Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 02:30:11 +0100 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior I fully agree with the first post of this blog. the question whether to save unsaved work spoils the whole efficiency to quickly edit a file. There are certain advantages to having a clear separation between XCF and non-XCF file formats For me, though, the real productivity killer is the 'export and quit' scenario, where GIMP asks you if you want to Save (to XCF) changes. I would love the ability to suppress that prompt for images that are (1) recently exported with no further changes and (2) not associated with a saved XCF file. Also, the ability for that prompt to have a 'Save' AND 'export' command could be a plus, too. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 10:29:29 -0600 From: johnme...@pueblocomputing.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior When did Ted Stryker become part of the development team? If that's an Airplane reference, I don't get it -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 21:48:31 +0200 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior Your social skills surely reflect your intelligence level. Ha-ha. I just say that what I think and don't feel shy about specific words :) ...then you should already be aware that how you choose to phrase something has a very strong impact on how everyone else perceives you. :) If you look like a troll -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] changes in gimp 2.8
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:03:23 +0200 From: schum...@gmx.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] changes in gimp 2.8 Second, it seems the text tool has been refactored a bit. Now when I go to type text, it has a fixed size of 18 pixels. If I raise this amount, and select the text in the text box again, the number reverts back to 18 and I get small text. What's going on here? Is there a different workflow now for selecting that number? Where do you change the text size - in the tool options dialog or the on-canvas dialog? Very important to learn for 2.8 is that the font size in the Tool Options dialog controls the default size of the text object, while the on-canvas dialog is a secondary size that only applies to selected text within that object, i.e. you can mix different sizes/styles in the same text layer (similar to a traditional word processor). Powerful, but you have to know it exists first. For example, if you have a text object with a default size of 18pt but one word in there is manually set to 12pt (67%), if you change the default size to 24 then the other word becomes 16 points (still 67%). -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Layer Opacity Access Point(s) Madness
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 22:48:39 +0200 From: ofn...@laposte.net To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Layer Opacity Access Point(s) Madness Next these pesky users will also want to know the blend mode and locks for that layer or group... could all this be displayed when hovering the pointer over the layer thumbnail? That sounds like a decent idea: Hover the mouse over a layer and it will pop up a tooltip identifying the two things you can't tell from a glance - the layer's blending mode and opacity. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Can Gimp superimpose text in landscape orientation on photo?
From: dgr...@thecommonlot.com Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:02:09 -0400 To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] Can Gimp superimpose text in landscape orientation on photo? Can Gimp superimpose text in landscape orientation on photo? If so, I can not find in the documentation how to do this. This is my first posting. I hope I am asking through the correct list serve? ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list You're asking in the right place, but it's not entirely clear what you're trying to do. The way I interpret the question, you have a photo (in landscape orientation) and you want to add text to it in GIMP. If your camera tagged that the photo is landscape instead of portrait then GIMP will automatically rotate the image 90 degrees when you open the file so the correct side faces up and you can simply superimpose text using the Text tool; no further editing is required. If GIMP does not (the photo opens sideways), you can still use the Text tool like normal, however you will need to manually rotate one layer (either the text layer or the photo layer) by 90 degrees so they match up the way you want. Preferably the photo layer, because GIMP doesn't support editing a text layer after making non-text edits (like rotation) to it - if you try, GIMP warns you it has to revert the modifications to that layer. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] freehand selection lost since image was already selected
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org From: unham...@fsfe.org Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:15:41 +0200 Subject: [Gimp-user] freehand selection lost since image was already selected Say you've zoomed in to start this painstaking freehand selection with lots and lots of points, and when you get to the end, nothing gets selected. Then you notice that, once again, you had done a Select All some time ago (invisible because you zoomed in) and forgotten to Select None before clicking the lasso. Alternate suggestion - when the current selection exceeds the boundaries of the current image window, render marching ants along the window's interior border. (Maybe with half opacity to help distinguish it from the selection's actual edges.) However, I also agree it's not a common issue because the default mode for all select tools is replace. Note that when you use modifier keys to activate a selector mode you can release the modifier immediately after making the first click (useful for a variety of things, like constrained-angle-polygonal or square-not-rectangular selections). -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:03:04 -0700 From: k...@anechoicmedia.com To: akk...@shallowsky.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior I find it oddly unsettling how the developers have consistently turned a deaf ear to this important issue by not making it possible in the settings to allow GIMP users to select the old way of saving as and exporting content instead of being forced into one way of doing things...which leads me to wonder if there might be a hidden agenda of some sort? I totally understand this impression (it's not just save/export where this deaf ear happens), but the fact remains that the decision was made long before that. Documentation for the Save/Export distinction (and the decision to implement it) goes all the way back to March, 2009: - http://gui.gimp.org/index.php?title=Save_%2B_export_specificationoldid=543 GIMP 2.8.0 was released in 2012 -- a full Three Years Later. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 13:46:58 +0800 From: ngoonee.t...@gmail.com To: mader...@gmail.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior Thousands? In all the time I've followed this list I've seen maybe a dozen threads. I believe all of them have your replies in there. Trying to count the number of complainants, I estimate probably one or two dozen as well. This single topic has nearly 300 replies by now (if not more), and there have certainly been dozens of other, smaller topics over time, mostly clustered around 2.8's launch. It is probably safe to assume there are over 1,000 posts on the matter in total ...and, of course, +1 to the pile. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org From: jernej|s-gm...@eternallybored.org Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:38:04 +0200 Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior In Paint Shop Pro and Excel the selection is also saved with document. Speaking of Excel, Excel has really weird cut-and-paste behavior compared to every other app I know; the Cut command doesn't actually remove anything from the document or place it on the clipboard, it just marks it with marching ants (distinct from the normal click-and-drag selection) and only when you hit the Paste command does it actually cut/paste. A side effect is that you can only do one paste per cut (unlike with copy/paste). -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:14:20 -0500 From: jnagyjr1...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior I had meant to send this on-list yesterday...didn't realize my error until Richard replied off-list. Don't forget the 'floating selection' layer that prevents you from editing any other layer in the image. Excessively frustrating when you're looking to use one particular image in a variety of ways. That plus the new save vs. export is very workflow breaking. Right. So if I may correct my previous response then . . . . the one change GIMP ever made which broke my personal workflow in the biggest, ugliest way possible was not 2.8's Save/Export. It was when GIMP 2.4 changed the default click-and-drag select behavior from float and move selected region of pixels to move selection mask only. I was . . . not happy about that. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
On the contrary, this is the dangerous situation... - load file - create complicated selection/path to update part of the image - update that part - export image - quit (and throw the selection away...). IMHO the only safe case is when the image has one singe layer without mask, no channels, no paths, no selections. GIMP is the only application I know of where the selection mask is considered actual document content (rather than an interface entity used for manipulating document content). That was a very workflow-breaking issue to come to terms with, and actually much more so than Save vs. Export. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:07:34 +0300 From: li...@secarica.ro To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior În data de Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:41:01 -0700, Tom Williams a scris: What realy misses here is some intelligent way in determining the oportunity of the save the changes to image ? dialog. This dialog (or the lack of an option to getting rid of it) that pops up in obvious useless situations is the annoying one, *not* the export thing. I can agree with you here. If: - No changes have been made since the last export command, and: - The current image has no XCF file associated with it Then IMHO this is a scenario where suppressing the Save changes? prompt can be quite useful for the user, because in this context the exported file IS what they want 'saved' to disk. GIMP constantly asking the user to Save changes? in a non-XCF workflow can make the user ignore it out of habit (i.e. crying wolf), which is a dangerous behavior to have. On a side note, I would love to see an option for rescaling the image at export time (like with Inkscape's Export). I have a 150dpi scanned drawing with an XCF copy behind it, but when I want to export a Web-resolution (60-90 dpi) JPG of it, manually rescaling the image means I run the risk of 'ruining' my high-resolution workfile because it counts as a change to the image. (This actually happened just the other day, fortunately I wasn't closing GIMP at the time so I could merely Undo the changes and then save it at the proper resolution.) -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] SOLVED: export vs. save menu in gimp2.8 - simple and lasting solution
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] SOLVED: export vs. save menu in gimp2.8 - simple and lasting solution From: l...@holoweb.net To: strata_ran...@hotmail.com CC: jvrom...@squirrel.nl; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:14:28 -0400 as with control-s and control-S, there's no difference the first time, only on subsequent times: control-shift-s (save as) and control-shift-e (export as) will prompt for a filename each time, whereas control-s and control-e will only prompt the first time, and not at all in the case of control-s where you opened an xcf file. You might have overlooked one minor (but critical) element about my workflow: I generally only do one image export per GIMP session. So EVERY export is the first time I did suggest that the export filename/options should be recorded as part of the XCF project data -- what say you to that? -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Enhancement request: Transparency as a paintable color
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:50:29 +0200 From: si...@budig.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Enhancement request: Transparency as a paintable color ok, to clarify: I meant Shift-X (as in X vs. x :) The point is though that the functionality behind shift-x got lost. You can assign keyboard shortcuts to previous/next tool, but this goes by internal tool ordering and not most-recently-used. Unlike, say, revert zoom which toggles between the current and previously-used zoom level. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] SOLVED: export vs. save menu in gimp2.8 - simple and lasting solution
From: jvrom...@squirrel.nl To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:21:40 +0200 Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] SOLVED: export vs. save menu in gimp2.8 - simple and lasting solution Dirk noi...@pwnoogle.com writes: There's much to be said for the new behaviour. It would be better if Ctrl-E just used the filename and properties from the imported file. The first time it may even show a File exists, overwrite dialog. Currently, Ctrl-E and Shift-Ctrl-E open the same export dialog, which is a waste. -- Johan ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Y'know, I cannot think of any situation in my personal workflow where Ctrl+E versus Ctrl+Shift+E creates a tangible difference in behavior. This is a problem. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Include exported filename/options in XCF data
This is a tangent related to the matter that the first time you do an export command from a GIMP session there is no practical difference between Ctrl+E (Export) and Shift+Ctrl+E (Export To). Now, of course, the first time you do a Save command there is no difference between Ctrl+S (Save) and Shift+Ctrl+S (Save As) but this is not what makes the export shortcut an issue. The saved filename is effectively kept between GIMP sessions. The last-exported filename is not. If you only ever do one export per GIMP session, you will never see any difference between Ctrl+E and Shift+Ctrl+E. (Likewise, in an import/overwrite based workflow there is no difference between Ctrl+E and Shift+Ctrl+E either, because Overwrite is not the same command or shortcut as Export.) So the suggestion here is that when you save your XCF file, the file should record a block of data for the last used export filename and its associated options. If you have a workflow where you regularly export to the same target filename (but generally only once per GIMP session) this would be an improvement over the current behavior because GIMP then does not have to keep confirming that you're overwriting a file that exists or keep prompting you for export options. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Enhancement request: Transparency as a paintable color
So, to give an analogy, if you are working on a surface with no alpha channel, you can simply swap to the background color to erase something you've drawn (which is also precisely what the Eraser tool does if there's no alpha channel!), right? Okay, I think I understand. You know how the Eraser option uses an Alt key modifier for Anti-erase? Maybe add something similar to the Pencil/Paintbrush tools - Alt key activates an anti paint mode. The difference between this and switching to the Eraser tool outright is that the Eraser tool might have separate tool options (dynamics, etc.). I can support that having a keyboard modifier to do something on an arbitrary basis is indeed slightly faster than going to the toolbox and switching tools. Heck, it's still faster than swapping a Wacom pen around for the other end. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Enhancement request: Transparency as a paintable color
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:09:13 +1000 From: disposableem...@apps.opensourcelaw.biz To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] Enhancement request: Transparency as a paintable color Hi All, I have lodged a request for GIMP to support use of transparency as a color. By this I mean mainly that when using a paint tool, painting with that tool paints only the chosen level of transparency. The enhancement request is here: Add a layer mask. A layer mask is effectively a second alpha channel but you can paint directly on it using any tool and any (greyscale) color. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] to save or not to save - a foolish question
