250304 bytes data/brushes/Makefile.am | 7 +++++++ 8 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) The other brushes (circles and dots) didn't seem useful and generic enough to me, so I skipped them. Not sure about the patterns either, so I left them out for now.
Created attachment 142769 [details] curves presets
I hope they might be useful.
Created attachment 145600 [details] Scanline pattern
Created attachment 161169 [details] [review] 0001-Add-default-Curves.patch Thanks Michal, I've made your curves into a patch, but excluded the "cross processing curves, they were too weird. Now we just need to make GIMP actually pick up system-wide curves...
Thanks Ihave NoName, but I think that scanline pattern is too trivial and "cheap" to be in the default set of resources.
Still missing: * Add rake brushes * Add more bristle brushes * Add more realistic patterns from commonly used artistic media * Add more complex vector based brushes because of their good scaling properties * Add a selected subset of GIMP Paint Studio brushes and presets * Remove the outline squares * Convert small bitmap brushes to larger variants * Either create better example brushes of GIMP's capabilities, or keep existing ones
Review of attachment 161169 [details] [review]: Removing from unreviewed patches.
Additional point: * Make sure the new resources are properly tagged i.e. organized
You can add some of my color palettes: http://www.jesusda.com/projects/colorpalettes/ Specially the PANTANO Coated could be usefull. ;) Salu2 de jEsuSdA 8)
I've created a bunch of seamless textures from scratch and released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Actually I use them as pattern in Gimp for the Gimp Paint Studio brushes pack. You can download them from here: (Seamless textures, 512x512 pixels size, png format) http://www.mediafire.com/file/rrkjimylicz/tpack_a_series_512px_part01.zip http://www.mediafire.com/file/i3wqiggy2ny/tpack_a_series_512px_part02.zip http://www.mediafire.com/file/m1mnwmkmedj/tpack_b_series_512px_part01.zip http://www.mediafire.com/file/j0yjjmdzqij/tpack_b_series_512px_part02.zip http://www.mediafire.com/file/rmzznzzjydg/tpack_c_series_512px_part01.zip http://www.mediafire.com/file/bcm1yzmyu2m/tpack_c_series_512px_part02.zip http://www.mediafire.com/file/mjyiy1z2mnm/tpack_d_series_512px_part01.zip http://www.mediafire.com/file/5im22hmmjwj/tpack_d_series_512px_part02.zip For a little preview, please look here: http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/a6442037c83800c866b81ee47f97c5106g.jpg http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/fe2791ef85c82b4488f93b9bc404cf986g.jpg http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/326ec1b5cb9360b3e61c2b2712c44edc6g.jpg http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/c0f7b296b5cc109774391ac4b4c2de1c6g.jpg http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/20bb832128a15d00d7f637d026c37fca6g.jpg http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/47ec33a9aa1c6b79d8660f9c10a2b3006g.jpg http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/9925be5d1683724a00bf32df130a5a456g.jpg http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/761ff07eca058a83ccca09f8920132446g.jpg
I have constructed my own brush dynamic set and custom brushes (that are really just presets of the default brush editor modeled after a mechanical pencil and an eraser, plus a little pin-point fuzz tool for easy highlights). Let's see, how does one work this thing lemme see arr grarr yarr rawr-- Heart Brush Dynamics: http://www.mediafire.com/?fg0ybb39bwq5xyv Heart Brushes: ("Detail" and "Eraser") http://www.mediafire.com/?dfbidr7e8pju4n4 http://www.mediafire.com/?lerhowrt873h35c
A handful of .vbr brushes, angular media brushes (rake, bright flat, round, watercolor, wide brush, spackle) all 150px, and a few texture brushes (bark, cloud, leaf, water) meant to be used with jitter. Also 4 large (1600x1200) tiled patterns made from public domain images. The archive is ~17MB (basically all of which is the textures). The object titles do not feature my initials. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9498285/brushsets/JF-GIMP-resources.tar.gz
Here are a couple of patterns, download from <a href="http://daghenning.com/share/4_patterns.tar.gz">http://daghenning.com/share/4_patterns.tar.gz</a>
Created attachment 169680 [details] tilted chalk preset Here is a preset for a sort of Chalk brush with rotation (tilt) support. It's based on the "A-3 provencal" brush.
