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 <l...@holoweb.net <mailto:l...@holoweb.net>> 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
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
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
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Reply via email to