Photographic features and other non-paint features)

[enki]

* lens correction //useful, like any deforming filter. For example, you 
can use it to simulate the deformation of an old cathodic tube (It would 
be nice if the inverse deformation was possible, so that the image looks 
as seen from a spying camera, for example).
* tone mapping // ?
* bracketing to HDR layer // ?
* Gaussian/Wavelet noise reduction //useful for texturing (example: to 
soften a noise texture adaptively).

* cubism //not useful, because the main shape is too recognizable. 
Something similar to photoshop's Cutout filter would be better.
* pixelize //old-school pixelated stuff is in vogue, let's keep it !
* raindrop //hmm..completely useless :p
* oilpaint //useful. It's used mostly by beginner, though I saw some 
front page illustrations on CGtalk using it before :-o. Useful for 
texturing too, for a "mineral" look.
* emboss //useful for textures.
* small tiles //useful, but it should be possible to limit the filter to 
pixels inside the canvas (I often get transparent pixels between tiles) 
and choose a spacing between tiles. Example of uses : tiles, flagstones, 
windows pane, patterns textures for any use...
* round corner //useful (for real!). example: to create a card game, a 
floor tile, a futuristic door, ... (later, it could be replaced by a 
vector mask on a group layer).

Really, almost any filter can be useful for image/texture creation... 
it's more a matter of imagination and knowing what the filter does.
In texture creation, almost everything is useful because any type of 
material/shape may be needed. A filter may not be useful for months, and 
suddenly make you gain hours of work.

Even filters like exposure, gamma curves, hue/saturation are useful for 
painters. A finished illustration can be conceived as photo, it obeys to 
the same laws: lighting, exposition, perspective, field of view, ... You 
adjust curves of lightness like you would do with a photo, to correct 
mistakes, improve the meaning.

About filters vs painting tools : Filters aren't replacable by painting 
tools. They are used for completely different tasks. Silly example : you 
created a new video game character. Your boss want to know how it will 
look in a pixelated style. you won't redo the image from scratch with 
the grid brush, when you could just use the pixelize filter. In an 
iterative/investigative processes, it's important to have filters.

By the way, a bit out of topic, I noticed that many filters are limited 
to a small range of values, to fit a specific case. They shouldn't be. A 
good artist thinks outside the box, he may want to use pixelize with 
squares of 200 pixels.


About removing photographic features in general:

Many things are shared between graphics jobs. Graphic studios often ask 
you to do several jobs at the same time:
A comic drawer is often an illustrator, an illustrator is often a 
graphic designer, a graphics designer (Web or printing) often take and 
manipulate photos, texture artists and matte-painter are jack of all 
threads, etc... So I  don't think the choice of focusing on painting & 
texturing will really change anything for the user in the long run.

- When the comics drawer use case will be completed, a part of the 
graphic designer use case will be covered too (CMYK, tiff, performances...).
- Improving layers, masks, selection, or transform tools will benefit to 
almost every use cases (non-destructive editing, manipulation of pixels,...)
- Features for matte-painter will be useful for photographers, 
web-designer and texture artists (they all use photos as material). Etc...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20100308/40020167/attachment.htm