[Gimp-user] Batch mode ?
It appears to me that virtually every photograph I have ever manipulated using GIMP has looked better after applying GIMP's Colors-Levels-Auto to it. Now, I have a batch of about 80+ scans of old family photos that I would like to apply this process to en mass. If I wanted to script this, you know, so as to just apply Colors-Levels-Auto to each one of about 80 .JPG files, in turn, yeilding one new output file corresponding to each of the input files, but with levels adjusted, how would I go about doing that? ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Crop to oval?
I've been using gimp for awhile now and have had great success using it to retouch about a zillion scans of old family photographs. but other than then few things I need in order to do that (paintbrush, clone tool, rotate tool and crop) I am still largely ignorant of how to use gimp. (There's just so much functionality in there, and I'm sure that I don't even have any use for about 90% of it.) Anyway, a relative just sent me an old old family photo that some nitwit, perhaps a generation or two ago, did some seriously violence to with a pair of scissors. To salvage this one and to make it look presentable I really need to be able to take the scan I have of it and crop it into a oval shape. (Yes, it is a portrait.) So anyway, how do I do this? It isn't obviously. I already did manage to figure out how to make a selection of the exact size and shape (and location) of oval that I want, and I _did_ make a selection like that... at least I _thought_ that I did... but then when I did crop-to-selection I ended up with the picture cropped to a rectangular shape, where the rectangle in question is, quite apparently, the rectangle which only and exactly contained the oval that I had selected earlier. So um, could some kind soul instruct me here? I'm obviously lost and should probably spend a couple of hours reading the manual, but I guess you could say that I am looking for that ever elusive Royal Road to Geometry. (Too bad I can't just download the whole Gimp manual direct into my brain, like Trinity did for that Bell 212 helicopter.) I'm sort-of guessing that what I really want is gonna end up being another one of these things that ends up involving multiple layers... yes? I mean of course, what I _really_ want to end up with is an image that _is_ in fact a rectangle, but everything outside of my selected oval has to end up being painted total white (255). Regards, rfg P.S. This is a strictly BW image, BTW... just like all really old family photographs everywhere. P.P.S. For bonus points, somebody please also explain to me how to fade the edges of the oval slowly to white. that would be really cool, and would, I'm sure, impress the bejesus out of some of my relatives. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Crop to oval?
In message 4f763699.3000...@gmail.com, Stefan Maerz stefanma...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/30/2012 03:19 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: Anyway, a relative just sent me an old old family photo that some nitwit, perhaps a generation or two ago, did some seriously violence to with a pair of scissors. To salvage this one and to make it look presentable I really need to be able to take the scan I have of it and crop it into a oval shape. (Yes, it is a portrait.) P.P.S. For bonus points, somebody please also explain to me how to fade the edges of the oval slowly to white. that would be really cool, and would, I'm sure, impress the bejesus out of some of my relatives Hi Ronald, Gimp's user interface is a bit hard to learn at first. Just do some tutorials, and you'll pick it up in no time. Any suggestions for which ones? URLs? For your question, I don't know of a way to do this without the use of layers. With the oval selected, press CTRL+X to cut it out. Then do a CTRL+V To paste the oval. This puts the oval into a Floating Selection. It is almost like a layer, but not quite. OK, I did what you just said. Now a little about Gimp's interface: You have three windows. In Layers, Channels, Paths, Undo - Brushes, Patterns, Gradients there is an area for Layers (you probably know this). I'm still on the early/steep part of the learning curve, but yes, I've seen that one. At the bottom of the layers area (above brushes) and to the left is a create new layer. Press it this turns the Floating Selection into a layer. Hummm... OK. Yes, I see. Now it says Pasted Layer next to it, instead of floating layer. Next you can select on the other layer (Titled Background by default), and delete it by right clicking and pressing Delete Layer. At this point you should have your image as you desire. Okey dokey. Yes. So now I got just my oval'd pic on top of the checkerboard. Question: *Now* what the bleep do I do? I gotta put some 255-white into the rest of the rectangle that's not covered by the oval. So how do I do that? And then how do I subsequently smush my oval pic together with the outer whiteness and save the whole shebang together as a single JPEG? (Do I gotta do a flatten layers in here somewhere?) (Sorry, but I really am ignorant, as you see. So even though what I'm asking is probably very basic, I still have no idea how to do this.) Instructions for feathering (the bonus points): If your oval's layer isn't selected for any reason select it now. OK, hold on. When you say select it now do you just mean that I should place and size my oval, you know, and then just leave it with the marquee outline flashing around it? Or once it has been placed and sized to my satisfaction, do I need to do one more step, e.g. place the cursor inside the oval and then either left-click or else hit return? (I know that I always have to do the latter when I am cropping to a rectangle. In fact that's one of teh very few tghings that I _do_ know.) Then pick the Select by Color Tool from the Toolbox. Set the threshold to 255(in the bottom half of the toolbox) and click on your oval. This selects your oval... Hummm... if I have placed and sized my oval to my satisfaction, and then I click on the lttle Select by Color Tool icon (and set the threshold to 255) and if I then just left click inside of my oval (which still has the marquee outline blink around it) the only thing that seems to happe is that the blinking marquee goes away. This can't be right. Is it? I'm thinking that I messed up your simple instructions somehow. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Fix Orientation ?