I to am a bit surprised that the old topic received a new firestorm of over 50 replies in one day . . . I believe that qualifies as a grenade behavior. From: uni.kl...@t-online.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 23:49:14 +0200 Subject: [Gimp-user] to save or not to save - a foolish question Whoever use GIMP just to open jpegs to look inside his SD-card has no idea of GIMP's abilities. They better should use MS Photo editor. That is true, one should NOT just open GIMP in vain. MS Photo and Fax Viewer is more than sufficient if all you need to do is browse a directory of standard image files -- or, better yet, tell Windows Explorer to use Thumbnails view and you don't have to open any separate applications at all. The only times I've opened GIMP and done nothing with it are when I was thinking of a task but changed my mind later on. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Hi friends, don't feed these trolls! See the save as shitstorm of June, 14th, 15th and 16th Have a fine weekend! Konrad ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Save vs export separate discussion forum needed
From: kasim.ah...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:28:08 -0400 To: j...@jaysmith.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Save vs export separate discussion forum needed What you're saying does make sense but is it really necessary? I mean is it really THAT difficult to get accustomed to the new way of working? It's not even that big of a change, IMO. Just a different option to click really. Sent from my iPod Part of the annoyance was recently stated by another user: If your particular GIMP workflow (for whatever reason) has little to no need of XCF file storage, GIMP still bombards you with Save changes? dialogs every time you close an image after doing your work on it. Even months or years after mentally adjusting to the Export command, this dialog persists and you learn to ignore it out of simple habit -- GIMP is crying wolf. That is bad. IMHO GIMP could benefit from re-instating the user preference that was confirm closing of unsaved images, but not as it previously was. The preference would still be enabled by default, but if it's disabled, then for a given image: - If the image belongs to an XCF file, GIMP ignores the preference and always prompts for unsaved changes (saving them to the XCF file, of course). - If there is no XCF file associated with the image (typical of import/export/overwrite type workflow), GIMP will only prompt to save changes if there are changes since the last export. If there are none, GIMP will not prompt the user (crying wolf scenario). I know I haven't thought out this one completely, but it would help eliminate a problem with how GIMP treats the non-XCF workflow, it would not affect XCF-based workflows, and would not affect the distinction between Save and Export. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:57:07 -0400 From: ren...@olgiati-in-paraguay.org To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:03:45 +0100 Andrew Bridget andrew_brid...@btinternet.com wrote: Completely useless for the vast majority who only want to quickly open a camera-produced .jpeg, rotate, crop and rescale it, and never work on it again. So why use GIMP ? Because I have been using it (mainly to quickly open a camera-produced .jpeg, rotate, crop and rescale it, and never work on it again) for over 15 years. Because it is the only serious image manipulation prog for Linux. Can I share my story? Prior to GIMP I had three separate applications for image manipulation: - MS Paint (no further explanation) - iPhoto Plus v3.? (reportedly bundled with my dad's first scanner). This was capable of cropping, color curves adjustment, resize/rotate with resampling, but did not support newer popular file formats like GIF or PNG. - LView Pro v4.? (before their devs went to a timed trialware model). This supported JPG, GIF (with transparency but not animation), and PNG, also had a unique YCC-based invert command, but otherwise its feature set was pretty limited. No interactive color curves, for one. So depending on what I had to do in particular I would need to open up to three apps, and I couldn't always share image clipboard data between them. GIMP saved me a lot of time in that it was capable of doing everything I used these other apps for. Despite a few breaking changes (though the save/export issue is a big change conceptually, IN PRACTICE the biggest breaking change to my personal workflow was a minor adjustment to the behavior of selections from 2.2 to 2.4), it is still the best tool I've found for what I do, XCF or otherwise. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Pity the recent changes have made it so much less pleasant to use; every time I have saved my work back to its original .jpg and the stupid prog claims I have not saved it, I heartily curse those responsible, and wish them to suffer both lumbago AND hiccough.. Cheers, Ron. -- Beware of foreign entanglements. -- George Washington -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org -- ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:22:35 -0400 From: dan...@yacg.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior That said, I have noticed GiMP does at least remember your previous export action which enables a person to quickly update what they are exporting as they work. This is a handy improvement which demonstrates that the developers have recognized the export function as a bit of a stumbling block to a smooth workflow and they are attempting to reduce it some. Current versions of GIMP 2.8 also note if the file has been recently exported (with no further changes made to the image), however I do agree that if the user has to deal with this confirmation message all the time then GIMP is essentially crying wolf to their workflow and this runs a real risk of dismissing things out of habit and losing work as a result. On a tangent, when GIMP prompts to save changes I would rather it not remind me how long it's been since the last (bonafide) Save command. If I'm currently multitasking, I may open a file and make a few quick edits, then be working on other applications for the next hour-plus. When I come back, GIMP prompts to save. That's good and all, but the way GIMP phrases it is annoying because I haven't actually spent the last hour doing work on it. I'M the one who knows how much work I might be losing by closing it without a proper Save and in this case it's only a minute or two tops. All GIMP has to do is remind me that unsaved changes exist at all, not make guesses of when or how much. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] How to move layer group
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:45:04 -0700 From: w...@ieee.org To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] How to move layer group A) Move all the layers in that layer group to another (x,y) position: 1. In the Move tool check 'Move the active layer', 2. select the layer group in the Layers dialog, 3. move the layer group around with the Move tool. Thanks much. This is what I was trying to do. I simply did not review the tool options and try that one. My bad. Note you can use the SHIFT key to toggle between the modes. Very handy - I personally prefer the tool to be on pick an object to move by default, but I definitely have occasional cases where I need to move something that's already active but for one reason or another difficult to actually click on (like a text layer). -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Clone tool not working
From: sanjibju2...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 01:57:25 +0530 To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] Clone tool not working Hi, I am using GIMP 2.8.2 on Ubuntu 12.10. The clone tool seems broken. It can not recognize the CTRL+left click. I have tried with setting different key, which also does not work. It always says Ctrl-click to set a new clone source Doing that says set a source image first How do I solve it ? Tangent: While I've never personally experienced this behavior personally, there ARE some times where if the Clone tool does not have a cloning source, I wish the first click should behave like a Ctrl+click and set the source automatically. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] [Fwd: RE: gimp long opening after changing the settings]
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:18:56 +0200 From: g...@jbmd.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] [Fwd: RE: gimp long opening after changing the settings] Even that was very good advice! I downgraded to 2.8.0 and am happy camper :-) Thanx to Stratadrake 2.8.4 should work fine -- the querying plug-ins issue seems to have started with 2.8.6 . -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] error animated Gif
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 05:55:08 +0200 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] error animated Gif Thanks for replyingyour answer did not helped for me, the problem stays. i optimized each picture and i optimized the new (12 pictures) layer. but the lines stays. but i understand now better the difference so thanks for that... Attachments: * http://www.gimpusers.com/system/attachments/46/original/error_in_gif.gif How about converting to indexed color mode before you try optimizing it? When done right, the Optimize command (in either flavor) should make no visual difference in the resulting animation. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Fixing Deleted Left Behind Lines
From: dlabo...@gillis.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Gimp-user] Fixing Deleted Left Behind Lines Dear Gimp, I absolutely love the program I am just trying to figure something out. When I start a new project and I start editing the photo (i.e. drawing on it with the paintbrush) I encounter a problem when I try to select certain colors and delete. So lets say I have three colors in my image. I do a little drawing and editing on my image and then I want each separate color to be a separate layer. So I select two of the colors and delete them. Any things that isn't that third color or where the two colors I deleted used to be now has these editing lines is what I want to call them. You can see faint lines where I had made slight changes to the image with lets say the paintbrush. HOW DO I GET RID OF THOSE LINES? Some help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Thomas ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Most selection tools have an anti-aliasing feature which improves the visual quality of the selection's edge pixels, but it also means that if you're doing a cut and paste, there may be bits and traces of color left behind in areas that you would expect to have nothing left. Try switching the selectors' antialising off and see if this improves your results. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] The brush sizes does not change when I selected a different brush.
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:57:38 +0800 From: minhsien0...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] The brush sizes does not change when I selected a different brush. Dear all: Because brush size slider is really not easy control for tablet pen, I decided to create some brushes (range from 1x1 to 9x9 ) for daily use. But I found gimp 2.8.4 does not change the brush size when I select another brush. Do you know how to make 2.8.4 not persist in prior size setting? Thank you. Best Regards, Minhsien0330 ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Short answer: You don't, however, next to the brush slider there is a button that sets it to the brush's default size -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] A sad case of regression ? [saving undo history]
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:40:34 -0500 From: jnagyjr1...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] A sad case of regression ? [saving undo history] On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 08:03 -0700, Richard Gitschlag wrote: How often is Undo history ACTUALLY needed by the user, beyond fixing a ten-seconds-ago mistake? I can't personally name a single application that stores undo history with the document's workfile; but if you can, let me know. Office software, when you set it to display revisions, in a way saves undo history. Come to think of it, I've used that. MS Word's Track Changes feature turns out to be quite useful when you're proofreading someone else's copy. But it is not a full undo history, just a diff between the original (oldest) and revised (newest) copies. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] A sad case of regression ?
Ah, finally, some concrete specifics. Let me digest that... Old way: Create file 300x300, work on it. Okay, you now have one window/tab displaying your image. (Since this is just an example, I'm not going to question whether the image is 300x300 pixels or some arbitrary size tagged as 300dpi. But always include the unit-of-measure with a number.) Save as orchard.xcf, all layers intact, everything fine. Gotcha. Scaled image to 72x72, named it Orchard-scaled.png (or .jpg if that's what they ask for). Right, so you did indeed rescale the image size (and update the dpi to reflect the new pixel dimensions) and after that you output it as a separate file using a standard image format. No problems here. I then had that Orchard-scaled.png on my screen and I could make changes if I wanted to before mailing it. This is because in the 2.6 model the open image is named according to its most-recently-saved filename (regardless of file format). So yes, if say you forgot to add a watermark or something you could simply make the change and hit Save to re-output orchard-scaled.png . Note that by doing this you lose the ability to quickly save said changes back to your XCF unless/until you specifically tell GIMP to Save As... an XCF again. (Ironically, since you did an image rescale between the XCF and PNG, GIMP losing track of the XCF is probably a good thing.) It seems I can't do that any more. Now, if I want to see my 72x72 Orchard-scaled.png, I have to open it, and as soon as I open it, it becomes a file that I can't mail because it's no longer a .png. Not exactly. The open image window is labelled something along the lines of Untitled [original filename]. 'Untitled' refers to the XCF associated with the open window (or in this case the lack thereof, since it was opened directly from a standard image file) but the window title does note that the image was nonetheless loaded from a file. More importantly, the file on disk remains completely unchanged (and mailable); GIMP doesn't even place a lock on the file handle (unlike many commercial products); you could open your mail software and attach/send a copy of your PNG even while GIMP is still running. I agree, though, in some cases you do want to verify what the exported file looks like, in which case you do need to open that file in a separate window/tab. No way around that, in fact there never was :( So my Q, is there a way to open that .png, keep it a .png, tweak it if I want to, save the .png and mail it? Yes, just use the Export commands instead of the Save commands, keeping in mind that in 2.8 Save only works on XCF files: - When you are working on an XCF, you will be prompted for the filename (and assorted filetype options) the first time you hit the Export command, but after that, as long as GIMP remains open you can re-export that image at any time (with no additional prompts or dialogs) by using the Export to [filename] command. - When you open a standard file format, one of the Export options will become Overwrite [filename] which is the equivalent of a quick save back to the original filename with as few GIMP prompts/dialogs as possible. (Note that in practice you should never do this with JPG files) -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] How to setup the maximum value of brush size?
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:50:50 +0800 From: minhsien0...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] How to setup the maximum value of brush size? Dear all: Can I setup the the maximum value of brush size slider to 25? Thank you. Best Regards, Minhsien0330 ___ No, but you are correct that the lack of PRECISION click-and-drag adjustments to brush size is a serious annoyance on the end user. Sure, there's not much PRACTICAL difference between a 25-pixel brush and a 25.4 pixel (especially when using pressure dynamics on a tablet), but that extra 0.4px is just going to sit there in the back of your mind, slowly gnawing away at your sanity -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] A sad case of regression ?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:30:43 +0200 From: schum...@gmx.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] A sad case of regression ? . . . That's not perfect yet - for example, you lose the undo history . . . How often is Undo history ACTUALLY needed by the user, beyond fixing a ten-seconds-ago mistake? I can't personally name a single application that stores undo history with the document's workfile; but if you can, let me know. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] A Sad case of regression.
