Jump to content

Requests: Control behavior


Recommended Posts

PN is great, but here's something than regularly annoys me:

When you open an effect like Sharpen, its control appears right in the center of your image. With small images, the control often covers all or most of the image.

No big deal—you just move the control, right?

But here's the problem. The Sharpen control's slider—and others' too, I think—only goes down to "1". There is no 0 ("no effect"). So when you open the control and it covers the image, you can't see the difference between "0" (no effect) to "1". To see it, you must:

  • 1. Open the Sharpen control.
    2. Move the control away from the image so you can see it.
    3. Set the control from "2" (its default—more on this later) to "1".
    4. Look at the image with "1" sharpening.
    5. Close the control while watching the image.

If you want to see this difference several times (as I often do) before applying or not applying the effect, you must repeat those 5 steps each time.

Then, if you decide you want to apply the effect, you must:

  • 6. Reopen the control.
    7. Move it away from the image.
    8. Use the control.

That's 8 steps, folks (not counting the #1-5 repetitions).

Thus, my requests:

_ How about letting Sharpen, and all other controls, go down to 0 ("no effect")?

_ Please, will you have the Sharpen control open at "1" instead of "2"? I don't know whose idea that was, but I've never seen another graphics app with such an arbitrary, unchangeable default.

_ Will you consider having PN "remember" control positions, as most good graphics apps do? Maybe some users prefer controls to open right in the middle of their images, but it would be great to have a choice.

Thanks, Ander

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Opening the effect in the middle of the image - It's been suggested but I don't know whether or not it's going to happen. I hope it gets implemented.

Only goes down to 1 - You don't need to do all those steps you can press 'OK' and then Ctrl+Z (undo) and Ctrl+Y (redo) to see the changes. I agree though, it would be much more convenient

Open up at 1 instead of 2 - I agree with that as well but if every effect/adjustment had an option for it's defaults individually, it would confuse the bejeebers out of people new to graphics editing. So maybe an option to 'remember last used' for both effects and adjustments, individually. Or ONLY change sharpen's default to 1 and leave no options for the others.

I like your ideas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opening the effect in the middle of the image - It's been suggested but I don't know whether or not it's going to happen. I hope it gets implemented.

Well, it just seems goofy to open a dialog box smack in the middle of the image you're working on. Imagine an artist is drawing a picture, and she asks her assistant, "Will you hand me that box of pencils?" Instead of handing her the box, the assistant sets them down in the middle of the drawing. Of course Paint.NET's dialog boxes won't smudge your image—but the feeling, and inconvenience, are the same.

Only goes down to 1 - You don't need to do all those steps you can press 'OK' and then Ctrl+Z (undo) and Ctrl+Y (redo) to see the changes. I agree though, it would be much more convenient...

Okay, you're right. I wasn't thinking. I'me sure I've done what you described, sometimes. But it's so unintuitive—and it's wacky to require users to do that kind of thing each time.

Open up at 1 instead of 2 - I agree with that as well but if every effect/adjustment had an option for it's defaults individually, it would confuse the bejeebers out of people new to graphics editing. So maybe an option to 'remember last used' for both effects and adjustments, individually. Or ONLY change sharpen's default to 1 and leave no options for the others.

Okay, how about a default of 0 for all effects, and having PN remember each effect's last setting? That seems like the best of all possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, how about a default of 0 for all effects, and having PN remember each effect's last setting? That seems like the best of all possibilities.

I (and there may be others as well) sometimes don't use a value of zero to avoid divide by zero errors. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes not. Would you ever consider rendering clouds with a scale of zero? Better to have the default set to something meaningful & avoid having to reset the slider every time from a meaningless value. Yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
I (and there may be others as well) sometimes don't use a value of zero to avoid divide by zero errors. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes not.

"Divide by zero errors"? You're referring to actually coding the app, not using it...? Well, some of Paint.Net's effects do include a value of 0—Brightness and Contrast, for example. How do you handle it with those?

Would you ever consider rendering clouds with a scale of zero? Better to have the default set to something meaningful & avoid having to reset the slider every time from a meaningless value...

You don't quite get it. Often, the reason we use effects (Sharpen is a good example) is to try to improve the image's quality—and sometimes it turns out that the image looks best when it's not changed. That's why it's important to be able to see the original, unchanged image, then gradually apply the effect.

You can make the controls' initial values whatever you want. I don't care, as long as I can lower them to 0 while I'm viewing the image, so I can see the difference between 0 (no effect) and other values.

As far as "having to reset the slider every time," we're back to my request to have each control "remember" its last setting. This is a very common feature in graphics apps. If you don't think that would annoy some people, you could make it optional.

Cheers, ander

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the plugins created for Paint.NET adhere to some fairly loose standards and are coded by third parties, and thus are difficult to standardize. Photoshop doesn't allow for this sort of thing; it's not really an industry standard.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Necroposting :shock:

@Anderpainter: You might like to check the date of the last post before you revive a dead thread. Now I guess a mod will lock this topic, so please continue this discussion by starting another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anderpainter: You might like to check the date of the last post before you revive a dead thread. Now I guess a mod will lock this topic, so please continue this discussion by starting another thread.

Frankly, that was the first chance I'd had to post here again. (Perhaps I'm not the only one here who's a a more-than-full-time professional with a family.) As much as I like P.Net, and the idea of helping it eventually become "serious" graphics software, it can't be one of my top priorities right now.