What is the proper way, using gimp, to correct the orientation of an image? For example, I just took a shot with one of my cameras where I was holding the camera in a vertical (portrait) orientation. But when I transfer the .JPG to my PeeCee and view it with gimp (or ImageMagick) it is laying over on its sid, in landscape orientation. To fix this, should I be using Tools-Transform Tools-Rotate or is there a better way? (Actually, I did try doing it that way using gimp, and the results were distinctly unacceptable... some parts of the image got cropped out, and some new transparent parts were added. Bummer. This is not at all what I had in mind.) Regards, rfg P.S. Before asking here, I did try googling around for gimp and orientation and/or gimp and rotate but didn't find anything enlightening. I also checked the Gimp FAQ and again came up empty. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Installing new script ?
OK, so now that I've got my image oriantation all sorted out, now I have a different problem... I just took this shot, which I kind-of like, and I've already cropped reoriented it: ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/private/gimp/squirrel-b.jpg Unfortunately, however if you look close you'll see it has some rather serious purple fringing. Now I'd like to get gimp's help to eliminate that. So I found this thing called Darla-PurpleFringe.scm and I just downloaded it from this page: http://registry.gimp.org/node/185 The problem is that I've never installed a gimp script before, and apparently I'm doing something wrong. see that I have a directory called .gimp-2.6 in my home directory, and i see that this directory has a number of further subdirectories, one of which is named scripts. So I such the new .scm file into that directory and then restarted gimp. But contrary to the directions on the page listed above, this new script _does not_ appear to be showing up underneath Filters-Script-Fu What did I do wrong? The file has permissions 0644. Any help appreciated. I sure would like to see if this purple fringing fix actually works. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Installing new script ?
In message CAE9_fe_H1H_LTZ-0ShV=j44geBQp==q0yftrchmukszrex3...@mail.gmail.com , Chris Mohler cr33...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote: =C2=A0But contrary to the directions on the page listed above, this new script _does not_ appear to be showing up underneath Filters-Script-Fu The menu location appears to be: Script-Fu Darla =E2=80=93 Purple Fringe Fix Does it appear there? DOH! me, slaps forehead Yea, it's there. Thanks. I fell dumb. I saw Script-Fu under Filters and I didn't even realize that it also had its own button. Thanks! So I applied the purple fringing fix, and it seems to have done a really marvelous job, but now I got a new problem. When I go to save the fixed image, I am getting a warning message saying: You are about to save a layer mask as JPEG. This will not save the visible layers. I have no idea what this means. Should I be worried? Do I have to do some other magic before I save the fixed image? Oh boy! It gets even weirder. I went ahead and clicked on Confirm and now I'm getting another warning saying: Your image should be exported before it can be saved as JPEG for the following reasons: JPEG plug-in can't handle transparency Flatten image The export conversion won't modify your original image. Hummm... OK, so now one of the options in response to that is export, so take a chance and click on that. Presto! Changeo! Well, whatever the hell all that was about, I guess it all worked. Here's the de-fringed image: ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/private/gimp/squirrel-c.jpg Looks OK to me. And definitely less fringe. I still worry a little about the fact that I really don't know what the hell I'm even doing. But what the hell! It wouldn't be the first time. :-) Regards, rfg P.S. This seems rather odd to me, but apparently Darla's defringer will not allow itself to be applied twice, successively, to an image. Once you have defringed using the script, you can't get the script to re-run on the same image, however... If you save the defringed image to a file, exit gimp, and then run gimp again on the defringed .JPG, then you can get the defringer to run anew. I did that, and actually, yes, the specific image I'm working with seems to have benefitted from having the defringer run on it twice. Here's the image after ONE and then TWO defringing steps: ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/private/gimp/squirrel-c.jpg ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/private/gimp/squirrel-d.jpg The fringing is most notable down at the upper edge of the rain gutter and also to the right of that, on the white stucco. Applying two defringing steps almost eliminated the fringing entirely. (Yippee!) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Installing new script ?