Created attachment 169681 [details] "Wrong File -Delete it!"the dynamics for the tilted chalk preset
Created attachment 169685 [details] Dynamics for the Tilted Chalk Use this one for the Tilted Chalk preset (the prefvious dynamics I sent was an old version, please erase it I don't find how to do it myself)
What we have in 2.8 is good enough, but we should keep looking over this set in 2.10 since there are some new things attached here. Moving to 2.10 milestone
As 2.10 is getting closer, let's recheck this.
For info, I have asked our various artists-in-residence to work on better defaults. Americo for instance had this out study on our brushes: https://medium.com/graphic-arts-free-software/gimp-2-9-set-brushes-810baff9431b But he said that it's from 2013, so he will have to revise it.
i created some brushes and patterns (22 brushes, 22 patterns), all licensed under CC0: https://platen-software.de/sebastian/gimp_brushes_and_patterns.zip see the attachment for a preview.
Created attachment 362427 [details] preview image for brushes and patterns
Thanks for this. This bug report is to improve the default set of resources, which is not necessarily meant to be exhaustive but should be comprehensive and have the basics. For more, we also have the project gimp-data-extras (but let's admit that it's quite outdated. No commit for years there!). Americo was in charge of reviewing our current set of brushes and other resources. I will let him decide if he thinks some (or all) of yours could be included as well. If not, this could be the occasion to revive the gimp-data-extras project.
For info, Americo told us he hopes to have an updated set to propose by January or so.
Created attachment 370318 [details] Default Set Brushes to GIMP 2.10 | r2 Some considerations: 1) I choose to create each category/subcategory multiple of 5 brushes, to have an ordering more clear and immediate to find in the official set the categories... but this criterion is not a milestone. 2) The ordering of the brushes is done with alphanumeric code... in this way is possible to integrate the set more easily. 3) The .vbr brushes are in the top of brush list: different sizes and hardness.
(In reply to jose americo gobbo from comment #32) > Created attachment 370318 [details] > Default Set Brushes to GIMP 2.10 | r2 I have considered integrating this set with other two sets, Extras and Jag brushes, completely harmonized with criteria ordering of the default set. In the Extras, we'll find brushes of previous GIMP 2.8+ and other news adds. In the Jag, is contemplated my vision more enlarged around brush bristles or 'real brushes'.
Created attachment 370341 [details] Default Set Brushes to GIMP 2.10 | r2.1 New release of default brush set. I have correct some errors on the tree of 'basic' brushes and in the alias names of the acrylics brushes on 'medium' series.
Created attachment 370345 [details] Default Set Brushes to GIMP 2.10 | r2.1 - Visual Explanation This is a figure to try explain the categories and use of this the set visually.
Created attachment 370503 [details] Default Set Brushes to GIMP 2.10 | r2.2 New release of Default Set Brushes to GIMP 2.10 | r2.2 Some correction on the alias names on B0 and B1 sets.
