Re: [Gimp-user] Creating Transparent Text
Steve Kinney ad...@pilobilus.net writes: If possible I would start over with a new signature and scan, at 300 DPI or above, with black ink on white paper. Scan in 'Lineart' settings, so you don't have shades of grey. In the Gimp, set the mode to Color and proceed: Then, applying the filter Colors Color to Alpha would produce a much more acceptable result. The more uniform the color and texture of the paper (or etc.) used, the more certain the result. When downscaling the result, you'll get nice anti-aliasing based on transparency. -- Johan ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Creating Transparent Text
On 02/16/2013 11:16 AM, Denise Hamilton wrote: I am working on a webpage to sell my photography. I am trying to create text with my copyright information on the photos so that they cannot be copied (pirated). I have read the GIMP documentation and experimented with adding text to the photo. I cannot find how to make the text visible but not solid. I do not want it to impact the viewing of the photos. Someone once told me I needed to create a "mask" to do this or a custom brush. Someone here on the gimp-user list said i could do it just with the text tool. Any help you can offer will be appreciated. Last summer I made an effort to explore various watermark techniques which were doable using The GIMP. The most fascinating method I found was explained in one particular web tutorial which I am sure I bookmarked, saved to my hard drive, or both and will simply need to relocate in order to point you to it if you'd like to pursue it. The basic idea is to create and save in your ".gimp-2.x" directory a tiled pattern file (i.e. "filename.pat") which contains the text of your copyright notice and/or anything else you want your watermark to contain. I believe the text was opaque and white on a transparent background. You then load into The GIMP an image you wish to watermark. Add a transparent layer above it and "flood fill" that layer with your white watermark pattern. Then you perform a couple of funky image tricks on it before turning the opacity of the watermark layer down to almost but not quite zero. At that point it becomes virtually invisible and most people will never know it's there. Then to reveal the watermark should you ever need to prove the image is yours in a court of law or whatever... Just load into The GIMP both your unwatermarked original and the watermarked copy as two separate layers. Then change the layer mode of the upper layer to "Grain Extract" or whatever it is - I cannot right now remember. The parts which are common to both images will be opaque gray but the parts which are different (i.e. the watermark itself) will become clearly visible. This technique survives pretty much every known technique intended to defeat watermarking. I was very impressed with the idea of it. Myke ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] [Gimp-web] Free licenses by gimp ?
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote: Fixed in Git and, with luck, on the server. I verified the change. It's committed to the website. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Creating Transparent Text
On 02/16/2013 11:16 AM, Denise Hamilton wrote: I am working on a webpage to sell my photography. I am trying to create text with my copyright information on the photos so that they cannot be copied (pirated). I have read the GIMP documentation and experimented with adding text to the photo. I cannot find how to make the text visible but not solid. I do not want it to impact the viewing of the photos. Someone once told me I needed to create a mask to do this or a custom brush. Someone here on the gimp-user list said i could do it just with the text tool. Any help you can offer will be appreciated. This looks to be the watermark tutorial page to which I referred in my previous post. http://www.gimpdome.com/gimp-general-use/hidden-watermarks-in-gimp There's a little extra work required to do it - and a few practice runs of concealing and revealing the watermark will be in order before you master it, but I can't think of a better, less visually intrusive way of watermarking images than this. Myke ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Creating Transparent Text
You could try this: http://farbspiel-photo.com/learn/hdr-cookbook/creative-watermarking It was posted on Flickr gimpuser group. The question would be convert to some sort of script for Gimp... On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Myke C. Subs s...@mykec.net wrote: On 02/16/2013 11:16 AM, Denise Hamilton wrote: I am working on a webpage to sell my photography. I am trying to create text with my copyright information on the photos so that they cannot be copied (pirated). I have read the GIMP documentation and experimented with adding text to the photo. I cannot find how to make the text visible but not solid. I do not want it to impact the viewing of the photos. Someone once told me I needed to create a mask to do this or a custom brush. Someone here on the gimp-user list said i could do it just with the text tool. Any help you can offer will be appreciated. This looks to be the watermark tutorial page to which I referred in my previous post. http://www.gimpdome.com/gimp-general-use/hidden-watermarks-in-gimp There's a little extra work required to do it - and a few practice runs of concealing and revealing the watermark will be in order before you master it, but I can't think of a better, less visually intrusive way of watermarking images than this. Myke ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open
From the start of GIMP 2.8 there are rumors about Save vs. Export. It is a change with the past, but that has happened more times by changing versions. The first version of the GIMP that i started (i believe 1.2) came up with a single toolbox and nothing more. And i survived all the changes that came after that. To make the changes more visible for the users is it possible to add to the various Save options in the File Menu that this will happen in XCF format? For overwriting the original file there is already the option Overwrite .. For saving with another name the export option can be used. I hope that this suggestion stops the endless discussion about this change. Siem Korteweg. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open