In message 4f0b705b.2070...@pilobilus.net, Steve Kinney ad...@pilobilus.net wrote: On 01/09/2012 05:15 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: I did that, and actually, yes, the specific image I'm working with seems to have benefitted from having the defringer run on it twice. Here's the image after ONE and then TWO defringing steps: ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/private/gimp/squirrel-c.jpg ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/private/gimp/squirrel-d.jpg As a general rule, it's not a good idea to edit, save, open, and re-edit a .jpg image. The .jpg format is a lossy compressed format... Yea yea. I know. If I was doing this professionally, or for publication, then I would have been more careful and saved the intermediate result as a .XCF file. But I'm just messing around here, trying to see what this whiz-bang purple de-fringer can really do. And so far, I'm pretty damned impressed. It really does a nice job... even better if you run it twice. Regards, rfg ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Uninstalling Gimp crashes computer
In message 01c30197$7abe94a0$703bbde0$@gmail.com, Marci Davis marcikda...@gmail.com wrote: My 11-year old daughter installed Gimp on our laptop. Shortly after, we started having trouble with speed and resolution. Gimp will not open, nor can we uninstall it. In fact, when I try, it crashes the computer. Any suggestions? Maybe you can find someone else willing to adopt her. :-) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message cal8n2zm3hdjocyvjpcqr_56qdnkoxquqyzmksnyfmorw9s4...@mail.gmail.com , Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote: Only if you mean DCRaw. Because UFRaw development pretty much stagnated. Two releases in last two years. Compare that to ACR. Yeah, the current version of UFraw is pretty far behind. Gimp does not make use of dcraw directly, it uses UFraw. And since dcraw is not a library, UFraw doesn't benefit from updates to dcraw unless they keep up with releases. UFraw currently barely supports my 2-year-old Pentax K-x, it's pretty pathetic. I've only been skimming the messages in this thread, but the discussion of raw files caught my attention, and I have a question... I've been planning on buying a Lumix DMC-FZ150 next year, when the prices come down some more. (I already own a DMC-ZS7 and I think it is probably the best camera I've ever owned. Images are sharp, and when the thing is in it's intelligent auto mode, it is almost impossible to take a bad picture.) One of the advantages of the FZ150, compared to its predecessors in the FZ series, is that it can do raw. (It also has an intelligent hotshoe... one of only about three or four long zoom bridge cameras that has that, and something I personally find indispensible.) Anyway, I just now went and resarched it and found that the Lumix cameras produce their raw images into something called .RW2 files. I'd just like to ask if there is going to be any problem in reading those into Gimp and/or getting them converted into something like standard tiff files, preferably on Linux/FreeBSD, rather than say, Windoze. (I don't like to use Windoze if I can avoid it.) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message 20111231215357.gs25...@wahoo.no-ip.org, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote: * Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com [12-31-11 16:42]: I've been planning on buying a Lumix DMC-FZ150 next year, when the prices come down some more. ... I'd just like to ask if there is going to be any problem in reading those into Gimp and/or getting them converted into something like standard tiff files, preferably on Linux/FreeBSD, rather than say, Windoze. I would guess that when it doubt, the best course of action would be to check. http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ Well, yea, I looked at that. But often, online documentation doesn't tell the real or complete story, so I thought that I would ask. Also, dcraw may grok .RW2 files OK, but didn't somebody here just say that UFRaw (which Gimp also needs to read these kinds of files?) is seriously behind the curve? Bottom line: Has anybody here actually, personally, and successfully used Gimp+DCRaw+UFRaw to read Lumix raw files? That's my real question. (And I'd like to know before I spend about four hundred bucks on a new Lumix camera.) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message 20111231215523.gt25...