On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:42:54 -0000, Bob Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Worthington wrote: >> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:40:09 -0000, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [..] > >> Since I use the click-drag a lot when working on websites, an extra >> twiddle with an extra menu is a nuisance and 2.2 remains the better >> choice for me especially as I also do a lot of cropping and I need to >> see the ratio as I select the area to be cropped. I've just >> re-installed 2.4 and confirmed that this is simply impossible now, >> whereas it was part of the default display on 2.2's crop tool. That's >> a clear step backwards by any rational measure of usability, and if >> you can't see that then I'm at a loss as to what is going on in your >> mind. > > Excuse me for jumping in, but maybe I've missed something in the > "discussion"; I'm not really sure I understand what you are trying to > achieve. > > a) Do you know the ratio you want to end up with before you start > cropping? I usually have a target ratio and some leeway. So I might know that the ideal is, say, .618 but that .6 to .63 will look okay if that's what I have to use to clip out something that I don't want in the picture. I don't think this is an unusual situation to be in. I know the ratio of the target space or page but I also know that the user won't notice/care about a minor deviation in margin sizes. > b) Or, do you want to crop an area you like, and end up with whatever > that > ratio happens to be, and be able to see it and take note of it (and > probably > use that value later)? I need to do do this quite often too. Certainly in a set of pictures I need to keep each one to the same aspect ratio even if the one choosen is not the "ideal" one. > If a), then I don't follow why setting the exact ratio in the tool is > difficult to do. It ensures the crop will be exactly what you want, > without > having to watch the current ratio and stop dragging at just the right > spot. > > If b), then I agree that 2.4 does not show the ratio information, as far > as I can see. I think this is the case. 2.2 worked very nicely for real-world situations where an exact ratio was not as important as a decent picture (within reason) while *also* making it quite easy (albeit not AS easy as 2.4) to hit that exact ratio when needed. As I say, the 2.4 method seems a clear step backwards to me. TW _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
