[PD-dev] Re: [GEM] pix_blur ???? which Gem-objects do we need (have) ?

[Matthew Allen]

	Actually I don't find it arrogant at all. I currently just use PD
from the audio side of things, but at my day job I'm a lead artist at a
video game company, and you have actually hit on one of my biggest gripes
about Photoshop, and the whole dumbing down of a product for the sake of
readability/usability. 

	Photoshop (since version 3) introduced the idea of blend modes for
its layers. Yet for some insane reason they decided to go against the most
common naming schemes for these modes. So instead of 'Adding' one layer (CS
+ CD) I need to figure out if I should use 'screen' or 'overlay' or some
other oddly named thing from their list (its screen by the way :). This has
led to all types of confusion for artists, who started out as your 'dumb
user' but over the years have moved into the power user category. So now
They look at the various blend operations available to them on modern cards
and have to run through them all testing each to see what its 'Photoshop'
equivalent is.
	In many cases Photoshop's approach is easier (multiply is easier, I
guess, to understand than CS*CD) in the short term, aimed at people who are
just looking to add text to their digital images. But in the long term
'dumbing' things down can hurt the long term user who wishes to expand their
knowledge.

m.


> maybe some users have earned a deeper (or a first) understanding of
> signal-
> processing because of the way pd works. They learned how effects are made
> (vs.
> applied). I want the same for Gem-users.
> I fear users asking for features like "sharpening" when it is already
> there.
> And they will go and ask for "sharpening more" (is called like this in
> photoshop ?). And i am not willing to spend my time for these. (but of
> course,
> that is quite arrogant)