Photographic features and other non-paint features)

[Matthew Woehlke]

Cyrille Berger wrote:
> Lets start the list of (purely) photographic related features:
> * lens correction
> * tone mapping
> * bracketing to HDR layer
> * Gaussian / Wavelet noise reduction

I'm not sure I understand, do you mean these will be kept? At least tone 
mapping I hope will stay! (That has implications for any HDR color 
spaces, even things that don't originate as photos. Why shouldn't I be 
able to paint in HDR? Also... Adam made the note about textures; if 
texture drawing is supposed to be a first class citizen, then I think we 
need to assume that people will be wanting to draw HDR textures in the 
not so distant future, if they don't already.)

I really hate seeing HDR photo work dropped as a use case, as that is 
what I was most hoping to get out of Krita. Right now nothing else comes 
close. GIMP doesn't support HDR (not last I looked anyway), Cinepaint is 
old and buggy, and digikam is destructive (and trying to shoehorn in 
what you need for a full-featured HDR workflow would make it something 
besides a photo manager). For that matter, GIMP is also destructive; 
Krita is the only paint app I know of that isn't. (Rawstudio is 
non-destructive though with limited flexibility, but has no paint 
abilities or layers which makes it useless for multi-exposure HDR.)

> And the list of filters that I don't think are so useful for our vision:
> * cubism
> * pixelize
> * raindrop
> * oilpaint
> * emboss ?
> * small tiles
> * round corner

I think pixelize should stay; I think it has legitimate artistic uses. 
Do we really want Krita to be *only* natural media to the exclusion of 
more 'traditional' digital work (i.e. abandon being able to use Krita to 
the exclusion of GIMP)?

That said, if it is just a question of filters that ship "built in" 
versus ones you get with GHNS, well then that's not so much an issue :-).

enki wrote:
> A good artist thinks outside the box, he may want to use pixelize with
> squares of 200 pixels.

A good artist may want 1/3-inch "pixels" and be working at 600 dpi :-). 
+1 here, IMO 200 px really isn't that unreasonable.

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
Lions and tigers and HIPPOS! Everyone needs a hippo!