Gimp default brush set contest

[Valerie VK]

Note: the developers barely have to do a thing.

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).

With the new resize options, they could easily be replaced by:

- 2 or 3 editable ones (one plain, one with ratio and one
with hardness)

- and a lot more variety for the rest (a few texture brushes in
the default would give artists a much better first impression of
Gimp than the current one, without the developers having to
program a thing)

My proposal: start a Gimp Default Brush Set contest. Ask users
to submit their own brush proposals, select the best of each
and make a new default. Deviantart seems like a good gathering
point, with outside submissions possible. Then the contest just
has to be announced on the Gimp website and on other venues.

Rough guidelines (to be refined later):

- Users can submit just a few brushes rather than a full set.

- Although users can recommend other people’s brushes, this is
only if the original creator (including eventual original
creators of Photoshop brushes) gives personal approval of
the conditions listed (most expect users to credit them, which
is not doable if their brushes are used in a Gimp brush default
set).

Most likely, users would have to approach the original creators
and ask them to submit themselves to avoid complications.
Plagiarism results in immediate disqualification.

- The brushes should be generic enough to reflect a wide variety
of usages: texture brushes are good, too specific shapes less so.

- The set should avoid repeating a same brush with different
sizes: there are resize commands for that.

- The set should have variety. By corollary, there shouldn’t
be too many brushes of a same type. At most, there should be 3
to 5 of a category.

Also, users must include a preview of all the brush outputs to
show their potential.

The only "reward" is that the brush creators get to feel good
about their brushes being included in the Gimp default set.

My personal proposal would be a set that goes along the lines of:
- 1 editable round brush, 1 editable fuzzy brush, 1 editable
"calligraphy" brush
- 1 editable diagonal star brush, a few square brushes?
- the 3 current "Pencil sketch" brush (all 3 to prevent
resize-fuzziness)
- The current confetti brush
- 3 "charcoal texture" brushes
- 3 "watercolor texture" brushes
- 3 "cloud texture" brushes
- 3 splatter brushes
- 3 "hair" brushes
- etc.

For examples, see brushes by filsd:
http://filsd.deviantart.com/art/GIMP-Animated-Brushes-1-55860153
http://filsd.deviantart.com/art/GIMP-Animated-Brushes-2-58720457
http://filsd.deviantart.com/art/GIMP-Animated-Brushes-3-70913869
http://filsd.deviantart.com/art/Brushes-Pack-Ink-hachuras-85080074

(though obviously they can’t be All included)

Users must agree with the disclaimer that their full sets will
likely not be used "as is", and that once they've submitted,
anybody can tamper with them.

Also, although Gimp will credit the creators when announcing the
new default brush set, their brushes must be under a Creative
Common licenses that doesn't force users to credit each time
they use the brushes.

Where timing is concerned, I suggest announcing such a contest
when 2.6 Beta 1 gets released (whenever that is). This way users
can also take into account the dynamic brush features.

Anyway, people who are nostalgic can always install the old
brush set.

Again, the developers barely have to do anything except include
the end result, so please don't call this a waste of Your time.
I wouldn't mind coordinating the contest, and I'm sure other
people wouldn't mind helping either.


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

[Sven Neumann]

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


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

[Valerie VK]

> 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.

Actually, I recently installed Gimp 2.5.1. on Kubuntu...

I may not have explained myself clearly: the editable part is
only half of it.

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).

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. Though... I'm personally
in favor of "redoing the entire default" rather than "adding
to the current", no offense?

Therefore, without coding, you:
- eliminate redundancy in the default distribution
- allow users to access 20 new texture brushes of various types
- all of which are resizeable
- and all without increasing the number of entries in the default
distribution

Sure, you can tell users to install their own brushes, but:
- 1/3 are too lazy
- 1/3 don't even know where to look or don't even think about it
- the remaining 1/3 probably isn't thrilled by how the
default set is filled up with redundant brushes too

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.

For example, without adding code, you can tell users "Gimp has
brushes that allows you to do watercolor or carbon sketches out
of the box!"

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. 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).


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

[Alexia Death-2]

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

[Valerie VK]

> 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.
>
> Not entirely sure if that is needed. Texture brushes
> people use are very  much up to individual style...

They don't have to be texture-only of course.
I wholly support more generic shapes: circle,
square, triangle, calligraphy, star... Whatever
it is that people may find useful.

However, the textures are there to give new
users a sense of the potential of Gimp brushes.
There doesn't have to be too many though; agreed.
I've never thought of using texture brushes
either though, until I saw a number of speed
paintings and sketches using stylized brushes.
It opens up horizons.

Also, I'm aware of the differences in styles,
but that's why I'm against specific shapes,
and aiming for textures that are as generic
as possible: no plants etc please.

Saying that very generic texture brushes
conflict with styles, though, is like saying
that the Plasma, Coffee Stain, Cloud and other
filters conflict with styles as well: although
advanced users may want their own custom
effects, a whole bunch of us would settle for
anything interesting out of the box.

(what, you think all of the Photoshop users and
all those who have pirated copies of Photoshop
actually produce high quality art with unique
styles using unique brushes?)

Speaking from my own experience, you'd be
surprised by how many people like to mess around
with their program without necessarily anything
professional accomplished. Give them a few good
filters and brushes, and they have fun with
them for some time, and even if they don't
produce high-quality work with them, they still
end up with an overall satisfaction and higher
opinion of Gimp anyway.

Go figure.

As for the rest, I do agree, but I'm aiming for
an approach that for now minimizes the workload
on developers as much as possible. ;) They
obviously have many other concerns to address.


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

[Filipe Soares Dilly]

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...

--
Filipe Soares Dilly
dilly.carbonmade.com/
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Sven Neumann]

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


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

[Sven Neumann]

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


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

[rew]

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.

--
** R.E.Wolff@... ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** [phone] **
**    Delftechpark 26 2628 XH  Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233    **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
Q: It doesn't work. A: Look buddy, doesn't work is an ambiguous statement.
Does it sit on the couch all day? Is it unemployed? Please be specific!
Define 'it' and what it isn't doing. --------- Adapted from lxrbot FAQ
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Valerie VK]

> 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.

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.

> 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.

This is a whole different reason though.

> > 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.

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

Goodbye. I'm making my own ideal distribution and replacing
the default one with it with every new install.


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

[Sven Neumann]

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


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

[rew]

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.

--
** R.E.Wolff@... ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** [phone] **
**    Delftechpark 26 2628 XH  Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233    **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
Q: It doesn't work. A: Look buddy, doesn't work is an ambiguous statement.
Does it sit on the couch all day? Is it unemployed? Please be specific!
Define 'it' and what it isn't doing. --------- Adapted from lxrbot FAQ
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Alexia Death-2]

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

[Sven Neumann]

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


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

[Valerie VK]

> 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.

... isn't that what the brush outline is for? Or do I
happen to have default settings that are different
from the rest?

Say... is it only in Ubuntu that the -Default- settings
include [ and ] for brush resize? Because that's what I
do right now: use the shortcuts to resize until I get
the right size. I visually decide if the size is right
thanks to the outline.

I don't need to click on a selection, move to the canvas
to see if the size is right, then move back to the
selections to choose one of another size.

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

Well, most professional-grade artists and photographers
work with images that are much bigger than something you
can just put online. They only resize at the end.

> 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.

... though that Is pretty big. :P

> > 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.

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).

Though being able to put them in another folder is fine.


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

[Sven Neumann]

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


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