On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:04:59 +0100, David Marrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an experiment at work I decided to work on just the one image when saving
for web and found that I really don't need to do the spot comparisons
between
images after all. What's more important is the ability to
David,
first of all thanks for taking the time to give us input.
There is one phrase here that I am not sure how to interpret:
I'm not entirely sure how I'd go about designing a website in gimp
to deal with this problem
The designing a website in gimp sounds scary to me because I then
peter sikking wrote:
interesting to see Compare compressed images against original, would
it be enough to see the compressed one and balance that against the size
and what your customer expects?
As an experiment at work I decided to work on just the one image when saving
for web and found
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 19:11 +0200, peter sikking wrote:
Liam,
Please don't forget other users :-) I routinely have a selection
that's, say, 10,000 pixels by roughly 40 pixels. This might not
be a usual case for Web graphics...
an aspect ratio of 1000 to 4. cool.
at what zoom level(s)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neither is chosing the appropriate format specific the web so save
for the web concept is misleading. It should be select best
compression format or so.
I have no argument with this. If we can do away with a separate dialogue
altogether, so much the better.
It
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 01:30 +0200, peter sikking wrote:
[...]
actually right now I am specifying how the selection tools should deal
with long, very narrow selections, with the web guys in mind.
Please don't forget other users :-) I routinely have a selection
that's, say, 10,000 pixels by
Liam,
actually right now I am specifying how the selection tools should
deal
with long, very narrow selections, with the web guys in mind.
Please don't forget other users :-) I routinely have a selection
that's, say, 10,000 pixels by roughly 40 pixels. This might not
be a usual case for
On 6/26/07, peter sikking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't forget other users :-) I routinely have a selection
that's, say, 10,000 pixels by roughly 40 pixels. This might not
be a usual case for Web graphics...
an aspect ratio of 1000 to 4. cool.
at what zoom level(s) do you
Akkana Peck wrote:
I might have misunderstood this step (I definitely don't follow the
comment about PS not letting you edit -- maybe that's a PS issue)
but it sounds like if you did a Paste as New in gimp, you wouldn't
need to create a new canvas or figure out any dimensions.
Oh yeah. Thanks
peter sikking wrote:
interesting to see Compare compressed images against original, would
it be enough to see the compressed one and balance that against the size
and what your customer expects?
I usually do comparisons when I'm trying to get the best image quality out of
jpegs. There seems to
gcn I agree that the tools should aimed towards top end users not splicing.
gcn Gimp's declared aim is to provide tools for creating elements for web
gcn design not page layout.
Does it really mean I have to use separate program to make few cuts.
And how can I make web page without slicing ?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:52:53 +0200, David Marrs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With a save *selection* for web feature, steps 3) and 4) could
probably be
omitted altogether for most of the time.
well save for web is a plugin but it probably could be extended to save a
selection. Sounds like a
David wrote:
peter sikking wrote:
can you tell me what you mean with manual work needs to be done?
that can help us with our work.
Well the most common case is simply selecting a slither of an area
to be tiled as a background image.
yep, we expect this kind of stuff to be your daily
David Marrs writes:
4) Open new canvas. PS automatically populates the canvas dimensions with
those
of the paste buffer so this operation isn't as cumbersome as it would be in
Gimp, but really it wouldn't be required at all if PS allowed you to edit an
image during the next stage.
I
On 6/22/07, Nemes Ioan Sorin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the correct behavior ( exporting layout for web ) can be seen on
Macromedia / Adobe Fireworks. Let say Firefox 8 ( I dont try yet CS
version ).
They had a proven model that already got the general acceptance. If some
similar model (
peter sikking wrote:
can you tell me what you mean with manual work needs to be done?
that can help us with our work.
Well the most common case is simply selecting a slither of an area to be tiled
as a background image. Sometimes you have to hide a foreground layer before
making the
David,
peter sikking wrote:
We do imagine that a set of website graphics pieces gets _produced_
on a single canvas, and when everything works well together
graphically, with a single 'cutting mask' all pieces are cut out
and saved in the right web format, in a single action.
I don't see
peter sikking wrote:
We do imagine that a set of website graphics pieces gets _produced_
on a single canvas, and when everything works well together
graphically, with a single 'cutting mask' all pieces are cut out
and saved in the right web format, in a single action.
I don't see how this
damianzalewski wrote:
What gimp is not:
not a web page mock-up application
I brought up web mock-ups, but we realised that seriously
supporting this would mean introducing a ton of functionality;
it is better done in a specialised application
I really don't understand what tons of
19 matches
Mail list logo