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:02:58 +0400 From: alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] A Sad case of regression. On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Psiweapon wrote: Excuse me, Alexandre, but you're being DISMISSIVE AS HELL here. Yes, I am. AND being perfectly civil at the same time. :) As for the rest . . . well, I can sympathize that the if you don't like it, don't use it line is an almost Godwin-class argument. (There, I said it.) -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] A sad case of regression ?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:12:06 -0400 From: etter...@gmail.com To: tomd...@comcast.net CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] A sad case of regression ? Not exactly, no, the edited image that is now on my screen, the xcf, is probably a resolution of 300 x 300 and may be a print size of 12 x 16; But the exported image is a resolution of 72 and is not meant for printing. *That* is the one that I have to re-open (because I can't force it not to close when I export.) *That's* the one I have to mail, and if I decided to make a tweak, I can't just save and mail -- I have to export, re-open ... I don't see any way around the repeated reopenings except to make sure everything I do is perfect the first time, and that's even less likely than the developers reconsidering this. Thank you Tom. I'm not making any sense of this at all. Image resolution is a piece of metadata and does not in any way dictate the size of the image as measured in actual image pixels. If you open an image whose tags say 300 dpi, when you save (or export) it the output file will contain that 300dpi setting. Now if the image is 12x16 and tagged as 300dpi this means that the image's physical PIXEL dimensions are 3600x4800. And when you export this image to a JPG, that JPG will still be be 3600x4800 pixels large (and tagged as 300dpi) unless you specifically dictated to GIMP otherwise. Going to the Image menu and selecting Resize image... rescales the image to a different size in pixels (but doesn't necessarily change the dpi metadata); selecting Print Size... lets you set the dpi metadata directly, but doesn't change the pixel content of the image. Also, when you export the image to a JPEG, if suddenly your open image window disappears, well that is not supposed to happen at all and sounds something like a GIMP program crash, but we don't have enough information as is to determine that. And when GIMP crashes, you at least get a message telling you in no ambiguous terms that something crashed. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] A sad case of regression ?
Here we go again . . . . PS Why do the developpers think we all want to use the .xcf format ? It's not like that. It's a change in design from one model to another. The change is beneficial when you ARE working on an XCF file (in the exact same vein as using Photoshop to work on PSD files, e.g. multi-layer digital compositions). Prior to 2.8 when you Saved to something other than an XCF you were constantly warned about things that had to happen (e.g. flattening layers) before GIMP could actually output the file. After that, GIMP lost track of the XCF file, meaning that any subsequent Save commands targetted the most recent (non-XCF ) file and if you didn't manually save back to the XCF file before quitting, you could potentially lose edits. The upside is that Exporting to standard image formats is actually faster in 2.8 than Saving to them was in 2.6 . The downside is that the change is indeed annoying when all you need GMP for is to open up an image, make a few edits then save back to it, because this does not make GIMP consider the image Saved (to an XCF) and you get an extra Save changes? prompt when closing the image. (I also personally disagree with the developer's insistence that GIMP should not give the user an option to switch from the Save dialog to the Export dialogue or vice versa.) But enough of that. Search the mailing list archives sometime and you will find literally thousands of posts on the Save/Export topic (if the search below is to be believed, in fact over THIRTY THOUSAND): http://www.google.com/custom?q=save+exportdomains=mail.gnome.orghq=inurl%3A%2Farchives%2Fsitesearch=mail.gnome.org Try giving it a month or two to mentally adjust to selecting Export instead of Save when you need to output a standard image file format. If you still prefer the old behavior, there are alternatives, such as the noxcf fork that preserves the 2.6-style saving behavior: https://github.com/mskala/noxcf-gimp#readme -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] drop shadow
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 22:32:39 -0400 From: etter...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] drop shadow I have an image with two rectangular photos, in separate layers. I want each photo to have a drop shadow. No matter what I do, I keep getting the drop shadow applied to the entire image, not to the layers. I've tried creating the drop shadow while on the individual layers, while on the background, I've tried it with layers selected -- regardless of what I do, the drop shadow keeps applying to the entire image. I used to know how to do this! Help? Suse 12.3, gimp 2.8 Thanks much I'm curious how this is even happening in the first place, because from my experience the drop shadow uses, in order: 1 - If you have a selection, it creates a shadow based on the selection mask. 2 - Or, if your layer has an alpha channel, it uses that. 3 - Otherwise, it uses the entire current layer. It's true that performing your own shadows is completely doable, but if it's something you do a lot then having an automated script/plug-in for it does save you a lot of work. (Assuming it functions correctly, of course.) Do you have screenshots of what your results are? If it's creating a drop shadow around the entire image border then the most obvious problem would normally be not having the correct layer selected before executing it (or having layer boundaries extended to the whole image). -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] On-canvas text editing: make optional plea
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 13:09:02 +0100 From: juliusvo...@yahoo.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] On-canvas text editing: make optional plea Hi all, hope this gets to developers just like I thought. I tried GIMP on Linux Mint and was delighted, thanks. A bit annoying, though, was that the on-canvas-text-editing parameters box can't be turned off, because it's in the way when I want a full view of my graphic while I'm typing and editing. Cheers, Julius ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list A good point. If you check the Use editor option (which opens a separate window for editing the text) then you don't NEED the on-canvas text editor at the same time. And while you can, for example, disable visibility on the text layer while the text editor window is open, this only affects the visibility of the text itself; the on-canvas controls remain visible and there doesn't seem to be a way to adjust that. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] How to make transparency gradiate?
Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 22:04:41 +0200 From: ofn...@laposte.net To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] How to make transparency gradiate? On 05/04/2013 03:54 PM, Richard Gitschlag wrote: You can also achieve the same result using paint tools. 1 - Eyedrop the background color. 2 - Switch to the Paintbrush and the color erase blending mode. Color erase is also a color-to-alpha transition. 3 - Start painting the background. Hmm... this begs the question: what is the difference between Colors/Color-to-alpha and the bucket-fill tool in color-erase mode? ___ For starters, Color to Alpha is a plugin, color erase is part of the program core. Color erase can be used on the fly with any drawing tool, and it can benefit from all the tool's options (such as brush hardness and mouse/tablet dynamics). Combine it with the Behind blending mode (its exact opposite) it's almost like having a different Eraser tool. To cite some of my personal experience, when I create a traditional color pencil drawing, I typically want to clean up the background paper. Not the paper grain (it mostly washes out anyway and is not an issue), but things like stray pencil flecks and so on. I also wanted to be able to digitally tint the background (say, by gradient), so I needed to erase the background. The problem is you can't use the eraser to do this - you have a flat layer with RGB values gradiating from color RGB to white background so you can't just erase out the alpha channel (leaving the RGB values otherwise unchanged); you need a Color to Alpha transition. So, for a while what I did was I copied the layer, performed a Color to Alpha transition (relative to white) on the lower copy, then used the Eraser on the upper copy. But once I wrapped my head around what the color erase blending mode actually IS, I realized that was a much more efficient way of doing the same thing. I didn't have to duplicate the layer; I could just paint over it in Color Erase mode; any mistakes I can just paint over again in Behind mode. The only downside is not having a way to easily toggle between these two modes. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Problem printing in Windows XP (sp3) w/ HP printer.
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:57:10 -0400 From: hwpet...@jamadots.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] Problem printing in Windows XP (sp3) w/ HP printer. Hi, New to list, but been using GIMP for awhile... got a new printer, an HP Officejet 8600 pro plus. Works nicely (so far) in Linux Debian Squeeze, but do dual boot to Windows XP (sp3)... been trying to print a 4 x 6 color photo, no matter the settings, I get a paper mismatch error. Even called HP support... but while waiting for the tech support person to do some research on this problem... was able to print said image in Ifranview (a free windows graphic program)... I apparently don't have the Windows Paint program... which the tech person wanted me to try). So apparently there may be a bug in that version (2.8) of GIMP, ported to Windows. I am using GIMP 2.6.10, in Linux, so I do not really know if this is a version particular problem... or just a Windows platform problem... (I've considered updating, building 2.8 on Linux, but looks like one is supposed uninstall the old version, not sure if this is really necessary; I've had problems uninstalling software before in Linux... (sometimes takes out more than one wants; like the desktop!), but better safe than sorry; advise welcome). Thanks much for any help in resolving these problems. Henry ___ Have you already checked GIMP's paper/document size? (File Page Setup). -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about XCF files
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:03:52 +0400 From: alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Question about XCF files On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Tom Williams wrote: Anyway, when I open this XCF file in Gimp 2.8.4, it opens fine and I can see the layers fine in the layers dialog window. However, when I use the text tool to try to edit one of the text layers, I'm unable to do so and the text tool doesn't seem to recognize the text layer as a text layer. It's a stupid question, but are you quite sure you didn't change text layers before saving? Some action like changing the layer size would do that. In that case in the Layers dialog you'd see the thumbnail of the text layer instead of the stock icon with a T character. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Okay, question - if you can make tool edits to a text layer (filters, brushstrokes, etc.) and it will retain its status as a text layer (albeit with some modifications, which GIMP will warn you about if you try to edit the text later), why do other operations (like changing layer size) turn it into a normal (non-text) layer? -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Change the default Save extension
From: pat.mysterywri...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:40:23 -0400 To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] Change the default Save extension Is there any way to change the format that's the default save. I don't use .xcf and prefer to use png or jpg. Why do I have to export them instead of simply save? Why did they change it in this version? It's annoying. Pat Brown http://pabrown.com/ It is perfectly okay to write garbage--as long as you edit brilliantly - C. J. Cherryh ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list The reason is because a lot of other people use GIMP to work on complicated digital art which requires keeping a file containing multiple layers, and some of those people lost valuable project time and effort by saving to the wrong file format before quitting GIMP. (It's not the 'saving' part that was necessarily the problem, but the 'quitting' part). I agree the change may be difficult to get used to and it possibly was not implemented or handled as well as it could be, but the new behavior is also a standard design paradigm so for now your choices really do boil down to adjusting to the new behavior or moving on to something else (I hear there's an alternate GIMP fork which restores the old behavior). -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Hello!
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:21:44 -0500 From: war.tribe...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] Hello! Hello all! I'm fairly new to GIMP and even after reading the user manual, it stills seems to be written for someone with a Ph.D. What I'm trying to do is to take a scanned hand drawn picture and trace over it to make a brand new image that's cleaner and delete the scanned image from the whole thing so that only the new, GIMP drawing is there. Remember, I need this to be in layman's terms, please. I'm doing a google search to find some tutorials that are easier to follow than the manual while I wait for a reply. Thanks! Boudi ___ The actual 'drawing' part is not quite as easy as it looks from a glance, but the general steps are: 1 - Open your scanned image in GIMP. 2 - Select Add New Layer from the Layers menu. The New Layer dialog pops up, the only thing to check here is that the layer is initialized to Transparent. 3 - If you aren't already, ensure that the new layer is the one selected in the Layers dialog. 4 - Draw away! 5 - There are two ways to 'remove' the old layer when you're done: First, you can simply hide it (click the eye icon in the layers dialog), which keeps it as part of the open image (in case you need it later) or you can right-click its entry in the layers list and select Delete layer. 6 - Save and/or export the result as desired. (Remembering that in 2.8 Save is for XCF files only.) -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Scripting Gimp's Hue-Saturation tool's overlap?
