On Monday 06 February 2006 10:36 am, Alex Feldman wrote: > >>>>> "Carol" == Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Carol> layers and paths are two different things. the dance floor > and Carol> the dance steps, perhaps. the dance steps are not > limited by the Carol> location the same way paths are not limited > to a single layer. > > OK, but this brings up the larger question - I thought the whole > point of layers was that every element of the image would live in > one layer and the image could be manipulated that way. I guess I > saw it as being like a train - to be on the train, you had to be in > one of the cars. You could not be in more than one car at once, and > you could not be on the train without being in a car. > > Do layers work this way, but only for certain kinds of elements? > And if so, what is ruling philosophy that determines whether an > element will be limited to one layer?
I do not understand your point A path is an independent image element - It does not "show" in the final rendering of the images at all. It is just a template, like a ruler, for stroking, or filling, or making selections. So, once you make a path, you can strike its countour in any layer you like. Just select the desired layer in the layers dialog, the desired path in the paths dialog, and edit->stroke path. If things were like you are wishing, this flexibility would not exist If you are not using a path, it won't be in your way, it is not a "visible" image element, just some meta element to add image elements. > > Thanks. _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
