The revamped inspector is a big improvement, much more useable. Great job!
Personally, I found the shadow boosting curve of limited use except on very underexposed images, but others may find it useful.
I am in file browser and want to inspect one specific file. I click on it and then click “inspect”. The file list on the left scrolls to a random position and I see no way to get back to the selected image. Hovering over a thumbnail also instantly selects it, not only in the inspector thumb list but also in the file browser.
The thumb list of the inspector is too narrow, landscape orientation images get slightly cut off on the right.
Resizing the thumb list so that it shows the previews in the way I want it isn’t remembered. I have to resize the widget every time I click “inspect”.
I’ve seen this happening some times. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to nail it down yet…
This has been the behaviour for quite some time. However, thinking about it I agree that it’s counterintuitive, so I’ll change it.
Can you give me more details about your environment? (e.g. GTK version, screen resolution, options file, thumbnail size, etc…) The intended behaviour is that the file browser gets resized to a single column, if this doesn’t happen there’s a bug somewhere.
Love it! So much better to have more functionality there.
A few comments:
The shadow boosting curve is very aggressive, so not found a good use case for it yet.
If I select an image, then open the Inspect tab, nothing happens until I’ve clicked on another thumbnail. Not sure if this is as designed or not.
In the previous version, in 1:1 mode, if you hovered over a different thumbnail to the currently selected one, it would display the 1:1 preview of the image under the hover. Now it stays with the selected image. Not sure if this is as designed or not. I’m fine with it either way, although it probably makes more sense the way it is right now.
resolution is FullHD - 1920x1080
File Browser/ThumbnailSize = 200 - but I changed it via GUI and the behaviour stays the same so it seems to be unrelated to the thumbnail size.
I also tried different themes but that also didn’t help
I am running kde plasma on X11.
That’s basically working, besides the missing pixels
I was questioning the usability of auto-selecting a file when you just hover it, not request to only show a preview for selected files ;). What didn’t you like about the way RawTherapee does it - Hovering any file will just display the 1:1 preview without changing selection?
Probably it helps to find a list of use cases to get a better user experience.
I use it to
Check focus/sharpness of single photos - this is for snapshots of a unique moment (animals, portaits, …) that look interesting in thumb size.
Compare several photos of the same scene for sharpness/focus. This is my main use case.
Look for blown out highlights in single shots, compare to others photos when having a different exposure. Not done very often. Basically the same as 1)
point 1) works perfectly fine with the current implementation in art.
With the current implementation 2) is doable as the file browser supports selecting multiple files, so a quick move to a different file (without clicking) works.
But I still wonder if this could be done better, e.g. when multiple files are selected either open a new preview widget and add it to a layout on the right. Or open a small 1:1 preview box on top of the 1:1 image. This would greatly speed up 2) for me and make it more reliable.
To speed up 1) I could think of a 1:1 overlay box (direclty in file browser) near the currently selected file, triggered via shortcut. This gets rid of the context switch and the (currently) unavoidable relayout of the file browser.
culling and rating without the need to use an external program. For this, I think it’s better if what the inspector shows is selected, otherwise there’s the risk you think are rating one file but instead ART is operating on another one…
Anyway, I like the way it works now. Having an overlay as you suggest might be better, but I don’t use this often enough that I can justify (to myself) the cost of implementing it.
Regarding the too narrow width, I am looking into it