From: l...@holoweb.net To: applecha...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:26:56 -0400 CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Scripting Gimp's Hue-Saturation tool's overlap? On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 05:46 -0600, Sam Bizzell wrote: Thanks Kevin! I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out another way to simulate the overlap behavior, sure haven't been able to come up with anything yet. Do you have any suggestions, or know where I could look for the answer? I also need to submit a feature request to have this added to a future Gimp. Are you using gimp 2.8? On which platform? If you compile your own gimp, this would probably be reasonably easy to add. An alternative might be to see if there's a saturation argument to the rotate colours plugin. Another way is to use select by colour, perhaps, and then affect the selection, perhaps on a duplicate layer and using desaturate and layer opacity? Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Select By Color does sound like the best option - calculate the threshold to based on hue, with some degree of antialiasing and/or feathering, then just do a regular Hue-Saturation adjustment on the resulting selection. Remember, the Overlap region really only affects how GIMP handles the transition from one Hue-Saturation channel to the next. Internally, GIMP maps an input pixel (in HSV space) by both of the nearest channels and then interpolates the result based how close the hue is to the exact mid-hue between channels (relative to the overlap width). Second that there should be a PDB call that allows you to specify the overlap setting. It's part of the tool's UI, it should be exposed for scripts too. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Fonts, Windows 8 and GIMP 2.8.4
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:28:32 +0200 From: ofn...@laposte.net To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Fonts, Windows 8 and GIMP 2.8.4 On 04/07/2013 10:49 PM, Linda Petersen wrote: Hello, I have been trying unsuccessfully for the past four hours to import fonts into Gimp. They are in the Fonts directory. I can see them. But when I launch GIMP and try to input fonts the only option I am given is Sans. Any help would be appreciated. I am a new user to Graphics software, have a deadline coming up and everything rests on being able to do text in a graphic. Any help would be wonderful. Thank you in advance. What Fonts directory? Go to Edit/Preferences and expands Folders at the bottom and click on fonts. Is it one of the directories listed in the panel on the right? What is the extension of the files? TTF? OTF? Other? ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Unfortunately it is not that simple. For a quick compare/contrast, on my GIMP (2.8.4, Windows XP Pro) the Fonts folders listed in my GIMP preferences are: C:\Documents and Settings\User\.gimp-2.8\fonts C:\Program Files\GIMP 2.8\share\gimp\2.0\fonts The first folder is empty. The second folder doesn't even exist. And yet I can use pretty much all the fonts on my OS (including one I generated myself via FontForge). So it sounds like the problem with your GIMP is that it (for some reason) isn't actually detecting the fonts installed on your system -- typically those in the C:\Windows\Fonts directory. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] how to draw interrupted lines
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 23:32:08 -0400 From: ad...@pilobilus.net To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] how to draw interrupted lines Example: http://pilobilus.net/img/1_dot_brush.gbr I don't find a way to set the spacing of a brush on the fly in GIMP 2.8, maybe that's an oversight on my part. Steve It's easy to miss -- located at the bottom of the Brushes dialog. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] how to draw interrupted lines
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 23:29:24 -0400 From: ptilopt...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] how to draw interrupted lines *headdesk* Apparently, GIMP .gdyn files are more bloated than MS Word documents perhaps you should try text instead of html/bloated/drivel No, it was solely the attachment that was at fault (see other topic on GIMP .gdyn files). -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] how to draw interrupted lines
From: dan...@yacg.com To: uni.kl...@t-online.de Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:12:35 -0400 CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] how to draw interrupted lines The email was, unfortunately, too large for the list due to the numerous attached images. *headdesk* Apparently, GIMP .gdyn files are more bloated than MS Word documents -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] how to draw interrupted lines
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:25:22 -0400 From: dan...@yacg.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] how to draw interrupted lines I think you can't really do that. But I will write up a little on how to work with the paths tool to achieve what you want. It was Inkscape which taught me how to use the paths tool the best, I think, because the way Inkscape works, it's all lines and paths and the like. I have to go to work now, but will try to steal a few moments to put something together for you. I think then it will become much clearer. But the short answer is paths tool and paint along path. On 04/03/2013 01:19 PM, 3052192 wrote: Hi friends, how can I draw in GIMP freehanded *_curved_* interrupted lines (dotted; dot-dash-dot; dash-dash;...) ? To create lines first with a pencil and to use then the rubber gives uneven and so unsatisfactory results. Thanks for help! Konrad Didn't somebody else ask this same question just yesterday? First, as mentioned, you will get smoother results if you use a Path because the Stroke Path dialog allows you to specify the dash pattern at stroke time. (Note that -- unlike Inkscape -- GIMP has no freehand path tool. The closest you get is drawing with the Freehand selector and then converting it to a path, minding that it does not work for self-intersecting paths.) But if you NEED to paint dashed lines using a freehand paint tool this is actually still possible, it just requires some configuration first... 1 - Create a custom Gradient that represents the dash pattern you want to draw. (Keep in mind that just the same as with stroking a path you can't really do dots with this method, only dashes.) 2 - Create a custom Dynamics set that paints using a gradient (there isn't one in the default package). To do this you need to link Color to Fade on the Dynamics mapping . (Linking Angle to Direction also helps if you're painting with a non-round brush.) 3 - Configure your draw tool (pencil, paintbrush, etc.) to use the gradient, the dynamics, and a repeating Fade length (typically sawtooth). Once you have that, your brush size effectively controls your 'stroke width' and 'cap style' (e.g. a round brush yields round caps) and your fade length controls the overall length of the pattern. Then draw away! The first two steps aren't exactly easy, so I've attached a few sample files to demonstrate the process. [I wanted to include a screenshot as well, but that pushed it over the size limits of this mailing list] -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Color-from-gradient.gdyn Description: Binary data Dash-dot-Line.ggr Description: Binary data ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] invalid 32 bit .bmp exports in 2.8.4
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:51:28 +0200 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] invalid 32 bit .bmp exports in 2.8.4 creating a 32 bit .bmp file in 2.8.4 is not invalid. The file cannot be read by previous gimp or other programs. Is there still a lack of windows developers? (this is on win32) T. -- tomarone (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) Do you have any sample files that exhibit the behavior? I just tried exporting some BMPs from my win32 GIMP 2.8.4 and found absolutely no problems. I didn't even have to set do not write colorspace information like I did the last time -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ 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] GIMP dotted lines
Hi friends, how can I draw in GIMP freehanded curved interrupted lines (dotted; dot-dash-dot; dash-dash;...) ? To create lines first with a pencil and to use then the rubber gives uneven and so unsatisfactory results. Thanks for help! Konrad -- Tobias covers it for painting simple dotted lines all right. You can also do freehand dashed lines but you will need to map your desired dash pattern onto a gradient. Gradient editor's not entirely easy to use, so I've attached a sample gradient file that can produce a simple dashed line for you (it alternates the current foreground color between opaque/transparent). So using it: 1 - On your painting tool, expand the Paint Dynamics option. Set the Fade length to a desired value and the fade repeat to sawtooth (or triangular, depending on your pattern). 2 - You'll need one adjustable dynamics (not a preset) for the next step, so if you don't have one yet, open up the Dynamics dialog list and hit its New button to create one. (You'll probably want to do this anyway, go do it.) 3 - Then bring up the Dynamics Editor (e.g. double-click your dynamics entry from the list), map Color to Fade. (Also map Angle to Direction; it makes a difference if the brush is non-round). 4 - Select a brush (round or square will do), set the brush size to your desired stroke width and paint away! Note this method is not technically perfect, but it should be close enough for casual use. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Dotted-Line.ggr Description: Binary data ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] gimp displays rubbish when panning picture.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:06:07 +0100 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] gimp displays rubbish when panning picture. There is a workaround: instead of spacebar-panning, use Navigation Control at the bottom right of image window, or Navigation Dialog (http://docs.gimp.org/2.8/en/gimp-navigation-dialog.html), or window scrollbars. Neither of those cause this glitch. -- Grue (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) Scrolling via mousewheel (use Shift to toggle horizontal/vertical as needed) also does not exhibit the problem. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] gradient tool
On the one hand, using the Gradient Editor you can assign individual nodes to reference the foreground or background color instead of using a fixed color (right click a node handle and select the Color Type), however something like the Tube Red is actually a bit more complicated than a FG/BG fade (it uses more than two colors) so no, you can't just change its color to something else - you'd have to apply a consistent change the hue across like five nodes. It's certainly doable, it just isn't as simple as it looks. :( -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:05:33 -0400 From: etter...@gmail.com To: rc...@pcug.org.au CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] gradient tool Thanks, yes, I've found that one, and it works to fill an entire selection. But I like the 3-d effects of, for example, the Tube Red. The sharp crisp color and the sense of depth, but not the red. I guess there's no way to turn it green and blue w/o loosing the sense of depth that it gives. I can go to color balance, or to various ways to color it after I've used it, but all those ways cancel out the depth effect. So I guess I'd have to be able to choose the colors before using the gradient. On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Owen rc...@pcug.org.au wrote: Rectangular SelectionBlend tool Gradient then pick oh, maybe Burning Transparency for example, or Tube Red -- Is there any way to choose the colors for those gradients? To make them FG BG Colors for example? In the Blend Tool options, you can set the gradient to FG to BG -- Owen -- Helen Etters using Linux, suse11.4 ___ 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] gradient tool
But the Gradient Editor has been around pretty much forever, its window is just not loaded into the toolboxes by default. Try double-clicking a gradient from the Gradients dialog (on its icon/preview, not its name), this should bring up the Gradient Editor. Advance warning: You can't edit the preset gradients (minor design flaw common to all GIMP resources, really), you have to hit the Duplicate button on a desired gradient before you go into editing mode. Otherwise the editor will be in read-only mode. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:00:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] gradient tool From: etter...@gmail.com To: strata_ran...@hotmail.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org I appreciate the responses, which led me to experimenting. I don't seem to have the Gradient Editor. I guess it's time to upgrade from gimp 2.6. But even if I did have the Editor, I can see that it's beyond my level. Thanks all -- I'll keep playing with it. Helen -- Helen Etters using Linux, suse11.4 ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] gradient tool
I mean that the fact you can't make any edits (even unsaved edits) to things like gradients or brush dynamics is the flaw. I know the reason for it, but the end-to-end result is just not very convenient on the user -- brush dynamics especially (I actually removed the default dynamics folder from my GIMP preferences entirely; when I want brush dynamics, I NEED the ability to make arbitrary edits to them!) and the way 2.8 made them an official resource type really shoved it into the spotlight. Not to stray too far into that topic though -- been there, done that. (https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-May/msg00148.html) -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:15:59 -0400 From: ad...@pilobilus.net To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] gradient tool On 03/25/2013 10:03 PM, Richard Gitschlag wrote: Advance warning: You can't edit the preset gradients (minor design flaw common to all GIMP resources, really), you have to hit the Duplicate button on a desired gradient before you go into editing mode. Otherwise the editor will be in read-only mode. That's a feature, not a bug. The default gradients live in a directory shard by all users on a system, so having to work on copies that belong to your user account prevents accidental sabotage of other users. The same applies to brushes and other shared resources. Redundant on a single user desktop, but there's it. :o) Steve ___ 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] aliasing in vector images
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:11:44 +0100 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] aliasing in vector images Thanks for the reply Steve! I think maybe my problem wasn't communicated from my end correctly. I have an SVG file generated with a native resolution of 2048x2048 in Vector Magic. In Inkscape, I can resize the image to be 1024x1024, zoom in, and it redraws the image with no aliasing (as a vector should). You mean that in GIMP's vector import dialog you specify a scaling ratio (X Ratio / Y Ratio) of 0.50 ? Then of course you are going to get some aliasing (just the same as if you scaled a raster image by 50%), but the overall result should closely resemble what the original SVG document looked like . . . at a 50% zoom level. Remember that in a vector document pixels do not correspond to on-screen pixels but are a physical unit of measure. The biggest red flag that led me to believe something wasn't working correctly was when opening a vector in GIMP at a size of about 80x50 and all it produced was an unrecognizable blob of pixels. I feel as though I've been able to do this in the past and it would produce a smooth image without aliasing. If you are taking the 2048x2048 image and scaling it to 80x50 then that is a ratio of less than 10 percent and of course the result is probably going to look like a blurred/aliased mess of pixels. Now if the original SVG document itself had a document size of 80x50 (which is separate from the size of vector elements in it) then GIMP should be able to import it fine. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Selection handles on a non freshly created selection
From: olspookishma...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:23:54 +0200 To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] Selection handles on a non freshly created selection Hello! Right after one makes a selection, say by using the Rectangle Select Tool, is presented with handles that allow altering the selection. If one then selects another tool without deselecting is being deprived of these handles while the selection remains active thus rendering him unable to alter the selection in that fashion. Thus forming my question: is there a way to make these handles to (re-)appear on a non-freshly created selection? Sophoklis ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Not really. You can click inside the selected area and the selector will create rectangular select handles based on it, but this only has the desired effect on simple rectangular selections (or ellipse for ellipse). Otherwise clicking and dragging will replace whatever complex shape exists with a simple rectangle - which is not desirable, but I don't think the devs will call it a bug either. Thing about the handles on the Rectangle (and Ellipse) selectors is that though the selection has already been executed, the handles allow you to retroactively fine-tune the size or position (it literally Undoes the current selection and re-does it with the new values). But this isn't the same as moving or scaling an existing (and possibly complex) selection. For example: - Create an Ellipse selection somewhere on the image. - Switch to the Rectangle selector. - Click inside the selection to get the selector handles. - Attempt to resize or move the handles and the selected (ellipse) area is replaced by a rectangle. There does not appear to be a way of e.g. directly scaling the selection channel only. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:07:36 +0100 From: darkwea...@euirc.eu To: mader...@gmail.com; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior Am 2013-03-01 15:50, schrieb maderios: Translation : Only the elite need gimp, others just need to pay for normal but commercial editor... Greetings As for the save/export behavior, I also liked the old one better, but is it really so much more work to configure a shortcut for exporting while overwriting the original image (I used cmd-option-e here on OS X) and learn to ignore the prompt about unsaved changes? I don't think so, and if you think about the logic behind the change, it definitely makes sense. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list It's not so much the practical task of getting used to it as it is that the change forces you to re-think what is what. In which case GIMP 2.8 isn't the first version to do something like that. For me, that honor goes all the way back to 2.4 -- now from a technical standpoint the old behavior was still present and accessible, the only change is it wasn't the default anymore. And (unlike key shortcuts for save/export) there was NO way to reconfigure the behavior at all. It was technically a simple change, but the way it forced you to re-think how you used GIMP was decidedly earth-shattering. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Selection handles on a non freshly created selection
There does not appear to be a way of e.g. directly scaling the selection channel only. Oops, spoke too soon - forgot that all Transform tools have the ability to operate on the selection channel instead of just a target image layer. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] crop visible layers
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:26:05 +0700 From: ibnu.h...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] crop visible layers Dear Developers, It'll be useful if we can crop layers based on visibility. AFAIK gimp only capable crop current selected only. Thank you -- Best Regards,Aditia A. Pratama CG Artist Compositor Can you give an example of how this should work? -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ 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
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:33:52 +0100 From: d.kup...@gmail.com To: s.korten...@hccnet.nl CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open We can improve programs, we can create better images but we're unable to change peoples (un)thinking habits. Please imagine what harm to trade and workflow can arise from proposed improvement of open/import behaviour. ...Speaking of 'thinking habits', anyone want to know what change in GIMP had the biggest negative impact on my individual workflow? Hint: It was introduced in GIMP 2.4 . -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] What is wrong with this picture?
