On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 09:13:50PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: > Carol Spears wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:51:01PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: > > > >>I have been working with selecting sections of a photo so as to remove > >>the background. Although it appears that I have selected the whole > >>portion of the image, when I paste it to new, I see missing pixels. Is > >>this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? > >> > >>Point is, if I've missed some pixels, they should show up as not > >>selected right? > >> > >>Gimp 2.0.4 > >> > >>I've dropped the two images here if you would like to check them out. > >>Note the missing pixels on the second image, (primarily on her legs and > >>arms). > >> > >>http://www.cailinsiuil.org/ > >> > > > >it would be easier to see the problem with the xcf saved with the > >selection you used. > > I put it on the site as well. > i looked at this. you could see with quickmask that there were some half alpha areas. i am not sure how you made the selections still, but i was able to fairly simply convert the selection to a path and back again (i did some feathering in between my steps) and the problem went away.
it would be someone elses call whether it is a bug or not. > >it is recommended that you work at 400% view so that you can see if > >there are problems like this. > > I looked at it at even a greater % and still could not see any pixels > that were not in the selection. > > >another thing to do is to save the selection as a layer in your xcf so > >you can fix any pixels problems like this, whether it is a problem with > >the selection technique or with gimp. > > Well, I used the clone tool to fix it up, but I'm still thinking there's > a problem with GIMP. > there are still ways to use the selection -- converting it to a path worked for me. the weird half selected areas were somewhat obvious with quickmask toggled. > >the image demonstrates a problem but it is not enough to determine if it > >is your technique or a gimp bug. also, before filing a bug report, it > >might be good to update your gimp to 2.2 and see if the same problem > >exists there. > > I know, I've been planning, but it's been busy. I'll download it > tonight. :) > if they would fix the file selector, it would be darn near perfect; as far as i am concerned. carol _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
