On Sunday 03 May 2009, David Gowers wrote:
>On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Gene Heskett <gene.hesk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This, most simple of a photo manipulation has been hidden behind portable
>> menu mumbo jumbo for a decade now, is it not possible to fix it for almost
>> main menu access, just by drawing a box around what you want, invert the
>> selection and anything outside the box is gone forever,
>I do this all the time, I just make my selection with rectangle select
>and then use Image->Crop to selection.
And I believe I tried that at one point in my 10,000 monkeys experimentation,
and was left with a blank view, hello undo...
>It's possible to do it even quicker with the dedicated Crop tool.
>or at least till its undone.
>> Thanks guys, but please fix this most simple of photo editing function
>> there is.
>> You can see my problem at
which is now fixed, thanks to a previous poster.
>I can see your problem is that you are behaving in an arrogant and
Because it has been a constant source of confusion to this old fart (I'm now
74) since my first contact with gimp in about 1999 or so. Every other
selection that I tried, wiped the part I wanted to save, often via the leaky
lasso theory. One gets tired of reaching for the edit undo function.
FWIW, if I was in the darkroom making my own prints, a process that even in
color, I am familiar enough with that I made my own color paper developer.
Far more stable colorwise than what I could buy at the photo stores 30 years
ago when I was doing it several times a week. I would do this crop by running
my Bessler 23c/w/dichro head on up the rack and adjusting the easel to get
exactly what I want, so automatically I wasn't even concious of doing it.
That is why I find it so difficult to make gimp do it.
>This also leads me to doubt whether you have done a reasonable amount
>of research on this problem, especially as the first hit for Google
>search "GIMP crop image to selection" includes instructions for
>cropping using the Crop tool.
I didn't. Why should google have better instructions on running the gimp than
its own help has?
>In case it wasn't clear to you..
>'Erasing part of the image'
>does not in any way equate to 'reducing the area of the image'.
Ok, what does the autocrop and zealous crop function actually do then? They
do not obviously do this. The erase functions should be labeled as erase, not
crop, or some $5 equ prefixed *crop. To this old darkroom techy, 'crop' means
what you don't want never makes it to the print paper in the first place even
if you have to block it with the easels blades and trim the paper to some odd
size once its dry again.
I have even saved it and reloaded it to a new window, and of course all this
blank space is still part of the image it loads.
So please don't call an 'erase' function a 'crop', its scattered all through
the menus miss-labeled as a crop. It is not. It just adds fuel to the fire
Now, please take this as constructive, I don't intend to get into a big
argument about nomenclature. But to me, the word crop is often miss-used in
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
The future is a myth created by insurance salesmen and high school counselors.
Gimp-user mailing list