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] What is wrong with this picture? From: l...@holoweb.net To: strata_ran...@hotmail.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:35:07 -0500 I don't know where you get your results should be like this... you are not increasing the magenta channel by 30%, you are mapping all pixels whose colour value in RGB space is within 30 degrees of magenta to a completely different hue, to a different location in HSV space The effect you show happens with all the colour channels. I think you are wanting to increase saturation. Or am I missing something? Liam You missed only one (very important) detail: The tool's Overlap setting. IF we left the overlap setting at zero, then we would get exactly what you described -- only those pixels within absolutely 30 degrees of Magenta would be affected, everything else remains the same. BUT with an Overlap setting of 50%, this blurs the threshold between Magenta and Red (and likewise between Magenta and Blue). All pixels with hues falling between a 15° ~ 45° deviation from Magenta (a 30° range, or 50% of the 60° between Magenta and its neighbors) will receive a variable percentage (100% ~ 0%, respectively) of the Magenta channel's adjustment. Test it yourself: Paint a simple red-to-yellow gradient, then go to the Hue-Saturation tool and (with overlap = 0) drain all saturation out of Red. Next, slowly increase the Overlap slider and watch how the pixel-sharp threshold between the two channels becomes a smooth fade. It's very useful behavior when you're using this tool on photographs or other images with smooth color transitions around the hue thresholds; it just happens to make one epic screwup in this particular usecase. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] What is wrong with this picture?
Sorry. I keep forgetting the bugtracker isn't GIMP specific (not that it affects the bug number much) -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:22:45 +0100 From: schum...@gmx.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] What is wrong with this picture? On 21.02.2013 19:13, Richard Gitschlag wrote: ...or what is wrong with my GIMP? This behavior persists in every 2.6 and 2.8 build I've tried, in fact I'm pretty sure I first discovered it somewhere in 2.4 . It's GTK bug #644032 Why do you label this as a GTK bug? You've reported it against the GIMP product in GNOME Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=644032 -- Regards, Michael ___ 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: l...@holoweb.net To: cr33...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:09:30 -0500 CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open Or I wasn't clear, I think. It's not really clean vs. dirty, but whether the canvas is new and unused and empty. E.g. try this in a word processor: open the program and you get a blank canvas into which you can type right away; open a file and it replaces that blank canvas. This is actually a separate issue from open/import really. Liam . . . which is also behavior that varies between individual products. Comparing the few word processors I have on hand, I get: MS WordPad: Only allows one window per application instance. If you want multiple windows you have to start it multiple times. (Not a problem - lightweight, shares the system clipboard) MS Works 4.5: MDI application that displays one child window per file opened, and never replaces one window with another. (Comparable to GIMP) MS Word 2003: Opens a blank window by default. If no changes are made to the blank document then opening a file will replace it, otherwise it opens in a separate window. MS Works 8: Aside from having a separate task launcher for accessing its WP, spreadsheet, etc, it has the same behavior as Word 2003. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Suggestions for the GIMP
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 02:16:34 +0100 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] Suggestions for the GIMP - Secondly (and more importantly) it would seem that The GIMP is now enforcing that I use Ctrl + E to save my images, else it tries to get me to use XCF format. The problem with XCF format (for me at least) is that not everyone I work with uses The GIMP, hence I never use the XCF format. My instant reaction with any program while working is to frequently use Ctrl + S to save my current file to it's current location without further intervention. So essentially this functionality is .. well, not consistent with any other piece of software I've seen in the last 25 years. The save/export distinction is actually a completely valid design paradigm, the main issue is GIMP switching from one to the other rather than having been built that way from day one. It's a long subject that has been discussed hundreds of times since the release of GIMP 2.8. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] layers, new problem with old methods
In a nutshell, when the selection is copied it includes the (x,y) offset from the upper-left corner of the image canvas, and it utilizes this offset when pasting back into the image. Image zoom is irrelevant and so is canvas size (mostly). For now, the quickest workaround we have to paste at a specific area of the image is Paste Into then To New Layer -- and what exactly the difference is between it and normal Paste I've still got to figure out. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:17:14 +0100 From: schum...@gmx.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] layers, new problem with old methods Von: Richard Gitschlag strata_ran...@hotmail.com Sometimes I really miss the fact that GIMP has no paste in place command like Inkscape does. Feature request? You should add a description of how this works in Inkscape, and how you expect this to be handled in GIMP - e.g. what is the place if you paste to an image of totally different size, at a different zoom level, ... Regards, Michael ___ 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] layers, new problem with old methods
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:06:41 -0500 From: ad...@pilobilus.net To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] layers, new problem with old methods Right now I can't think of a way to improve on the existing floating layer workflow. I can -- perhaps not changing the actual functionality but the manner in which it is displayed in the layer list. For example, say my layer stack is: - C - B - A Say I make/float/paste a selection using layer B. My layer stack now displays: - Floating selection - C - B - A Here's the problem: The floating selection is not at the top of the layer stack - it is actually between layers B (the source layer) and C (the layer above it). The layer stack SHOULD display: - C - Floating selection - B - A This makes it visually clear WHICH layer the float came from. (Or, alternatively: ) - C - B - - Floating selection - A Which is something of a group-like display, but again this makes clear which layer the float belongs to. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. :o) Steve ___ 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] layers, new problem with old methods
In GIMP every time you paste something into the image it becomes a floating layer by default. In order to switch to another layer you need to: 1 - Anchor the selection down (it becomes part of whatever layer was selected before you used the Paste command). (Layer Anchor Selection or something) 2 - Convert it into a new layer. (Layer New Layer / To New Layer) As GIMP concepts go, floating selections have always existed in GIMP and they really are something that needs to be killed off with fire because of how big a stumbling block they are to new users. Now, if you know in advance you are going to be making a new layer out of what you're pasting, you can save yourself time and headaches by selecting Paste As New Layer from the Edit menu, instead of the normal Paste. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:17:01 -0700 From: damill...@gmail.com To: schum...@gmx.de; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] layers, new problem with old methods Hello I started with new file, created a new layer and pasted one half image, repeated with other half image. Still can't get from one layer to another. Layer Stack Reverse Layer Order puts white over the subimages; repeat restores the color. I un-/re-installed gimp, no difference. Last week, I actually was able to move among layers, selectively hide and reveal. I am mystified. Gimp is presently worthless to me. Regards, Don Miller damill...@gmail.com == Sunday, January 20, 2013, 1:21:41 PM, you wrote: Hello Seems that manual setup is same HTML as on web. Is there a searchable doc in a Windows format? Regards, Don Miller damill...@gmail.com == Sunday, January 20, 2013, 1:18:07 PM, you wrote: Hello Update, I found and ran gimp-help-2-2.8.0-en-setup.exe but gimp HELP still only connects to web version. Regards, Don Miller damill...@gmail.com == Sunday, January 20, 2013, 1:08:16 PM, you wrote: Hello Michael I meant new problem with method I previously used. So how do I regain control of my image layers? Copy paste is something I did a lot before abandoning photoshop CS2 for misbehavior. On-line manual in HTML is not as friendly to searching as would a PDF or ebook version (which I have not found). Regards, Don Miller damill...@gmail.com == Sunday, January 20, 2013, 12:44:26 PM, you wrote: Von: Donald Miller damill...@gmail.com I resized two images, made a new page canvas, copied and pasted both, opened grid. I can only move one image, can't toggle to other. Layer stack commands are all grayed out, except reverse layer order which does nothing. Pg-up/dn keys do nothing. Align does nothing. If you haven't created new layers from the floating selections you got after pasting, then you now have a still floating selection around. But this has always been that way, so it is not a new problem with an old method... If this doesn't help and you think somethings else must be the cause, then describe what you're seeing in the layers dialog. HTH, Michael ___ 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 ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Resolution
Image Print Size really IS the command you are looking for. The key is to pay attention to the units-of-measure shown on the Print Size dialogue box: - The Width and Height values under Print Size are displayed in real-world units (inches, mm, etc.), not image pixels. - The Resolution values are displayed in pixels-per-unit. - You cannot change your image's pixel dimensions (aka scale the image) from the Print Size dialogue. That's what the Scale Image command is for. Remember the relation between pixel and print sizes is: (print size) = (pixel size) / (print resolution) When you change the image's print resolution, of course the real-world size (the width or height shown in the Print Size dialog) of your image will update to reflect the new print resolution -- that value is calculated from your image's actual pixel size and whatever resolution value you just entered. This is totally normal behavior -- in fact, it's expected. If you change an image's resolution from, say, 150 pixels/inch to 75 pixels/inch, this doubles the print size of your image but only the print size; the image's pixel size remains precisely the same as before. (You can confirm this by comparing Image Canvas Size... before and after changing the resolution.) And as others have stated, if you're using the image for Web viewing then its print resolution has absolutely zero effect on how it will appear onscreen (print resolution only affects, well, actual printing), in which case you'll want to use the Scale Image command to actually scale your image larger or smaller. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. From: leon.white...@ntlworld.com To: strata_ran...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Resolution Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:13:59 + Thanks...but when I change the picture size the resolution changes.. and when I change the resolution the picture size changes.. There does not appear to be any way to unlock the two.. This is in image print size Leon From: Richard Gitschlag Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 5:58 PM To: leon.white...@ntlworld.com ; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: RE: [Gimp-user] Resolution It's under Image Print Size -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. From: leon.white...@ntlworld.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:27:35 + Subject: [Gimp-user] Resolution Is there a way to change the resolution of a picture without it changing the size. I cannot find a way to separate the two.. Thanks...Leon ___ 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] Resolution
It's under Image Print Size -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. From: leon.white...@ntlworld.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:27:35 + Subject: [Gimp-user] Resolution Is there a way to change the resolution of a picture without it changing the size. I cannot find a way to separate the two.. Thanks...Leon ___ 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] Wacom pen causing automatic brush change
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:17:41 +0100 From: schum...@gmx.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Wacom pen causing automatic brush change On 03.12.2012 00:09, ncpenn wrote: I am using gimp in Lubuntu 12.04 (using gimp 2.8). The Wacom attached is a Splash. When I select a brush/color besides the default, it automatically switches to the default/black when the pen gets close enough to be detected by the tablet. Did you select this brush/color with the tablet? Each device gets its own settings, that's a feature. -- Regards, Michael ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Feature yes, but sometimes inconvenient ... what about having a user preference option to share the current brush/color/gradient between devices (like we already have for sharing them between paint tools)? -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] finding layers after file has been closed
Yours is one of these cases where the new (and somewhat controversial) save/export distinction in 2.8 is actually a good thing, since after outputting a flat JPG you find you now want to go back and update the layer composition - only to find that your JPG doesn't contain any layer composition, everything was merged into a single flat RGB surface. There's no way around it - you NEED to have saved an XCF copy of your image to record the individual layers; if you didn't, then sorry but the only thing you can do is try to recreate the layer composition from scratch again. It is not necessarily wrong to export say a JPG/PNG copy of an image without saving an XCF workfile of it -- sometimes you really are finished with an image and don't need to go back and make further edits to it (and if the edits are extremely simple, like a photo crop/resize, then the amount of potential lost work may be an acceptably low risk), but if you think there's any chance of you coming back and tweaking it later, absolutely save an XCF version first. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:57:15 -0500 From: ellimae...@gmail.com To: opened...@gmail.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] finding layers after file has been closed I totally understood what you both said - but I didn't know that I had to save it both ways - I only saved it, or exported it at a .jpg... Does that mean I can't recover the .xcf? On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Daniel Smith opened...@gmail.com wrote: what he said. that's what i meant when i said before that you would still have the layers, that you had the .xcf file somewhere. :) dan On 11/18/12, Burnie West w...@ieee.org wrote: On 11/18/2012 12:09 PM, jenn golden wrote: Is there a way to get back all of your layers once you save a file and close out of it? I am new and am creating magazince covers - All I need to do is change the pic - but did not want to have to re-create the entire cover if I did not need too Thanks! Are you using gimp 2.8? If so, when you save the file all the layers are retained (unless you specifically merged them). You would export to (e.g.) jpg or png, and then save to xcf format. Loading the .xcf version should still have all the layers. Loading the exported .png or .jpg version would not. -- Burnie ___ 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 ___ 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] creating immage (gif) by drawing at the pixel level.