@wahoo.no-ip.org, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote: Guess I should do the entire job :^) http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Cameras.html Yes, thanks. I saw that too. But if you will recall, is was just earlier today that Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com wrote: Yeah, the current version of UFraw is pretty far behind. Gimp does not make use of dcraw directly, it uses UFraw. And since dcraw is not a library, UFraw doesn't benefit from updates to dcraw unless they keep up with releases. UFraw currently barely supports my 2-year-old Pentax K-x, it's pretty pathetic. The Pentax K-x is listed on the page you pointed me to (as being a supported camera type) but there's a difference between supported and (in Frank Gore's words) barely supported. And I've experienced that difference myself in other situations with other (entirely unrelated) software and it is most frustrating and unproductive. (I still can't get my new Epson Perfection V500 Photo scanner to work with anything *NIX, even though it theory it should be able to.) So this explains why I asked about gimp support for .RW2 files, even though I did in fact already see the pages you helpfully pointed me to. I'd like to know if Gimp supports .RW2 files, or if it only barely supports them (perhaps even, God forbid, in a pathetic way). ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message CAL8n2zN+=44uKMko4QbAww10XR2SVg3v1bFtoL=Lu4Qud4=5...@mail.gmail.com , Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote: Anyway, I just now went and resarched it and found that the Lumix cameras produce their raw images into something called .RW2 files. Might be worth checking if it can also generate .DNG files. All of my Pentax cameras from the last 3 years (K-7, K-x, K-5) have the option of creating either Pentax-specific RAW files (.PEF) or .DNG RAW files. The .DNGs are pretty standardized and can be processed by most RAW processing software regardless of camera-specific support. The only issues you'll come across is that sometimes the extra pixels on some edges of the frame won't be automatically cropped out if your specific camera model isn't supported. Thank you! I am researching this now. So far it doesn't look good, which is to say that I don't think that the Lumix cameras can produce .DNG files on their own. But I also learned that there is a free DNG Converter utility available on the adobe.com site, an I just downloaded a copy of it, so I'll have it later on, just in case. The bad news? Of course, it is only available for Windoze and Mac. :-( Oh well. Better than nothing if I can't get Gimp+DCRaw+UFRaw to work for any reason. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message CAL8n2zMck+rVT-xF=6k621a6iyzfoczmjvprvrbun-gffb_...@mail.gmail.com , Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com wrote: http://www.digikam.org/drupal/node/373 I've used Digikam for my photo collections for years. Hey! Thanks a bunch! I didn't know about that one at all. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] OT: Was: Gimp name-picking
In message 253415241.1190746.1325133986615.javamail.r...@vms228.mailsrvcs.net , to...@verizon.net wrote: I didn't have time to read this whole thread, so pardon me if it's already been pointed out that the idea of changing the name of GIMP has come up more than once in the past. My vote: leave it alone. The recognition it has gained over the years is invaluable. Go to google and type in photoshop. GIMP is listed fifth. You can't beat that. I'm new here, so by all rights I shouldn't even really have a vote. However, that notwithstanding, allow me to say: Seconded! Frankly, and meaning no offense to any party, I do think that this discussion is a bit absurd. I mean it is as if someone proposed changing the name of the Empire State Building, or the name of Topeka, Kansas. What's the point? Everybody already knows these things by their current names, and that kind of inertia is historically almost impossible to change by fiat. In the case of Gimp, there are already at least a half a dozen books IN PRINT with that name in the title and that describe this great program, and probably hundreds of thousands of copies of said books already in circulation. In televised news reports about Myanmar, on either the BBC or on NBC Nightly news the announcer always says ...Myanmar formerly known as Burma... because most people _still_ have no idea WTF Myanmar is. (And if you google for Myanmar, the first non-news hit that comes up is the Wikipedia entry for Burma.) In short, names are very sticky things. Separately and also, what difference does the name make anyway? A rose by any other name... My dear departed father, God rest his soul, imparted to me many small bits of wisdom as I was growing up, often by way of various aphorisms. One of the many he repeated to me often was: It isn't what you are called that matters. It is what you can do WHEN you are