Am 19.02.2013 17:33, schrieb Helen:
I apologize if this goes out twice. I believe my first effort bounced.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Liam R E Quin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It's usually better just to have an opaque signature: it's harder to
remove and can become a part of the artwork.
Browsing and reading this I'm reminded of my problem w/signature
brush. Several
years ago, I made a brush by signing my name in black ink onto a white
paper and
scanning that paper. I use it unobtrusively in bottom right corner
when I print photos
to frame for gallery showings. The problem is this: I can't remember
how I made the
background transparent. I have about 12 sig brushes which are no
good because
with all of them, I used an eraser to get the white background off --
messy. I know there is
a good method of doing this -- I did it years ago -- but I've tried
many times over many
months, and can't recall how I made the signature black with
transparent background.
Does my question make sense? How is that done? (The brush I made
successfully
has my name with 2008, and I just erase the date every time I use it,
but I'd like to
know how to do it again and do it right.)
--
Helen Etters
using Linux, suse 12
_______________________________________________
gimp-user-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Color -> Color to Transparency
Gunold
(Did you see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50sAOfg8hnU )
_______________________________________________
gimp-user-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