GIMP 2.8 should still include a 1x1 square brush by default ... just make sure to set your pencil tool's brush size to 1, then you can paint individual pixels. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:03:33 +0100 From: ofn...@laposte.net To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] creating immage (gif) by drawing at the pixel level. On 11/14/2012 10:37 PM, Confused_0 wrote: Hi, :-) I am using Gimp 2.8.0 but only understand about 5% or less of it. (It is running on Win.7 Hm. Prm., Vsn 6.1, Sp-1.) How can I define or adjust the pencil tool so it draws at the one pixel size in a new .gif work area. (That would be one pixel in the image to one pixel on the screen.) I found how to define the work area in pixels for a .gif. The predefined pencil tool sizes (chosen by assorted dots) went away several versions of Gimp back as far as I know. Please would someone direct me to where the answer can be located. I am not a graphic artist or a photographer so please use non-technical english. The object of this effort is to produce TrainGifs for use in other applications. Should you be interested just Google TrainGifs and you will be able to check out multiple site for this hobby. Create a 1x1 pixel image in grayscale mode. Fill with black. Save/Export as .GBR in your brushes folder. ___ 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] double exposure
PS: Since linear RGB pixels values are typically gamma-encoded representations of some absolutely recorded brightness, I suppose technically for a double-exposure you would have to un-encode the gamma (e.g. apply a Levels adjustment of 0.45 or so), merge the two source layers using Addition blending, then re-encode (e.g. 2.2 Levels adjustment). I did some experiments using two layers with black-to-white gradients rotated 90 degres from each other, and the result of those adjustments was indeed pretty close to the Screen blending mode. That's pretty interesting. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:18:39 +0100 From: tobias.lu...@hfg-gmuend.de To: ellimae...@gmail.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] double exposure Hello, afaik, the Screen blend mode is a more accurate reproduction of a double exposure. However, it will brighten up your image, so if the two photos weren't underexposed to begin with (which they are when you actually make a double-exposure on film), you'll have to adjust the values. Don't worry, the Screen mode doesn't result in clipping, so usually you don't loose all that much information. bw, Tobl Am 04.11.2012 16:10, schrieb Richard Gitschlag: If it's the term I'm thinking of there are maybe twenty different ways to do this in GIMP. But all of them have one thing in common - you need to import both source images as separate layers in the same image window. From that point you can: 1 - Set the top layer's mode to either Brightest or Addition (neither one precisely reproduces an actual double exposure, but they're close) 2 - Keep the top layer's mode Normal and use the Eraser (or a layer mask) to fade the edges/transition between them. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:56:58 -0500 From: ellimae...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] double exposure Is there a way to use this program to create a double exposure effect? I can do it with my 35mm camera manually while taking pics. But was not sure if you can create the same digitally?? Thank you! Jenn ___ 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 ___ 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] double exposure
If it's the term I'm thinking of there are maybe twenty different ways to do this in GIMP. But all of them have one thing in common - you need to import both source images as separate layers in the same image window. From that point you can: 1 - Set the top layer's mode to either Brightest or Addition (neither one precisely reproduces an actual double exposure, but they're close) 2 - Keep the top layer's mode Normal and use the Eraser (or a layer mask) to fade the edges/transition between them. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:56:58 -0500 From: ellimae...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] double exposure Is there a way to use this program to create a double exposure effect? I can do it with my 35mm camera manually while taking pics. But was not sure if you can create the same digitally?? Thank you! Jenn ___ 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] double exposure
Generally speaking, in terms of the resulting brightness when you blend two layers, Addition Screen Lighten Only. The online GIMP manual explains layer blending modes in more detail (albeit not in the same order they are shown in actual GIMP 2.8's dropdown menu of blending modes :\ ) http://docs.gimp.org/2.8/en/gimp-concepts-layer-modes.html -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:18:39 +0100 From: tobias.lu...@hfg-gmuend.de To: ellimae...@gmail.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] double exposure Hello, afaik, the Screen blend mode is a more accurate reproduction of a double exposure. However, it will brighten up your image, so if the two photos weren't underexposed to begin with (which they are when you actually make a double-exposure on film), you'll have to adjust the values. Don't worry, the Screen mode doesn't result in clipping, so usually you don't loose all that much information. bw, Tobl Am 04.11.2012 16:10, schrieb Richard Gitschlag: If it's the term I'm thinking of there are maybe twenty different ways to do this in GIMP. But all of them have one thing in common - you need to import both source images as separate layers in the same image window. From that point you can: 1 - Set the top layer's mode to either Brightest or Addition (neither one precisely reproduces an actual double exposure, but they're close) 2 - Keep the top layer's mode Normal and use the Eraser (or a layer mask) to fade the edges/transition between them. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:56:58 -0500 From: ellimae...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] double exposure Is there a way to use this program to create a double exposure effect? I can do it with my 35mm camera manually while taking pics. But was not sure if you can create the same digitally?? Thank you! Jenn ___ 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 ___ 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] export to non xcf
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:09:10 +0100 From: schum...@gmx.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] export to non xcf Von: Donald Miller damill...@gmail.com Can't directly save to jpg, so exported. Export to jpg made png. Same for psd. Shouldn't name track chosen format, so no manual override needed? Maybe you had set the file-type chooser to this format? The default By extension should do what you want, any other value is for special cases like you've discovered, like ambiguous file name extensions. Regards, Michael ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list GIMP should also warn you if the filename you typed in the Export dialog box has a different extension than the selected file format. Also, if you select a specific file format the dialog will automatically update the filename box to reflect the new extension, so you would only encounter this warning if you changed the extension after selecting the output filetype. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] copying and pasting layer groups as layer groups
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 02:16:04 +0200 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] copying and pasting layer groups as layer groups I'd like to be to select a layer groups and copy them over to another pre-existing image. I've been struggling with this for an hour or so, and I haven't found a way to do this. Is is possible to do this in GIMP? The closet I've found is a kind of paste where you do this: drag the tab of the origin image over to the tab of the target image. The result is a new layer in the target image called dropped buffer. However, the entire origin image is imported flattened. I've been trying other drag and drop operations, but without success. Usually when I drop the selection to the target image, the icon under the mouse dissapears, and nothing actually happens. I thought this might be a window manager problem. But I get the same results across kde, gnome and xfce. -- bobdobbs (via gimpusers.com) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Hmm, you're right - the closest I can find is to click and drag the layer group into the GIMP toolbox (which creates a new image using the layer group), but there does not seem to be a way to do the same with a pre-existing image (SWM or otherwise), at least not via click and drag. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Grayscale and alpha layers
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:04:41 +0200 From: psiwea...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] Grayscale and alpha layers Is there any way I can directly make a grayscale image into an alpha transparency channel? I mean, NOT involving selection? Because selection by color to layer mask, is really fucking up what I need to do thanks to the selection threshold. Why is it damn easy to turn an alpha channel into a grayscale image but not the reverse? ___ The fastest way is to perform a Color to Alpha transition (under Layers Transparency) using black as the background color. Black becomes transparent, white becomes opaque. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Can't set Ctrl+Scroll shortcut
A little more specific please. Go to your GIMP Preferences, Input Devices Input Controllers, under the Active Controllers section doubleclick Main mouse wheel and you should have a dialog for configuring it. Is that part not working, or can you configure it but nothing changes in actual GIMP usage? -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:03:06 +0200 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] Can't set Ctrl+Scroll shortcut Hi mates, this is my first post in this forum and hope that it won't be the last; at this moment I have a little preoblem that is quite uncomfortable: on Gimp 2.7 I used all the time the keyoard shortcuts via Ctrl + mousewheel / Shift + mousewheel but, under Gimp 2.8 I can't use them and neither configure them; I've tried via editing the preferences but can't set Ctrl+mousewheel up for zoomin in... -- ilomo (via gimpusers.com) ___ 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] alpha channels vs masks
Generally speaking, you can't directly modify the values of a layer's alpha channel: Paint tools (paintbrush, etc.) only ever increase a layer's alpha channel (by the tool's opacity factor), Eraser tool only ever decreases it. A layer mask gives you direct and more precise control over a layer's effective alpha by separating the RGB and alpha values into separate surfaces. When you paint on the mask, GIMP will internally convert the current color (even a pattern or gradient!) into a 0-1.0 opacity value before applying it to the channel. Because they are separate mechanisms, this also means you can combine their effects - there may be times when you actually need a layer mask to be discrete from the layer's actual alpha channel. Also, you don't have to explicitly lock a layer's alpha channel when using a mask - separate surfaces mean you can only draw on one at a time. (Which is also the downside - you can't paint a transparent area of the source layer and expect it to become automatically opaque like you'd get with a regular alpha channel.) Finally ... well, it seems that you can't actually add a layer mask to a layer group as a whole. I don't see why not though - that would give the ability to mask off a group of layers all at once. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:09:29 -0400 From: l.elle.st...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] alpha channels vs masks Hello Gimp Users, Is there anything that can be done using an alpha channel, that can't be done using masks and layers, or vice versa? Context of question: I've worked extensively with masks and layers. I've never worked with alpha channels. For example: Using an alpha channel: 1. Open two single layer images, A and B, neither one of which has an alpha channel. 2. Drag the image B over to A and close B. 3. Now image A has two layers, A and B. Put layer A on top, select layer A, set the blend mode to Normal, and add an alpha channel. 4. Erase part of layer A, where-ever you want layer B to show through. At this point, layer A has an alpha channel with white where you want layer A to show, and black where you want layer B to show, but it does not have a mask. OR Using a layer mask: 1. Open two single layer images, A and B, neither one of which has an alpha channel. 2. Drag image B over to A and close B. 3. Now image A has two layers, A and B. Put layer A on top, select layer A, and set the blend mode to Normal (don't add an alpha channel). 4. Create a solid white mask for layer A. Paint black on the mask where you want layer B to show through. At this point, layer A has a mask with white where you want layer A to show, and black where you want layer B to show., but it does not have an alpha channel. In both cases, using a mask or using an alpha channel, the net result is the same. So again, is there anything that can be done using an alpha channel, that can't be done using masks and layers, or vice versa? A puzzled and hoping to be enlightened, Elle Stone -- http://ninedegreesbelow.com Articles and tutorials on open source digital imaging and photography ___ 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] alpha channels vs masks
...like how layer groups don't have a fixed size and their width/height are automatically derived from the size/placement of their constituent layers? There would be an easy workaround if only we had a Multiply with alpha layer blending mode so I could put a white masking layer at the top of the group's layer stack ... but we don't have that, either. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:46:45 +0200 From: si...@budig.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] alpha channels vs masks Richard Gitschlag (strata_ran...@hotmail.com) wrote: Finally ... well, it seems that you can't actually add a layer mask to a layer group as a whole. I don't see why not though - that would give the ability to mask off a group of layers all at once. ...because mitch discovered a nasty bug with this and this has not been fixed yet... Bye, Simon -- si...@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/ ___ 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] How to draw with pressure dependend brush size
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:02:56 +0200 From: scl.gp...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] How to draw with pressure dependend brush size BTW is there a need to ship these Paint dynamics settings with GIMP? Kind regards, Sven [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=682351 [2] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-September/msg00212.html ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list I thought a straight size-pressure mapping was one of the defaults shipped with GIMP? (Apparently it's not!) Size/opacity and hardness/opacity are two of THE simplest, most basic tablet mappings you can have; they should seriously be part of the default package. Why we should have one for inverted size/pressure but not straight size/pressure ... that's snafu to me. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] gimp 2.8 export, after save as keeps old files name
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:48:15 +0200 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] gimp 2.8 export, after save as keeps old files name Hello, i have a question, when i open a new file and export it with ctrl+e, the gimp 2.8 exports the file with the current file name as expected but after i save (with save as) file with a new file name, ctrl+e exports the new file with the old file name, and i think it has to be changed, because it is an absolutely new file and it is senseless to keep the old file name for exporting the new file... Is this a bug or did developers do this feature intentionally? -- realbezo (via gimpusers.com) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list More specifically: 1 - Open any convenient (non XCF) image file. E.g. filename.png 2 - Access the Export command. The default filename shown is filename.png (e.g. whatever the source filename was). 3 - Access the Save As command. The default filename shown here is filename.xcf. 4 - Save the image as an XCF but with a different filename, e.g. filename.different.xcf . 5 - Access the Export command again. The default filename is now filename.different.png, not filename.png. Why is that? -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] xcf file corrupt?
