Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Gautam N. Lad wrote: > Hi, > I have added another tutorial, on CubicDesign.com, in the > GIMP->Photographic Effects section. > > This new tutorial teaches how to apply a photographic quality > smoothing to a person's body. > > All comments welcome... > > Bye! > > -- > Gautam N. Lad > http://www.cubicdesign.com > > > Only reason I am not going to visit your site is because of the photos I would not like to risk my job because of some stupid misunderstandings and belive me there are more like me so your so called marketing trick might backfire be careful Chet
Fw: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
- Original Message - From: Marissa Verma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jon Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 12:13 AM Subject: Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com > > > > > James Smaby wrote: > > > If you've ever done any portrait work you appriciate any and all > > techniques that can be used to smooth out skin, reduce wrinkles, remove > > unwanted hair and blemishes. Look at the covers of the magazines next > > time you're at the store... I know models have pores in real life... But > > you wouldn't know it looking at the magazines. > That is true, but then why is he fixing up photos that have already been fixed up? He uses pictures of women from magazines and what not that have already been airbrushed to death. Wouldn't he illustrait his technique better if he used a non airbrushed photo as a starting point? Marissa
Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
James Smaby wrote: > > Is it just me, or are these CubicDesign tutorials a little too > close to porn howtos? If you've ever done any portrait work you appriciate any and all techniques that can be used to smooth out skin, reduce wrinkles, remove unwanted hair and blemishes. Look at the covers of the magazines next time you're at the store... I know models have pores in real life... But you wouldn't know it looking at the magazines. > Must the object of the image touchup be > a large breasted model? I've got no comment on that point. Seems like the author of the tutorial chose tasteful images that work well for the techniques being covered. There is nothing obscene about women in bikinis. > I don't know about most people, but I > don't really want people thinking I'm looking at porn when I'm > really reading about one of these tutorials. I'm confident that nobody in my office would mistake those tutorials for pornography. Folks in my office also know its rude to snoop over each others shoulders trying to spy whats on screen. If folks in your office make a habit of scoping your monitor I suggest you invest in a pair of mirrors: http://www.thinkgeek.com/brain/bazaar/mart/cart.cgi?action=view&type=item&itemid=2940&at=desktoys > Perhaps somthing > a little safer next time, like a bowl of fruit or a house. How exactly were those images dangerous? > Am > I too nieve to think that half-naked pictures are not the best > thing to use as examples? Um... Yes. If you find yourself becoming aroused and uncomfortable by those images you should shut down your browser. (avoid internet surfing, watching television and looking directly at the magazine rack in the grocery store) > If a person is necessary (like when > flesh tones are required as in the latest tutorial), a closeup > shot of Clinton or Gates might make a better picture (no, I do > not want to see them in a bikini (although that might make for > a funny tutorial), I mean a closeup of thier face). No matter where you're at in the world you're entitled to your opinion and I'm certain you have your reasons but given the choice I would choose a beautiful woman in a bikini over an ugly old man. > According > to a slashdot observation, apache is the http server of choice > of the porn industry; is the gimp the image editor of choice? WTF does that have to do with anything? You could replicate the effects demonstrated in those tutorials any decent image editor. I thought the tutorials were great and I will use the stuff I learned when photographing my family and friends. -- Jon Winters http://www.obscurasite.com/jon/ "Everybody Loves The GIMP!" http://www.gimp.org/
Off-Topic request
Sorry for the rudeness, but could someone please post the unsubscribe URL? Thank you very much Steve
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Script-Fu Tutorial
