[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2007-02-21 at 0837.29 -0800):
> This discussion seems to be going astray a bit.  Let me try
> to supply some suggestions and information.

Another one: the paper describes a method to fix pixels based in other
image area, but the related family of apps (PS v7 and newer, PS
Elements v3 and newer) provides at least three tools that seem to do
what the paper talks about:

- healing brush, behaves like clone tool plus extra processing
performed when the stroke is finished. Rather interactive and quick,
if you mastered clone, this one is easy to use.

http://video.about.com/graphicssoft/How-to-fix-blemishes-.htm Notice
the clock cursor, that is the extra processing, with old computer and
big area you clearly see it does clone and secs later it blends.

- patch tool, behaves like a reversed order copy & paste (first select
area to fix, then source). Allows knowing both areas perfectly thus
avoiding one typical problem of clone: a big stroke covers all you
want... but starts to get pixels from source you do not want. The
extra processing is done at the end of the motion, too.

http://video.about.com/graphicssoft/The-Patch-Tool.htm Notice how it
looks like copy and then blends.

- spot healing brush, behaves like paint tool. A drop down decides
what the program uses as "inspiration" for the fix. Simpler than clone
but prone to not doing what you want if used in really big areas or
complex images (thus the name "spot", best used for dust in sky of a
photo, ie).

http://www.totaltraining.com/videos/mov/TPSE3_Healing_Brush.mov Notice
some undo and redos until the guessing is correct.

Looking at the paper without looking at the tools is a bit strange,
you already accepted looking at the inner part, better look at the
full picture then. Or at least set the context of what is going to be
copied, what not, what is going to be completly new or what is going
to be improved.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to