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:52:25 +0200 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] xcf file corrupt? GIMP closed while I was in the middle of saving an image and is now telling me that the xcf is corrupt and that there is no usable data in it even though the file is the same size as it was before the crash. This is the third or fourth time it's done this to me and any help would be incredibly appreciated. I'd include the file but this is the first time I've posted here and I don't know how -- curseofdark (via gimpusers.com) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Okay, but first we need to know a few things. - Your particular build of GIMP (version number, OS) - The exact wording of any error message GIMP may have generated when it closed Both of these are very important. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Layer group
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:47:14 -0400 From: ger...@gb-photodujour.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: [Gimp-user] Layer group Is it possible to create a new layer group from a selection of layers ? I know that it's impossible to select more than one layer at the time but since the introduction of the layer group concept ... -- La Photo Du Jour http://gb-photodujour.com Sur internet depuis juin 1998 ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list Related to this, I've been thinking about writing a script-fu for a slightly more advanced version of the New layer command (if one doesn't exist already). Something that gives you control over: - Size (image/current layer/custom) - Initial contents (FG/BG color, B/W, transparent) - Stack placement (above/below current, or create group with current) As for the ability to select multiple layers at a time: This would definitely make creating layer groups easier on a pre-existing image. And for draw purposes, tools could probably just act on the topmost (non-locked) layer in the selection -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Print shops file formats
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:04:10 -0400 From: ad...@pilobilus.net To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Print shops file formats [snip] ... so our troll promptly hijacks the new thread, cuts out all the original content and returns the discussion to his (or her) one and only talking point. Shh, don't encourage it to come back. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Print shops file formats
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:26:58 +0200 From: mader...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Print shops file formats On 09/13/2012 04:32 AM, Steve Kinney wrote On 09/12/2012 09:50 AM, jfrazie...@nc.rr.com wrote: [...] Ask how many print shops support psd files but not xcf? Hi This is not THE problem. They accept all other formats, png, tiff, etc I would bet that number would be 20:1 and one way to change that would be to try to push the xcf usage among professional artists I agree with you but the Gimp team target is the opposite. Le last change concerning save save as function in Gimp-2.8 is not ergonomic at all. This is done so that amateur users do not lose work. I heard to say here that some people don't save their work... So the Gimp developers separate the function save save as into two functions according to the file type, .xcf or not xcf. I think that Gimp will stay a software for amateurs. Greetings -- Maderios The subject of THIS thread is print shops and what file formats they accept, not the save/export issue. Take the latter over there. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Save Export Complaints
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:34:07 +0200 From: mader...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Save Export Complaints Most software, digikam, phot$p, firefox, avidemux, libreoffice, doesnt work like gimp but with standard way. Greetings -- Maderios No, they are completely different, completely valid, (and sometimes completely non-comparable) paradigms. You can't, for example, exactly open a binary .exe file, make a few changes, then save the results. (Well, I suppose there's always hex editing, but binary machine code isn't like editing text or image files, not at all) Another interesting note is how some applications (MS Office I'm looking at you) actually lock down the file on disk for as long as the current document of it is open. I think this is to deliberately reinforce the notion that you are actually editing the file itself, even though what you see onscreen is just a loaded visualization of it and the file-on-disk doesn't reflect changes until you actually hit Save. It also creates an annoying side effect where other applications can't access the file at all because the first one has a total lock (not just a write lock, but a read lock as well) on it. Text-file editors are probably the one application that doesn't use its own preferred internal format. Their purpose is to open an existing file in an editable manner and then output any changes back to the original file in the original format. Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:43:03 +0200 From: mader...@gmail.com To: psiwea...@gmail.com; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Save Export Complaints Hi I use .xcf files but my friends, my family members and most people, I think, don't use .xcf. They need an image editor, not an xcf editor. People will leave the world of free software to turn to proprietary. Gimp is no longer the universal Swiss army knife of image editing, it's a fact. Bold emphasis mine. My majority of GIMP usage tends to be preparing scanned images for Web publication. That involves a small amount of digital noise cleanup, resizing to a proper resolution, sometimes a copyright overlay or two. I do keep an xcf workfile where I think I will need it later, but at the same time the first thing I do with the high-resolution scan is to output it to a high-resolution JPG or PNG file (I can't trust my scan software to do that, especially with PNG) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:56:03 +0100 From: efflux...@googlemail.com To: alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Save Export Complaints If you open say a .png or whatever format in Gimp, work on it then save as in the old 2.6 method to .png you are not really saving all that exists in the Gimp project ... BUT you may nonetheless be saving all the data that is relevant to THAT individual file/project/workflow. If I open, say, a GIF image for some simple pixel editing, and I'm not adding any new data (alpha blending, etc.) to the image pixels that the GIF file format is incapable of recording, then the GIF file does indeed contain all of the data that is important to my task at hand. Did you know that when you save an XCF file GIMP indeed does include everything about the open image (Undo history excepted), including the current selection mask? Name any other program you can where even the current selection is considered a change to the open document that must be saved with the file. I doubt that will be a long list. (Heck, in current versions of MS Excel, when you do a Cut/Paste operation, the Cut part doesn't actually take effect until you do your first Paste! A.k.a. it doesn't double as a way to immediately clear cell contents, as you would expect in almost every other application, even MS Word. I personally find that confusing.) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:50:50 -0400 From: jfrazie...@nc.rr.com To: psiwea...@gmail.com; mader...@gmail.com; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Save Export Complaints I am NOT a developer for GIMP, but I am enthusiastically in support of this new change so that I CANNOT lose my multi-layer composition without explicit consent as could (and did a few times) in previous versions of GIMP.I am speaking for myself here, but I would say GIMP wants people to use GIMP's native file format. There are a large number of reasons for this, but saving multi-layer compositions is a key one. (Mind the distinction between the words lose and loose. They are not the same meaning, not at all.) The problem with the old model is that when you're working on a multilayer XCF and you save it to a non-XCF format, you're using the wrong command in the first place - you should have been using SAVE A COPY all along (which, 2.8.x file formats notwithstanding, is functionally identical to Export anyway). Because once you Save As... your multilayer composition to a non-XCF format, any
Re: [Gimp-user] About bad new save export function in Gimp-2.8
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:50:54 -0700 From: kwarner...@verizon.net To: ofn...@laposte.net CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] About bad new save export function in Gimp-2.8 The obvious design that satisfies both groups has been offered several times and has been derided as --- I don't know why, although numerous attempts to justify the current design has been proffered. You mean the make it a user preference one? To me, the simplest compromise is to simply tweak the existing dialog message from an I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that message to an OK/Cancel prompt, to which the only dev response was to label it fudging. Yes, it sort of is, but that's what compromise is about, right? But perhaps a better thing to remember is that when the devs refer to safe and unsafe workflows, I think these are meant to be terms with precise technical meanings and NOT a value judgement on whether the person is using GIMP correctly. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] File format question
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:01:01 +0200 From: psiwea...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org; juan.olv...@gmail.com; christenanderson1...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] File format question Hey thanks for the link! I think I understood it. It's elitist, politicky crap, although an excess of vodka can't be ruled out with current evidence. I guess I'll be adding my transparencies with Graphics Gale unless I totally need to use a RGB PNG for partial transparencies or whatever. Good going for gimp, that move is very low-end user friendly. I guess the developers that introduced that now feel all special and 1337, with their program officially importing standard formats - also adds a lot of flexibility. The you can't use this dialog anymore, go through the service door you loser is also really helpful and fun. Thanks for your time! On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Christen Anderson christenanderson1...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/9/2012 9:05 AM, Psiweapon wrote: Hey there, I'm a newcomer, although I've been using Gimp for some years now (nothing advanced though) Exactly WHY or WHO the HELL thought it was a good idea to leave common image formats (.png, .gif, etc.) out of the save menu in 2.8 Was this decision taken because of legal issues, politicky crap, too much vodka, or what the fuck? Could anybody enlighten me, please? Thank you for your time. http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification -- Behind the Feather Curtain ___ 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 So you know, there are several hundred emails on the mailing list discussing the whole save/export change and while yours is actually not the most venomous bitching we've heard about the subject ... it's pretty close. Definitely would make the top ten, if not top five. As mentioned in the link (which, hopefully you read, given your tone of voice it's hard to be sure), the problem is that a lot of people lost actual time and work on their compositions by saving to a standard file format and then quitting GIMP before saving back to their XCF workfile. A related phenomena is that by saving to a standard file format and quitting, when GIMP asks to save changes and the user selects yes it saves changes to the (most recently used) non-XCF file instead of the XCK workfile, then it quits like you told it to. As for me? I am about 50% comfortable with the change and 50% critical of it. I see the reasons why, and I have to keep reminding myself to use the new command, but if you can get used to the new model then it is actually faster than the old method. At the same time, I still believe (and quite fiercely ;) ) that the message you get in the Save dialog should offer to transfer you to the Export command as a convenience, even though the devs won't hear anything of the sort (they disagree just as strong). I also believe that this whole thing would never have become as great a problem if people used a little-known command called Save a copy, which right now is completely identical to Export with exception of target file format. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Save, Save As and Export separated?