s.kortenweg s.korten...@hccnet.nl writes: From the start of GIMP 2.8 there are rumors about Save vs. Export. It is a change with the past, but that has happened more times by changing versions. The first version of the GIMP that i started (i believe 1.2) came up with a single toolbox and nothing more. And i survived all the changes that came after that. To make the changes more visible for the users is it possible to add to the various Save options in the File Menu that this will happen in XCF format? As in: -- | File | || | New image | | ...| || | Save to XCF| | Save to XCF as ... | | ...| ? ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open
On 20-02-13 12:55, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote: s.kortenweg s.korten...@hccnet.nl writes: From the start of GIMP 2.8 there are rumors about Save vs. Export. It is a change with the past, but that has happened more times by changing versions. The first version of the GIMP that i started (i believe 1.2) came up with a single toolbox and nothing more. And i survived all the changes that came after that. To make the changes more visible for the users is it possible to add to the various Save options in the File Menu that this will happen in XCF format? As in: -- | File | || | New image | | ...| || | Save to XCF| | Save to XCF as ... | | ...| ? ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Indeed. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save
On 02/20/2013 01:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:10PM +0800, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: I don't use the word flippantly, but it seems odd to me how many users seem to feel devs owe them something (explanations, time, respect). Where's that entitlement come from? In open source, developers and users should be on the same side. Many times, there is some flow between the two groups. With commercial software, the relationship is explicitly one of commerce and market dynamics. With open source, when functional at least, the whole community is important. So, while you certainly get a number of obnoxious people with an over-wrought sense of entitlement, not all feedback along these lines is that way. I share what I think not because I can't work around it, but because the new enforced workflow is more difficult for me and I think more difficult for others, to the detriment of the software as a whole. I don't presume any right to demand anything, but designers and developers who don't listen to their engaged, active, and concerned users are missing something valuable. If the same thing keeps coming up over and over again to the point where everyone is tired of it and very frustrated, maybe it's time to step back and rethink a little bit. Someone a while ago had the suggestion of building sidecar files with the entire undo history of an image. As storage space continues to increase, that sounds like a very promising path providing best of all worlds. I mean, sure, the developers are perfectly fine in saying no, we're gonna do it this way, but it's also short-sighted to say and stop giving feedback. It seems better to say We did it this way for reasons x, y, and z, but we recognize that what you're asking isn't like the broken spacebar comic. You have options a and b now, and we're thinking about some even better approaches in the future. That's not a sign of weakness. I completely agree with your comment -- Maderios Art is meant to disturb. Science reassures. L'art est fait pour troubler. La science rassure (Georges Braque) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: Someone a while ago had the suggestion of building sidecar files with the entire undo history of an image. As storage space continues to increase, that sounds like a very promising path providing best of all worlds. Part of the reason for this change, is to align the current UI with such capabilities that GIMP eventually will gain as part of the ongoing GEGL integration effort. As already mentioned many times in this thread and through the last decade; GIMP is moving towards a non-destructive editing mindset – interactions designers/architects involved, core developers and well informed users that closely have been following the development over the last decade are aware of this. When such changes have landed in a stable release; there has been a quite long period of feedback from the users that follow development more closely than the users that only use stable versions of GIMP. This is also the reason that core GIMP contributors consider this discussion to already be done and dealt with before it flared up and trolls are keeping it artificially alive. The self selected beta testers that are willing to use the development version and work out problems during active development have a larger influence on decisions. These are also the users it makes most sense for the developers to spend their volunteered time communicating with – since these users directly contribute to finding bugs and potential problems early. /Ø ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:47:46PM +0800, Øyvind Kolås wrote: When such changes have landed in a stable release; there has been a quite long period of feedback from the users that follow development more closely than the users that only use stable versions of GIMP. So, that's me, for example. This is also the reason that core GIMP contributors consider this discussion to already be done and dealt with before it flared up and trolls are keeping it artificially alive. The self selected beta testers that are willing to use the development version and work out problems during active development have a larger influence on decisions. These are also the users it makes most sense for the developers to spend their volunteered time communicating with – since these users directly contribute to finding bugs and potential problems early. That doesn't appear to have been the case here. I brought this up during the 2.7.x development series, and was told that it had already been decided. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:43:12PM +0100, Simon Budig wrote: What would you say to We did it this way for reasons x, y, and z, but we recognize that what you're asking isn't like the broken spacebar comic. You have options a and b now, and we're thinking about some even better approaches in the future, but we won't revert to the old behaviour. Because this is what we said in the past. Over and over again. I would say: okay, cool. But that's not what I've been seeing. It's largely along the lines of you just don't understand that your way causes data loss. Well.. that is a part of it, but it really stops short of the entire point, which is not you just don't understand that your way causes data loss, but more like there are many things in GIMP currently that cause data loss. We are working over the next few releases to change this model such that data loss will never be part of the expected workflow. The change to the save vs. export file handling is just one step in many toward this goal. We won't totally stop you from losing data if you really want to, but we will keep anyone from doing it accidental. Also, please remember that big part of the tone of many around here is that it keeps coming up and in some cases, the same people continually repeat their arguments and some who are just plain rude about it(calling someone working for free on a program you use stupid is generally not a way to endear them to your opinion..not saying *you* have but a few people have said such things and even far worse) I don't know if you have kids or not, but it's kind of like being on a road trip and the kid saying are we there yet dad? The first few times(hopefully), you are nice, but after the kid asks for the 50th time, you feel like breaking something. And Overwrite is pretty close, but it doesn't mark images as clean, so I get confused about what I've saved already. But see, that's because it's not supposed to. Again, you have to remember that as of 2.8, any image pulled into Gimp is NO LONGER a .jpeg or .png or whatever, it's a Gimp image(xcf). You can verify this by looking at the filename in the titlebar which has the (imported) modifier beside it. This shows up for non GIMP file formats and is your cue that you are working on a non native file format(also notice that it goes away once you save to a Gimp file format, as well as the overwrite flag.) This is the whole point in that going forward, it is expected that you work in a non destructive methodology. Another thing to remember is that you are using a plugin to try to get around a behavior that was built in and it's never going to be able to override all of the default functionality(yet another reason I suggest people just bite the bullet and change their thought processes). Anyway... Joe ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open
I apologise that my last message appear as writen by s.kortenweg. Next time I'll pay more attention to what is going to be send, before i press send button. This bad example from Corel is my experience and i don't wish to speak for anyone else. Dominik Tabisz 2013/2/21, Dominik Tabisz d.kup...@gmail.com: All the arguments about encouraging/forcing users to non destructive workflow are reasonable, but there is one tiny problem. I've encountered it while cooperating with professional users of CorelDraw (design studios, marketing companies etc.) Corel can understand bunch of vector-based fileformats. It can import them, it can write into them. So in theory i could prepare image in *.eps or *.svg and it can be later processed in Corel. In fact any images that was not in native CorelDraw fileformat was rejected. (Even images from Adobe Illustrator !) Reason was simple: Corel open only it's native files (*.cdr). You can launch Corel and later import *.ai, *.svg, *.ps but You can not just navigate to such file and double click it to edit. You can't open them from command line too. This mean that professional corel users were forced to THINK ... they just choose to reject Your graphics. We can improve programs, we can create better images but we're unable to change peoples (un)thinking habbits. Please imagine what harm to trade and workflow can arise from proposed improvement of open/import behaviour. If You really believe that this change is necessary, there should be way of avoiding disaster that happened to Proffesional Corel Users. Let me give some proposition: 1)Gimp always open/import any type of file, it can understand. No matter if we ask program to do so from it's menu, command line or just click file in file commander. 2) After Gomp start and examine the file there are two possibilities: a) file is an *.xcf so Gimp just open it. b) file is not *.xcf - Gimp show the message and ask for permission to import it. If proposed change don't stop launching Gimp and opening/importing any file just by selecting it in a file commander, than You can hope it won't do so much harm to the bussines as Corel behaviour did. All differences would be one click more and Gimp remain universal image editor. I hope that we're not going to redefine meaning of word professional. Corel disaster shows that new meaning of this word is: someone who have ability to reject Your work. Don't let such redefinition happen in Free Software ecosystem. 2013/2/20, s.kortenweg s.korten...@hccnet.nl: On 20-02-13 12:55, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote: s.kortenweg s.korten...@hccnet.nl writes: From the start of GIMP 2.8 there are rumors about Save vs. Export. It is a change with the past, but that has happened more times by changing versions. The first version of the GIMP that i started (i believe 1.2) came up with a single toolbox and nothing more. And i survived all the changes that came after that. To make the changes more visible for the users is it possible to add to the various Save options in the File Menu that this will happen in XCF format? As in: -- | File | || | New image | | ...| || | Save to XCF| | Save to XCF as ... | | ...| ? ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Indeed. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list -- Dominik Tabisz ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