Sorry, I couldn't make the time yet to review all your brushes. We'll definitely give ourselves a few hours in the next few days to review all your proposed new set with Aryeom! :-)
Americo, we have been spending some time today to review your brushes. Apart from all the basic shape brushes, what are you keeping exactly from the old brushes? This is very hard to review because all the brushes have been renamed and some are nearly the same, but have actually been slightly changed (apparently?). Could you just make a list like this: - brush "XYZ": new brush - brush "ABC": exactly same as brush "DEF" in old set - brush "123": modified from brush "456" of old set - …
My understand so far: * The series "M1.* Acryl Grunge" is basically the same as former "Acrylic" series. * The series "Oil viscous" is meant to replace "Oils", but only the number 01 was taken from the old serie (and modified a bit too, it seems), right? * Series "Liner", "Crayon", "Hatch Pen" are new. * The 2 "B1.0x Bristle" brushes are meant to replace the 3 old "Bristles" brushes? * "Acryl Bristle" is new. * "B2.01 Pencil+ 01 Normal" seems to be modified from old "Pencil 01" and "B2.01 Pencil+ 02 Soft" seems new (old "Pencil 02" looks quite different). * We had 2 "Charcoal" brushes but you replaced them by the new and unique "B2.02 Charcoal+"? Or were you intending that we also keep the old charcoal brushes? As you see, I am a bit unsure if your proposals is "replacing" or "adding". * "E1.06 Cell" seems to be old "Cell 02". And apparently you renamed old "Cell 01" into "S1.01 Skin. 01". Do you think "Cell" was really a bad name here? It made a bit sense to me (it looked kind of "cell-like"). * As for "S1.02 Skin. 02", it is the same as old "Sponge 01". "Sponge 02" has been removed apparently. * "S1.05 Cloud. 03" and "Texture 2" are the same. "S1.04 Cloud. 02" and "Texture 1" are the same. "S1.03 Cloud+ 01" is new though. * "Chalk", "Confetti", "Smoke", "Sparks", "Splats", "Structure", "Texture", "Texture hose", and "Vine" brushes are to be removed in your opinion? * "E1.02 Grass+" seem to be the same as old "Grass". * "E1.* Vegetation" seem to be the same as old "Vegetation" brushes. * "Watched Stone", "Grass", "Rock", "Spoonflower", "Splatter", "Grunge", "Knife" series are new. I'm sure I did some errors, it is hard to navigate through these brushes will all names changed. A few questions now: (1) A first question is: even when some brushes are still there, there are binary different. What kind of changes did you do? Some looked very very similar apart from size change. Did you also modify them pixel-wise? (2) When some brushes are the same, but you renamed them, I feel like this is a bit problematic if people were used to the old names. Also that would force us to duplicate these brushes for scripts (version with old names will go into an "obsolete" category which is not shown in the interface but can still be accessed through scripting). Of course if changes done make the brush really different, it is better to rename, but if for instance all you did is set some settings different, I feel like this is not efficient. So it also depends on answer to question (1). (3) Finally, more of a concern than a question: I am a bit unsure about the naming scheme using alphabet and numbers. I understand why you did this (because currently brushes use alphabet for ordering), and several brushes were also prefixing their name with numbers to appear in front. But doing this will stick around for many versions and clearly a brush named "b0.04 Round 04", that's not really nice IMO. ;-( So I am wondering if we should not just use nice names, and after 2.10 release, I will put some priority to better organization of data so that people can reorder them how they wish, and maybe some search capabilities. In the meantime, the order may not be be ideal, but in the long term, we won't end up with weird prefixed names. Also I actually had some hard time finding brushes with your order. I understand this order makes sense in your workflow, but until we can search brushes by their name, looking for "Acrylic" brushes at "a" feels 100% easier to me than remembering it was in the collection "M1".