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:40:47 +0200 From: si...@budig.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Save, Save As and Export separated? Richard Gitschlag (strata_ran...@hotmail.com) wrote: Okay, then what purpose does the Save a copy command do these days when from the user's perspective the ONLY difference between it and Export is the target file format? I suggested it once that the former should now be treated as a variation of Export. I don't know the reasoning behind that one. Sorry. Bye, Simon -- Save a Copy: - Does not clean the image status (GIMP will still ask to save any changes) - Does not change the image-file association for future Save operations Export: - Does not clean the image status - Does not change the image-file association for future Save operations Expressed in those terms they do look virtually identical, don't they? In 2.6, Save a Copy more or less WAS an export command anyway. Professional workflow would be that when you're operating on an XCF image you Save the XCF and Save a Copy anything else ... no problems, no lost work. Except that apparently a lot of people only ever used the Save command, which is what led to so many people losing work when they quit GIMP. So IMHO we have one command on the File menu that is extremely similar (especially in the eyes of the user) to another, and it was probably never actually getting used in the first place. If I could find a good analogy, it would be like ... I dunno, like having two separate Levels commands where one is intended solely for grayscale and the other solely RGB. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Save, Save As and Export separated?
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:19:29 +0200 From: si...@budig.de To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Save, Save As and Export separated? Richard Gitschlag (strata_ran...@hotmail.com) wrote: there is something we can do to help the non-pro - and it does not interfere with the professionals workflow it probably will be considered and added. ...like taking the existing warning and giving it an Export/Cancel choice instead of simply OK ? That's the easiest compromise that's been suggested, and it's been dogmatically shot down as not doing that, sorry. That is the part I just don't understand / agree with. There are a few problems I can see with this. As you probably know, people (professionals and non-pros) don't read dialogs. There is powerful pattern matching going on there and people just hit a button without realizing what they just did. Adding this shortcut would train users to use a workflow with an artificial stumbling block inbetween Okay, then what purpose does the Save a copy command do these days when from the user's perspective the ONLY difference between it and Export is the target file format? I suggested it once that the former should now be treated as a variation of Export. I don't think many people ever learned 'when' and 'why' to use that command when there's a normal Save command available, contributing to the problem of losing work when you saved a non-XCF version, then quit GIMP without/before saving changes back to your XCF workfile. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Save, Save As and Export separated?
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:05:37 -0300 From: gwid...@mpc.com.br To: ale...@gmail.com CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Save, Save As and Export separated? And it is really that: not any o f the other fantastic features included in GIMP 2.8 is been commented upon, and none of them changes the way of working of anybody - instead, they just add even more possibilities for great and fantastic work by amateurs and professionals alike. (resource tagging, paint dynamics, new tools, etc...) Oh, paint dynamics have been commented on at least, and not in the good way. Its new implementation is genuinely flawed and needs to be significantly (if not completely) re-thought out to be useful on a practical level. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp-2.8_Save and save as bad behavior
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:45:48 +0200 From: ofn...@laposte.net To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp-2.8_Save and save as bad behavior On 08/13/2012 09:09 PM, maderios wrote: On 08/13/2012 09:00 PM, Archie Arevalo wrote: On Monday 13 August 2012 11:35:38 Ken Warner wrote: But, continuing to *argue* here is fruitless. This is most certainly and sadly true. How about looking at it this way... We see the reasons behind the change May you explain here the reasons of the change concerning save and save as ? Before: - Creates complex images with several layers, paths, masks - Wants a PNG to show Mr Customer - Does Save as... PNG - Exits - lost the last changes in layers, paths, masks So somewhere you need some way to tell Gimp that when you save as PNG (or JPG/GIF/TIIF) you aren't really saving. Now: - Creates complex images with several layers, paths, masks - Wants a PNG to show Mr Customer - Does Export as... PNG - Exits - Gimp complains image not saved - No loss of layers, paths, masks This comparison of GIMP 2.6 and 2.8 demonstrates one of the reasons why the save/export distinction was made in the first place. If you're working on a multilayer XCF composition and use the Save command on a non-XCF (e.g. PNG) format, then: - GIMP doesn't warn you about unsaved changes when you try to exit. - Further invocations of the Save command target the PNG file, not your original XCF. (You should have used the Save a Copy command instead of Save, but I guess nobody ever uses that). You have to manually Save As on the XCF filename again. The most consistent way of solving the issue was to separate XCF and standard file formats into separate commands. Now I am not entirely happy with it - over half my work in GIMP currently involves writing to standard image files so I definitely would like to see an Export/cancel warning instead of just a warning if you try to type in a non-XCF filename, and I still think Save a Copy should be merged as part of the Export command since the only (user-visible) difference between them is the type of file format they write to (neither of them cleans the image status or changes the filename associated with the image). But I am also familiar enough with the whole project concept to know when I should keep a workfile handy so I can come back and work on it later. Another thing that I would like to see, however, is a confirmation warning if you try to use the Overwrite command on a JPEG file; lossy compression and all that -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP is GREAT!
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:58 +0200 From: mader...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP is GREAT! PS: sorry for my bad english, I'm french Don't worry about that, the worst English always comes from native speakers who are just too lazy to use even their own tongue properly :P -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Timeline for sequenced layers - a hybrid compositor
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:08:56 +0400 From: alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Timeline for sequenced layers - a hybrid compositor On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Aditia A. Pratama wrote: 2. With sequence images, you'll work with a lot of layers. So the first time you open them, they'll overlap each other. The pain is there's no button for select all layers, or toggle visibility off for all layers, etc. Actually you can do that. You can 'solo' visibility of a layer. Press and hold Shift, the click on the eye icon of a layer. This will make that layer the only visible one. So if you really need to disable visibility of all layers, all you will have to do after that is click eye icon for the only visibly layer. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ AFAIK there is no menu command to do that, nor is it shown in the context menu when you right-click a layer. It really is something you can't do unless you already know how. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:28:56 -0400 From: j...@jaysmith.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior I just wish the developers would be open to conversation of how both types of workflows could be accommodated efficiently (both efficient for users and in the code). Closing off that possibility of conversation is perhaps what hurts most of all. I wish I had enough knowledge to contribute ideas of how to accomplish this while meeting the needs of all. I agree. IMHO the quickest way to solve this with MINIMUM total compromises is to turn the existing export-not-save message from a static message into a prompt with a choice of export/cancel buttons. That would require maybe less than a dozen lines of actual program code (basically just one logic branch) and rewriting one message string, total. The only developer response I've heard to that is a rather terse go DIY. ...which, if I had the energy to set up a GIMP compiler one of these days and do exactly that on my own time, I probably would. :) I understand that developers don't like how this issue keeps coming up over and over again: It hurts their feelings when, after all the time and effort that they spent working on program code (a right thankless blue-collar task in and of itself), the first thing they hear out of the mouths of their broad userbase is vocal complaints from the portion who doesn't like change X. Unfortunately, as Jay describes the hurt emotions are already 100% mutual: It's the users whose workflows relied on the old model who have their feelings hurt first. Maybe it could have been avoided in advance with better communication routes. The save/export change was e.g. NEVER mentioned front and center on GIMP's homepage news, the only discussions were in dedicated venues that aren't easily found when not specifically looking for them. Maybe the devs weren't expecting the change to be seen as so significant or so controversial? But either way you have a lot (not speaking proportionally) of GIMP users downloading the new version and feeling emotionally blindsided because they heard absolutely zero about GIMP 2.8 not letting them Save standard file formats like 2.6 did. BTW, I remember browsing the MS Visual Studio forum archives at some point while migrating a program from Visual Basic 6 to VB.Net (what a hell that was). One of the VB topics that was highly controversial back in its day was how Visual Basic 6 had a convention of a default form instance but Visual Studio did not: -- In C, you create a new form window just like any other object variable -- by instantiating its class definition: instance = new class_name(...) instance.method(...) In Visual Basic 6.0 and earlier, if your application used only one instance of a given form class at a time you could simplify it by skipping instantiation altogether and just treating the class name itself like a live object variable (comparable to creating a singleton): formclassname.method(...) -- There were a few conceptual problems with this model in the VS environment (e.g. makes it difficult for the IDE to tell between static and instanced properties and methods), so when MS released VS2008, they dropped it in favor of traditional C-style instantiation. A lot of old VB users were shocked (insert negative emotion here) because the latter method was the user-preferred way of doing this in old Visual Basic versions. (It was the primary way the program's very own documentation taught users about accessing form methods, with the traditional C-style instantiation held back as an advanced usage) The former method may be better for several reasons but in the end old habits die hard, and a lot of VB users complained about the change. With VS 2010, MS added (to the VB language bindings only) the notion of a default form instance, where any reference to a non-static classname.method() will internally map to something like Application.Forms.getDefaultInstance(classname). The end result is similar to the old VB6 behavior: Convenient, singleton-like references to a form object if they need to have it. Users become very attached to the software they use. They start to think of it as theirs. They have made a very real investment in time, energy, learning, etc. to use the software. Users also develop a brand attachment that is deeper than most product makers comprehend (users of products will often stick by a product that even they themselves complain about as being inferior -- sort of a Stockholm Syndrome in a different kind of way). A user's investment in learning how to USE a piece of software is indeed very real and absolutely no less than the developer's own investment in building it. My mother regularly uses Microsoft Works 4.5 (originally designed for Windows 95) despite knowing that it has a
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:23:49 +0200 From: for...@gimpusers.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org CC: t...@gimpusers.com Subject: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior Well habbits or not, I still wonder why it is explicitly disallowed to save as something other than xcf. As I said, allowing that+keeping the export option makes all users happy. Now, a way that apparently some part of the users like and some don't is forced to all, while it is not necessary to force it. Translation: Why the existing message can/may not be converted into an Export/Cancel prompt, which would be a have-cake-eat-it-too solution. That the developers insist the cake being a lie is ... mystifying, to say the least. ... I don't use GIMP often enough to get used to learn the fact that it's the only program I have where CTRL+S does not save, but rather wants me to make a temporary projectfile. -- Anoko (via gimpusers.com) In my experience, I only have a few such programs: GIMP 2.8, Visual Studio, and FontForge. Visual Studio, being a win32 program compiler, is pretty obvious: Save saves the project source code, and Compile writes the finished executable. FontForge's documentation makes clear that real font files are extremely optimized for small file sizes and don't include a lot of helpful metadata that is saved with your project (.sfd) file; the Generate Fonts command is what writes actual font files. In my experience I've also personally written a program used to design mods for one specific game, where the Save command stored a project file and a separate Compile... command packaged it into the actual mod file. (Coincidentally, all three of these share another thing in common: Needing to perform a validation/error check before compiling the file.) By contrast, GIMP is the only program I use where the majority of my work involves outputting to a standard file format, and I've only used XCF for situations where other formats simply cannot handle it (i.e. multilayer arrangements). -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] DON'T HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] DON'T HATE the new save vs. export behavior From: l...@holoweb.net To: strata_ran...@hotmail.com CC: dan...@yacg.com; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:39:19 -0400 On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:11 -0700, Richard Gitschlag wrote: As a quick comparison, Windows doesn't allow you to drag-and-drop items directly onto an application's taskbar button either and I don't understand why. Win 95 and Win XP did, in general, I don't know about later versions of Windows. It's not instant, you have to hover over the tab for a second or two. I am referring to at least XP. Attempt to drag and drop a file anywhere onto the taskbar, including active application panels, and XP will tell you (and I quote) you cannot drop an item onto a button on the Taskbar. Yes, it does say that you can hover it over said button for a second until the application window opens, then drop it onto the application window, but you still have to actually drag it into the application's window area before you release the mouse button - if you release the mouse button while inside the taskbar you always get that message as a result. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