> Hi, > > I have written just another Script-Fu tutorial, its a short tutorial > for the people, which are already familar with the Scheme language. It > gives step by step instructions on how to write an example Script-Fu, > avoid pitfalls and debug Script-Fu. The tutorial isn't completly > finished yet, but it should provide enough info's for a start. > The tutorial is available at: > > * http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/gimp/script-fu/script-fu-tut.html > > Comments are welcome. Hi. Nice and interesting tutorial...but I have some questions... 1. Would it be ok if this was maybe translated into Swedish some day and mirrored at a gimp-page? Maybe GUG will want it too. 2. How widely-used should script-fu still be? I recall hearing a discussion that SF would (should?) die in favour of perl-fu and c-plugins? It'd be great fun to know how to code my own plugin in C...but already knowing some SF, should this knowledge be considered old and obsolete? Also, could someone please sum up to me what the problems where when AFAIK, a lot of SF-plugins stopped working in some development version of gimp? Thanks. Carl-Johan Sveningsson "Succumb to natural tendencies. Be hateful and boring." ICQ# 2357535 http://come.to/woc/ http://wlug.westbo.se/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GSS/CS/P d(++,--)>--- s-: a--- C(,!) UL+++ P+++>$ L++ E-$ W++(@) N? o?> K? w-- !O M- V? PS++(@) PE- Y? PGP?>++ t->++ 5?>+++ X+ R- tv->! b+>+++ DI++ D+ G e+>+++$ h-->(+,) r>(+++,---) y+>** --END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Gautam N. Lad wrote: > Hi, > These are (super) models and known celebrities, and not porn star (or > related). > (Some of) These pictures are erotic, and not explicit (big difference). > > Ok, I confses...the reason I choose these pictures, is I know the majority > of my > audience are men, and this is just a (marketing) ploy to keep my visitors > coming back for more Yes. Quite disappointing after I visited in Netscape. In the interest of political correctness, I suggest you address the blatant sexism in your site by adding a few nude males. E. Not Clinton. Not Gates. -- Kate http://www.katewerk.com
Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
> James Smaby: > a funny tutorial), I mean a closeup of thier face). According > to a slashdot observation, apache is the http server of choice > of the porn industry; is the gimp the image editor of choice? does that mean you are not the customer of choice? what a shame, you know so much about the industry... clemens
Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
Hi, These are (super) models and known celebrities, and not porn star (or related). (Some of) These pictures are erotic, and not explicit (big difference). Ok, I confses...the reason I choose these pictures, is I know the majority of my audience are men, and this is just a (marketing) ploy to keep my visitors coming back for more I mean, what would you rather look at? A bowl of fruits or a bikini model (and considering how easy it is to get porn/nude pictures, I know there's no point with me using these models). Maybe such pictures are not called for, but I am making use of these pictures appropriately (I don't just choose any picture; I look at many - hundreds - before making up my mind on which picture to use), and I think my choice of pictures have complemented the tutorials well... Anywho, this is my site, and I hope I am doing a favour to the GIMP community by teaching others what I know, and I apolgoize if some of you feel I am degrading GIMP by using such pictures. Apologizes in advance to those who might be offended by my use of semi-nude models. Hmm...I should put this in my Copyright disclaimer Bye -- Gautam N. Lad http://www.cubicdesign.com - Original Message - From: "James Smaby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 4:40 PM Subject: Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com > Is it just me, or are these CubicDesign tutorials a little too > close to porn howtos? Must the object of the image touchup be > a large breasted model? I don't know about most people, but I > don't really want people thinking I'm looking at porn when I'm > really reading about one of these tutorials. Perhaps somthing > a little safer next time, like a bowl of fruit or a house. Am > I too nieve to think that half-naked pictures are not the best > thing to use as examples? If a person is necessary (like when > flesh tones are required as in the latest tutorial), a closeup > shot of Clinton or Gates might make a better picture (no, I do > not want to see them in a bikini (although that might make for > a funny tutorial), I mean a closeup of thier face). According > to a slashdot observation, apache is the http server of choice > of the porn industry; is the gimp the image editor of choice? > -James Smaby
Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
After reading your mail i've noticed that there's a link to http://www.hotmodels.org on the Cool Links part, it's just under the http://gimp.org link ;) On 16 August 2000 at 16:40, James Smaby wrote: >Is it just me, or are these CubicDesign tutorials a little too >close to porn howtos? Must the object of the image touchup be >a large breasted model? I don't know about most people, but I >don't really want people thinking I'm looking at porn when I'm >really reading about one of these tutorials. Perhaps somthing >a little safer next time, like a bowl of fruit or a house. Am >I too nieve to think that half-naked pictures are not the best >thing to use as examples? If a person is necessary (like when >flesh tones are required as in the latest tutorial), a closeup >shot of Clinton or Gates might make a better picture (no, I do >not want to see them in a bikini (although that might make for >a funny tutorial), I mean a closeup of thier face). According >to a slashdot observation, apache is the http server of choice >of the porn industry; is the gimp the image editor of choice? >-James Smaby > -- dirt All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, James Smaby wrote: > Is it just me, or are these CubicDesign tutorials a little too > close to porn howtos? Damn. And all this time I've been using lynx. -- Kate http://www.katewerk.com
Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
Is it just me, or are these CubicDesign tutorials a little too close to porn howtos? Must the object of the image touchup be a large breasted model? I don't know about most people, but I don't really want people thinking I'm looking at porn when I'm really reading about one of these tutorials. Perhaps somthing a little safer next time, like a bowl of fruit or a house. Am I too nieve to think that half-naked pictures are not the best thing to use as examples? If a person is necessary (like when flesh tones are required as in the latest tutorial), a closeup shot of Clinton or Gates might make a better picture (no, I do not want to see them in a bikini (although that might make for a funny tutorial), I mean a closeup of thier face). According to a slashdot observation, apache is the http server of choice of the porn industry; is the gimp the image editor of choice? -James Smaby
Re: New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Gautam N. Lad wrote: > This new tutorial teaches how to apply a photographic quality > smoothing to a person's body. > > All comments welcome... And thus ended the Golden Age Of Liposuction. -- Kate http://www.katewerk.com
New tutorial at CubicDesign.com
Hi, I have added another tutorial, on CubicDesign.com, in the GIMP->Photographic Effects section. This new tutorial teaches how to apply a photographic quality smoothing to a person's body. All comments welcome... Bye! -- Gautam N. Lad http://www.cubicdesign.com
Re: Scanner suggestions
Am Mit, 16 Aug 2000 schrieb Alan Buxey: > hi, > > > Anyhow, any suggestions out there for a scanner? There are several listed > > in the book, but I thought I'd see what suggestions might come my way, as > > it's a bit outdated. > > I'd recommend a SCSI Hewlett-Packard. well supported under Linux > > alan My UMAX 610S is low cost, but it works just fine. :-) -- mat
Re: Scanner suggestions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2000-08-16 at 0903.19 -0400): > (Please don't tell me to upgrade - I'm not confident enough yet to install > a new version, and except for some script-fu bugs, it's working pretty > well.) Upgrade! ;] You can, with the Helix RPMs. > Anyhow, any suggestions out there for a scanner? There are several listed > in the book, but I thought I'd see what suggestions might come my way, as > it's a bit outdated. Visit the SANE and related pages, they have the list of supported scanners. I would also check for pages about calibration, so you do no buy one when a same price better one exists. HP looked fine last time I checked, 6xxx IIRC. For example http://www.mostang.com/sane/ and http://www.scarse.org/. The best, IMO, SCSI, less problems in general. For them you will need "count up to 16" (SCSI ID) and "begin, middle, end" (terminator) Sesame Street episodes. They must be really rare episodes, cos nobody seem to understand SCSI. ;P Other option is USB, but you will have to fight kernel, possibly. The worst idea is parallel, too slow, too many problems. GSR
AW: Scanner suggestions
Hi Kate In case you are considering bying a UMAX scanner be aware, that their SCSI card is not supported by linux but instead you would have to get another SCSI adapter like adaptec. Besides that, UMAX scanners are great. renzo > >I'm new to both linux and the gimp - and will be picking up a scanner >shortly. I've got SuSE 6.2 - a stripped down version that came with the >SuSE for Dummies book, which had Gimp 1.1.7 with it. > >(Please don't tell me to upgrade - I'm not confident enough yet to install >a new version, and except for some script-fu bugs, it's working pretty >well.) > >Anyhow, any suggestions out there for a scanner? There are several listed >in the book, but I thought I'd see what suggestions might come my way, as >it's a bit outdated. > >I don't need anything particularly elaborate - my work will consist of >scanning a few photos and rough sketches. > >-- >Kate >http://www.katewerk.com
Re: Scanner suggestions
hi, > Anyhow, any suggestions out there for a scanner? There are several listed > in the book, but I thought I'd see what suggestions might come my way, as > it's a bit outdated. I'd recommend a SCSI Hewlett-Packard. well supported under Linux alan
Scanner suggestions
I'm new to both linux and the gimp - and will be picking up a scanner shortly. I've got SuSE 6.2 - a stripped down version that came with the SuSE for Dummies book, which had Gimp 1.1.7 with it. (Please don't tell me to upgrade - I'm not confident enough yet to install a new version, and except for some script-fu bugs, it's working pretty well.) Anyhow, any suggestions out there for a scanner? There are several listed in the book, but I thought I'd see what suggestions might come my way, as it's a bit outdated. I don't need anything particularly elaborate - my work will consist of scanning a few photos and rough sketches. -- Kate http://www.katewerk.com