(0) For now all the Basic/B0/ are not included. I am not sure about so many of the vbr brushes. We should discuss this. (1) What I have not included/replace because it is just based and too much alike existing brushes: - the 5 "M1.0.* Acryl Grunge.*" == "Acrylic .*" - "M1.04 Bristle" == "Bristles 02" - "B1.04 Bristle. 01 Thin" == "Bristle 03" - "B2.01 Pencil+ 01 Normal" == "Pencil 01" - "M1.01 Oil Viscous 01" == "Oils 01" - "E1.02 Grass+" == "Grass" - "E1.* Vegetation" == "Vegetation .*" - "E1.05 Splatter" == "Splats 01" - "E1.06 Cell" == "Cell 02" - "S1.01 Skin 01" == "Cell 01" - "S1.02 Skin. 02" == "Sponge 01" - "S1.04 Cloud. 02" == "Texture 1" - "S1.05 Cloud 03" == "Texture 02" - "E1.01 Washed Stone+" == "Texture Hose 03" NOTE: it doesn't mean they cannot be included/replaced later, but I just want to discuss first to understand what exactly changed in there which was worth updating. (2) I will include others but need to change the names. As explained previously, I don't think we can use this numbering scheme. We'll just have to improve the categorization and organization later. There are a few brushes whose name we wanted to discuss with you: - What is a spoonflower? I searched this and could not find it. - The "B2.04 Crayon", Aryeom feels like it looks more like a "Color Pencil" than a crayon. Do you think it could be renamed like so? - "S1.07 Grunge+ 02": we have been wondering if that was really to be in the "Grunge" brush set. - "S1.03 Cloud+ 01": it doesn't look like a cloud to us. Would you have a better name proposal? - "E1.07 Rock+ 02" and "E1.08 Rock+ 03": it doesn't feel like rock to us, but we are really not sure what to call these. (3) Some brushes have a few artefacts and we wanted to see if we could improve them together: - "b1.05-bristle-02-thick": Aryeom was wondering if the default spacing was right, because it makes a lot of "dots" along the painting. She was proposing a spacing of 2. Does it make sense? - For Filber, Liners and Knife, Aryeom had some propositions to improve them, in particular the bit where they have some weird artefacts on the borders. - We have also been wondering about the "Oil Viscous .*" and "Acryl Bristle" brushes expected result. - As for "S1.06 Grunge+ 01", "S1.08 Grunge+ 03" and "S1.09 Grunge+ 04", we were wondering if we could not improve them and what if your expected result. Aryeom wanted to know if you could send us all your test drawing with every brush so that we know what rendering you are expecting for each of these. Committed and renamed: - "B2.01 Pencil+ 02 Soft" renamed as "Pencil 03" - "B2.02 Charcoal+" renamed as "Charcoal 03" - "B2.05 Hatch Pen" renamed as "Hatch Pen 01" - "E1.03 Rock+ 01" renamed as "Stone Work 01" - "M1.10 Acryl Grunge 06" as "Grunge 01" We are quite sad you could not make it to LGM! We really wanted to discuss all these in details and make the finale review together before release. In any case, I feel like this is the extent of what we would do without further discussion because I don't want to assume too much on your intent. Let's continue when you have time again. commit 7c0d8a2d2a7173e92db6ff7725de7bad619d2270 (HEAD -> master) Author: Jehan <jehan@girinstud.io> Date: Tue Apr 24 03:16:02 2018 +0200 Bug 589371 - some new brushes. Extract of a selection by Jose Americo Gobbo. Reviewed by Aryeom and myself for integration. From what I could gather, authors are: - Grunge 01 by Rene Jensen. - Stone Work 01 by Mathias Jonathan (Griffeur). - Pencil 03 and Charcoal 03 by Americo. According to information from Americo, all data is GPL v3.0. data/brushes/Sketch/Charcoal-03.gih | Bin 0 -> 25004 bytes data/brushes/Sketch/Makefile.am | 2 ++ data/brushes/Sketch/Pencil-03.gih | Bin 0 -> 6866 bytes data/brushes/Splatters/Grunge-01.gih | Bin 0 -> 590401 bytes data/brushes/Splatters/Makefile.am | 1 + data/brushes/Texture/Hatch-Pen-01.gbr | Bin 0 -> 16425 bytes data/brushes/Texture/Makefile.am | 2 ++ data/brushes/Texture/Stone-Work-01.gih | Bin 0 -> 744644 bytes 8 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