And what difference does it make how much time has passed between posts? This is still a "live" topic in that nothing has been done yet about the problem.

So rather than wasting time being "transpotters" of message dates, suppose we just let the forum software serve us, instead of vice versa...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what difference does it make how much time has passed between posts? This is still a "live" topic in that nothing has been done yet about the problem.

It' had been months since my last post (October 2008). So it's not "live", it's very,very dead.

So rather than wasting time being "transpotters" of message dates, suppose we just let the forum software serve us, instead of vice versa...?

Sorry, rule #11 is very clear. Like I said, just start another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, WHY do you need to start a new thread about a dead topic? If it died, it died for a reason. Does your reason adequately refute anything that caused the thread to die in the first place? Or is it just a rehash of an existing argument?

The reason for the "no necroposting" rule is that, in the vast majority of situations, there's literally no point in dredging up an old thread again; for instance, in a discussion about Mac support for PdN, all that there is to be said has been said. There is literally nothing else to say, because nothing will adequately answer the problems inherent in porting PdN to Mac in such a way that it will suddenly become Rick's priority to port it. Necroposting will just cause people to get cranky again.

We don't want to get into a discussion about topics worthy of resurrecting and topics unworthy of resurrection (that would be an even more contentious debate than the debate between the Ptolemaic and the Heliocentric models of the Solar System in the 1600s). So we put an undisputable cap on topics: Three months, full stop.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, WHY do you need to start a new thread about a dead topic? If it died, it died for a reason. Does your reason adequately refute anything that caused the thread to die in the first place? Or is it just a rehash of an existing argument?

The reason for the "no necroposting" rule is that, in the vast majority of situations, there's literally no point in dredging up an old thread again; for instance, in a discussion about Mac support for PdN, all that there is to be said has been said. There is literally nothing else to say, because nothing will adequately answer the problems inherent in porting PdN to Mac in such a way that it will suddenly become Rick's priority to port it. Necroposting will just cause people to get cranky again.

We don't want to get into a discussion about topics worthy of resurrecting and topics unworthy of resurrection (that would be an even more contentious debate than the debate between the Ptolemaic and the Heliocentric models of the Solar System in the 1600s). So we put an undisputable cap on topics: Three months, full stop.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

I am not trying to defy you by posting again here—but since you asked me some questions, I'd like to answer them.

The question is, WHY do you need to start a new thread about a dead topic? If it died, it died for a reason.

As far as I can tell, it didn't "die", but was effectively put on hold because I didn't have time to log back on and continue. (I run my own business, have a family, and am heavily involved in my community; sometimes the more enjoyable things must be delayed.)

Does your reason adequately refute anything that caused the thread to die in the first place? Or is it just a rehash of an existing argument?

Reading back over the thread, it seems to me I was still responding to replies (including the "divide by zero" thing, which I still don't understand—something about programming?) and was trying to explain the reasoning behind my suggestions.

Necroposting will just cause people to get cranky again.

Yuh, that I noticed!—but it seems like a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, in this case.

We don't want to get into a discussion about topics worthy of resurrecting and topics unworthy of resurrection (that would be an even more contentious debate than the debate between the Ptolemaic and the Heliocentric models of the Solar System in the 1600s).

Indeed—this is beginning to feel a bit like a trip around the sun. :?)

Anyway, as I said, it seemed to me the topic was still well under way but just got stretched out due to my other obligations. But go ahead and read the previous posts and decide for yourself.

For what it's worth, I'm a professional technical writer and development consultant. I've gone to the trouble to make these suggestions because I considered them basic usability enhancements that I thought would benefit P.N's users—and which I suspected, at least initially, addressed oversights rather than intentional design.

I would like to continue the discussion. If you'd like to copy all this to a new thread—or whatever parts of it you think should be retained—by all means go ahead, but it'd seem like a duplication of effort to start completely over.

Cheers, ander

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

I am not trying to defy you by posting again here—but since you asked me some questions, I'd like to answer them.

The question is, WHY do you need to start a new thread about a dead topic? If it died, it died for a reason.

As far as I can tell, it didn't "die", but was effectively put on hold because I didn't have time to log back on and continue. (I run my own business, have a family, and am heavily involved in my community; sometimes the more enjoyable things must be delayed.)

Does your reason adequately refute anything that caused the thread to die in the first place? Or is it just a rehash of an existing argument?

Reading back over the thread, it seems to me I was still responding to replies (including the "divide by zero" thing, which I still don't understand—something about programming?) and was trying to explain the reasoning behind my suggestions.

Necroposting will just cause people to get cranky again.

Yuh, that I noticed!—but it seems like a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, in this case.

We don't want to get into a discussion about topics worthy of resurrecting and topics unworthy of resurrection (that would be an even more contentious debate than the debate between the Ptolemaic and the Heliocentric models of the Solar System in the 1600s).

Indeed—this is beginning to feel a bit like a trip around the sun. :?)

Anyway, as I said, it seemed to me the topic was still well under way but just got stretched out due to my other obligations. But go ahead and read the previous posts and decide for yourself.

For what it's worth, I'm a professional technical writer and development consultant. I've gone to the trouble to make these suggestions because I considered them basic usability enhancements that I thought would benefit P.N's users—and which I suspected, at least initially, addressed oversights rather than intentional design.

I would like to continue the discussion. If you'd like to copy all this to a new thread—or whatever parts of it you think should be retained—by all means go ahead, but it'd seem like a duplication of effort to start completely over.

Cheers, ander

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...