called that matters. Gimp is a fine program, and it can do much when it is called upon to do so. Changing its name would neither add to nor subtract from that. Regards, rfg P.S. I happen to like the name Gimp. It's consistant with the (intentionally humorous) tradition of having the names of most or all GNUish (copylefted?) free software packages begin with the letter `g', and also be easily pro- nounced. In this case, it all rolls easily off the tounge. I was explaining to my neighbor just the other night that Gimp is the GNU Image Processing package. P.P.S. Whoever wrote that dictionary entry saying that one definition of gimp is somebody who likes to dress up in leather from head to toe and be treated as a sex slave obviously just saw the movie Pulp Fiction one too many times. I really do not think that this (postulated) definition of the word gimp is actually part of the common vernacular among the populace at large. (But even if it was, that would make no difference to anything, since _our_ gimp is clearly a different kind of gimp altogether.) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Need help repairing image
The following file was generated from a recent scan of a 40 year old 6x7cm color negative: ftp://ftp.tristatelogic.com/private/gimp/img001-b.jpg Despite the fact that the negative in question has been stored for the past 30+ years in a manner that I personally would have judged to be ``safe'', as you can plainly see (and as is also quite evident, just looking at the negative itself) there has been some quite serious degradation of the image. Specifically, the negative has been seriously compromised (by what, I have no idea) in a way that has resulted in a pronounced, large, and diffuse green streak all along the right hand edge of the image. Less obvious, but also apparent upon close inspection, there is also some similar (but less pronounced) green discoloration in a streak along the length of the left hand edge of the image also. If at all possible I would like to use gimp to restore this image back to it's former and original glory. (The image itself means a lot to me personally.) Unfortunately, I'm still very much of a gimp novice. I've mastered some basic retouching techniques, using the airbrush tool, and I've also have dabbled around with the fast Fourier plug-in for gimp (which I found terrifically useful for one project). But really, these few things are about all I know of gimp, other than how to crop with it. So anyway, I'd very much appreciate any advice that anybody would like to share with me about this image. Obviously, my goal is to get rid of the green stripes while (if possible) still preserving as much of the underyling image detail in the discolored parts of the image as possible. (As you can see, there is really quite a lot of image detail underneath those green streaks.) I tried, briefly, using Gimp's built-in destripe function, but that really didn't seem to help much, no matter how I played with the relevant sliders. I also read this page: http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-tool-blend.html about Gimp's blend tool, but that does not sound like it would be at all relevant to this problem. I don't know enough about the heal tool to know if it would be useful for this kind of problem or not (but I suspect not). I also read a little bit about the Wavelet decompose plug-in: http://registry.gimp.org/node/11742 It seems to me like this might possibly be of use in my efforts to kill the green stripes, but I'm not at all sure and would like some advice before proceeding. (I was thinking that maybe the green stripes could be removed by doing a wavelet decompose and then removing then from the residual part of the image. Yes? No?) So anyway, advice would be appreciated. I _could_ just crop the green stripes out, but I really prefer not to. (I would much rather learn more about the multitude of capabilities of the Gimp.) If only there were an airbrush-like tool that allowed one to selectively modify things like color balance, brightness, saturation, and so forth, then I think that I could clean this image up by hand, but gimp don't seem to have such things. :-( Regards, rfg P.S. Before signing up for this list, and before posting here, I read this page about gimp mailing lists: http://www.gimp.org/mail_lists.html I just wanted to say that I found this part most humorous: * Use the English language. English is the official language of the lists. There is people from all around the globe so we use it... Obviously, that's a typo. It should have said There AM people from all around the globe... There. I'm glad that we got that straightened out. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