Created attachment 371590 [details] LCh color palettes As GIMP 2.10 has good support for the LCh color space, it seems LCh-based color palettes would be nice to have. The attached tar.gz file has five LCh-based color palettes that form a "saturation series" at LCh Saturation levels of 1.0, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, and 0.2 I used Chroma divided by Lightness as the LCh correlate of Saturation - not an official part of CIELAB! but suggested by Fairchild in http://rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/PDFs/AppearanceLec.pdf The hues in these color palettes are based on Bruce MacEvoy's suggestions on the handprint.com website for a complete color palette: https://handprint.com/HP/WCL/palette1.html https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/labwheel.html http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/vismixmap.html#CIELAB The Lightness values for each hue are (*very* approximately) the Lightness value at which painted color reach maximum Chroma for the given hue, again using information from the handprint.com website: https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color11.html#valchrom https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/vwheel.pdf This "LCh color palette" tutorial (still not quite finished) has more details and also a downloadable blank LCh color wheel for people who want to put together their own LCh color palettes: https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/gimp-srgb-lch-color-palettes.html#Lightness-vs-maximum-Chroma - if it seems like the sort of thing that GIMP users would find useful, I can attach the blank LCh color wheel to this bug report.
Created attachment 371591 [details] Screenshot of the Saturation=1.0 version of the LCh color palettes The LCh color palettes have 24 colors arranged as complementary pairs, plus gray patches for L=20, L=30, etc, up to L=80. The attached screenshot shows the colors in the most saturated version of the five color palettes, and also shows the LCh hues and the two-letter color name abbreviations.
Created attachment 371625 [details] An LCh-based palette with S=0.8 and S=0.4 in the same palette This is a more generally useful LCh-based color palette, compared to five separate "saturation series" LCh palettes. This is the palette that I use with GIMP.
Apparently the motivations and analysis published on Devel Mailing List or was not read or was not understand. (In reply to Jehan from comment #40) > (0) For now all the Basic/B0/ are not included. I am not sure about so many > of the vbr brushes. We should discuss this. > > (1) What I have not included/replace because it is just based and too much > alike existing brushes: > > - the 5 "M1.0.* Acryl Grunge.*" == "Acrylic .*" > - "M1.04 Bristle" == "Bristles 02" > - "B1.04 Bristle. 01 Thin" == "Bristle 03" > - "B2.01 Pencil+ 01 Normal" == "Pencil 01" > - "M1.01 Oil Viscous 01" == "Oils 01" > - "E1.02 Grass+" == "Grass" > - "E1.* Vegetation" == "Vegetation .*" > - "E1.05 Splatter" == "Splats 01" > - "E1.06 Cell" == "Cell 02" > - "S1.01 Skin 01" == "Cell 01" > - "S1.02 Skin. 02" == "Sponge 01" > - "S1.04 Cloud. 02" == "Texture 1" > - "S1.05 Cloud 03" == "Texture 02" > - "E1.01 Washed Stone+" == "Texture Hose 03" All these brushes are revised by me to improve some issues that I have able to see during my process to create the new brush set. Also, the names are discussed with many artists of my circle to understand the better ways to alternative names. > NOTE: it doesn't mean they cannot be included/replaced later, but I just > want to discuss first to understand what exactly changed in there which was > worth updating. > > (2) I will include others but need to change the names. As explained > previously, I don't think we can use this numbering scheme. We'll just have > to improve the categorization and organization later. > > There are a few brushes whose name we wanted to discuss with you: > > - What is a spoonflower? I searched this and could not find it. > - The "B2.04 Crayon", Aryeom feels like it looks more like a "Color Pencil" > than a crayon. Do you think it could be renamed like so? No, I prefer maintain my name choices around my own brushes. > - "S1.07 Grunge+ 02": we have been wondering if that was really to be in the > "Grunge" brush set. The 'grunge' categorization is very large, so we have a great possibility to consider many stains on this category... in this case a brush where I am author, I prefer maintain my categorization and way to naming them. > - "S1.03 Cloud+ 01": it doesn't look like a cloud to us. Would you have a > better name proposal? This brush is very versatile and is possible to use to create excellent and realistic effects to create clouds, but is necessary, understand that is thought to use the 'Smudge