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
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
Gimp-user mailing list