Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BmB23

  • Birthday 01/01/1970

Profile Information

  • Location

BmB23's Achievements


Explorer (4/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. Hey. I really like this plugin, it is infinitely useful and quite possible unique. At least to my knowledge. However, it isn't perfect; and I have some feedback for you. The histogram preview is really hard to see and goes all wonky as soon as you edit the curve. Compare the standard levels histogram which is very easy to see due to the outline, and doesn't go wonky until after you've applied the changes so that it is much easier to work with. Second; it is difficult, clunky and unintuitive to edit a curve that is tied to a histogram. I'd propose a different editing scheme where you can drag control points directly on the histogram so there is a simple 1:1 relationship between your mouse movements and the histogram preview, not entirely unlike how levels works either, but with far more flexibility. Other than that it is very good and I love it. Actually now that I think of it, I think what I'm really asking for is a levels+ with multiple control points instead of the single gamma slider. And maybe a way to edit the range on the preview so you can still see small details when clipping a channel, as doing that creates massive spikes at the end of the histogram that completely eliminates small details. And perhaps a control for editing whatever it is that makes peaks and valleys rather than being limited to simply editing the position of those peaks and valleys now that I'm already dreaming.
  2. Not to be obnoxious or anything but you really can't just leave it at an ill-informed and rude "no" like that. I only wish for Paint.NET to be as good as it can be, and a gamma correct workspace is the way to go for that.
  3. I installed this to get Unfocus+ since it looks rad. (Would be nice if one could pick and choose which ones to install, ah well.) I'll give you three guesses as to which effect has not appeared in the effects menu. Is it because the built-in Unfocus is actually the same as Unfocus+ now?
  4. Now that I think of it, isn't sRGB for the web only? Whereas the computer and OS simply operates in the 2.2 space of the CRT monitors of olde? Of course there's more variation across individual LCD monitors than that since they aren't as simple in that respect. But 2.2 is the ideal I believe. So in that case it's not actually wrong to assume 2.2 for the output. And then simply embedding 2.2 as the gamma in the metadata? I'm not sure, you'd have to ask someone who knows more about these things than I do.
  5. I made a post in the linked thread.
  6. Eh, isn't it as simple as assuming inputs are linearly corrected in sRGB, doing the processing as normal but all outputs gets corrected back into linear-for-sRGB? So even if you take a screenshot of a corrected image, it will be corrected for sRGB, and applying the darkening correction will still be correct. If input and output corrections are equal you are not any worse off than without any corrections whatsoever, but all processing and effects now appear correctly. To put it differently, the problem is with "2+2=10", too dark results from effects and runaway brightness in add operations for example. Correcting for that is the important bit (2.2 is a nice approximation, and probably what even your monitor assumes, but actual srgb compliancy never hurts) and as long as inputs (loaded images, colour pickers etc.) are inversely corrected everything will be as consistent from start to finish as if there was no correction. So the problem of overcorrection from already corrected sources doesn't exist any more or less than it did before, and you don't have to care about what the colour space of the input is any more or less than before. (Although abiding by the colour space specified in image metadata would be a good idea surely? Even if it could be incorrect.) The only problem I see would be that gradients would now look odd, since physically linear gradients don't look all that gradient actually. But that's an issue of simply changing the gradient to produce an overcorrected version of itself no?
  7. So, it seems that gamma correct image editing and rendering and whatnot is all the rage these days. GIMP is getting GEGL, Nvidia is raising awareness of gamma issues in 3D graphics and so on (I take it Photoshop has been able to do this for ages, no?). What's the plan for a gamma correct "linear" workspace in Paint.NET?
  8. It is really annoying to have your selections alias. It would be nice to have them anti-alias. Possibly as an option, it's not like the selection toolbars are in lack of space.
  9. What? Why? That is pointless, it takes two clicks of the mouse to set the file type yourself. What you should do is mayhaps make it remember last setting used. Possibly with a checkbox somewhere. What we want is to avoid silly useless settings like this one or the suggestion for default canvas colour, just how hard is it to just use the paint bucket? What you do want is settings that affect the whole app, and cannot be reached elsewhere. Take a look at the GIMP. The settings panel is larger than the manual, and I have a use for maybe one, perhaps two of the options in there. All it does is add clutter. I also favor the style of having settings in places where they are relevant and discoverable, rather than all rolled up into one panel that really should be reserved for truly universal settings. Say, having file settings in the save/load dialog where you need them. Don't rely on configurability, that's a designer cop out. Rely on defaults. Then add the stuff that is critical for some people to change from the defaults. Settings are a feature to enable alternate functionality, not a way to let people design your app for you. My own suggestion would be to have the ability to set associated file types. Including those for the edit command.
  10. Because I felt like it: Colonized Planet At High Exposure Levels 100% hand painted in PDN 8)
  11. Now, I noticed that in Windows XP PDN integrated nicely with the entire image viewer thing and opened up compatible images in PDN when clicking the "Edit" button. However, in Windows Vista this functionality seems completely missing. And it also seems there is no way to configure it.
  12. First of all there is no such thing as a graphiker, it's graphics artist or similar. Second, I doubt a lot of us make a living out of this. I don't. Just for... painting things and fun.
  13. IIRC Photoshop does not do this: And it has a billion filters and effects, 10x more useful vector drawing, filmstrip support, in addition to the effects it has a billion 3rd party plugins too, a (more) powerful and intuitive interface, compatibility with hundreds of photo devices and formats. Better colourspaces such as AdobeRGB, CIELAB and a heap of others, colour management. (Wiki 'em) IIRC 10-12, even 16 bit colour (per channel) support (i.e. HDR, normal screens only do 8-bit per channel). What can I say? It's pro imaging software, not a more useful MS Paint.
  14. Illnab, why? It doesn't show anyways in those cases. Sagedavis, AA does infact help. Everything becomes more smooth, and looks better... unless you are running 800 x 600, in wich case an unblurry image is unavoidable. Now if only the selection tools would have AA too.
  • Create New...