Tool'... more infos you can see this video and understand how some times the name is only an 'alias': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8anhEAKMYc This brush originally was named as "Acrylic-04.gih" and is an opinion of many artists that is a bit difficult see an acrylic effect on this stain... the acrylic technique could be used to emulate many techniques... as impasto, dry, wet etc... > - "E1.07 Rock+ 02" and "E1.08 Rock+ 03": it doesn't feel like rock to us, > but we are really not sure what to call these. The issue around the naming many times is personal... but in these cases, I have used much time to conclude that was the better way to naming these brushes. As the E1.08 is my brush, I want to maintain the name. > > (3) Some brushes have a few artefacts and we wanted to see if we could > improve them together: > > - "b1.05-bristle-02-thick": Aryeom was wondering if the default spacing was > right, because it makes a lot of "dots" along the painting. She was > proposing a spacing of 2. Does it make sense? So, is possible reduce the spacing... but is not easy understand how interpret what is artefacts to different artists... all depends on how the artist uses the brush... what I am saying... is that does not easily solve all issues around raster brushes for different artists, for instance, a classic artist could like mainly of well-conformed brushes, as round and block brushes based on .vbr format. But, other artists, more interested with expressivity of stain or of the marks, as I and Gustavo Deveze, could be interested to use more noised brushes. Define what our vision around the ideal spacing and how the stain must be represented ideally on the canvas is always linked with the own style and taste about this... and is not effective or universal. Probably the talk that I have thought to LGM 2018 would be important to clarify these aspects and notions... unhappily I was not participating because of grave problems on my family :( > > - For Filber, Liners and Knife, Aryeom had some propositions to improve > them, in particular the bit where they have some weird artefacts on the > borders. The same issue of previous explanation... > > - We have also been wondering about the "Oil Viscous .*" and "Acryl Bristle" > brushes expected result. Any mark brush must be used with different tips and skill of each artist, we can categorize a brush as 'Acrylics' and when the artist use with their set of dynamics or tool options settings (tool presets) the effect could be completely different or unusual of that artist could imagine or bad when the artist doesn't like. But I am asking what is the standard or the way on GIMP to solving these issues in a universal way? In my opinion, all is a personal opinion or a personal way to solving these issues... then, which is the opinion that is better of the another? > > - As for "S1.06 Grunge+ 01", "S1.08 Grunge+ 03" and "S1.09 Grunge+ 04", we > were wondering if we could not improve them and what if your expected result. > > Aryeom wanted to know if you could send us all your test drawing with every > brush so that we know what rendering you are expecting for each of these. Yes, could be didactic show how an artist uses a brush set or a particular brush... but this is far of to say that is the unique way to use a brush ;-) In my feel around these issues, this is very hard to solve... I prefer to imagine that each artist is able to solve these issues with own skills. > > Committed and renamed: > > - "B2.01 Pencil+ 02 Soft" renamed as "Pencil 03" > - "B2.02 Charcoal+" renamed as "Charcoal 03" > - "B2.05 Hatch Pen" renamed as "Hatch Pen 01" > - "E1.03 Rock+ 01" renamed as "Stone Work 01" > - "M1.10 Acryl Grunge 06" as "Grunge 01" > > We are quite sad you could not make it to LGM! We really wanted to discuss > all these in details and make the finale review together before release. > > In any case, I feel like this is the extent of what we would do without > further discussion because I don't want to assume too much of your intent. > Let's continue when you have time again. Great! I think that many issues in this comment thread are related to a tool preset set and paint dynamics more dedicated to painting. Also, here is not possible assume a unique way to solving because each behavior is intimately linked with tastes and skills of each artist... The options and possibilities of GIMP could be interesting to solve many aspects of painting techniques but always are be linked with feeling and experiences of each artist. Around how to naming the brushes, for me is complex and is not possible to solve only with personal impressions... perhaps, is better only to see the brush naming issue as a method to classify or identify them without more serious intentions to link the name with specific technique or media... in this sense my try to create 'real brushes' are linked specifically with this scope. > > commit 7c0d8a2d2a7173e92db6ff7725de7bad619d2270 (HEAD -> master) > Author: Jehan <jehan@girinstud.io> > Date: Tue Apr 24 03:16:02 2018 +0200 > > Bug 589371 - some new brushes. > > Extract of a selection by Jose Americo Gobbo. > Reviewed by Aryeom and myself for integration. > > From what I could gather, authors are: > - Grunge 01 by Rene Jensen. > - Stone Work 01 by Mathias Jonathan (Griffeur). > - Pencil 03 and Charcoal 03 by Americo. > > According to information from Americo, all data is GPL v3.0. > > data/brushes/Sketch/Charcoal-03.gih | Bin 0 -> 25004 bytes > data/brushes/Sketch/Makefile.am | 2 ++ > data/brushes/Sketch/Pencil-03.gih | Bin 0 -> 6866 bytes > data/brushes/Splatters/Grunge-01.gih | Bin 0 -> 590401 bytes > data/brushes/Splatters/Makefile.am | 1 + > data/brushes/Texture/Hatch-Pen-01.gbr | Bin 0 -> 16425 bytes > data/brushes/Texture/Makefile.am | 2 ++ > data/brushes/Texture/Stone-Work-01.gih | Bin 0 -> 744644 bytes > 8 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
(In reply to Jehan from comment #39) > I'm sure I did some errors, it is hard to navigate through these brushes > will all names changed. A few questions now: > > (1) A first question is: even when some brushes are still there, there are > binary different. What kind of changes did you do? Some looked very very > similar apart from size change. Did you also modify them pixel-wise? I have made revisions on all brushes... and are linked on the layer the name of authors. > > (2) When some brushes are the same, but you renamed them, I feel like this > is a bit problematic if people were used to the old names. Also that would > force us to duplicate these brushes for scripts (version with old names will > go into an "obsolete" category which is not shown in the interface but can > still be accessed through scripting). > Of course if changes done make the brush really different, it is better to > rename, but if for instance all you did is set some settings different, I > feel like this is not efficient. So it also depends on answer to question > (1). I have understood, the issue but I am not sure to solve that. In my scopes were also this issue around the brush naming... > > (3) Finally, more of a concern than a question: I am a bit unsure about the > naming scheme using alphabet and numbers. I understand why you did this > (because currently brushes use alphabet for ordering), and several brushes > were also prefixing their name with numbers to appear in front. > > But doing this will stick around for many versions and clearly a brush named > "b0.04 Round 04", that's not really nice IMO. ;-( > So I am wondering if we should not just use nice names, and after 2.10 > release, I will put some priority to better organization of data so that > people can reorder them how they wish, and maybe some search capabilities. > In the meantime, the order may not be be ideal, but in the long term, we > won't end up with weird prefixed names. > > Also I actually had some hard time finding brushes with your order. I > understand this order makes sense in your workflow, but until we can search > brushes by their name, looking for "Acrylic" brushes at "a" feels 100% > easier to me than remembering it was in the collection "M1". Ok, I agree that is an important issue... but we must solve that in a way more effective because is important to show the brushes following the category organization, mainly thinking in the GIMP Default set. I think that is possible to use a .ini file to sort the default brush set independently of the brush naming criteria. In this way, the alphabetic search will work normally without problems. But sincerely, I am not sure if this bug report is the place to talk about on.
-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message -- This bug has been migrated to GNOME's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity. You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/issues/307.