On Monday 03 November 2008, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > hi guys and girls :)
> >
> > As far as we know the name, we still have to scroll the slider to reach
> > it. So what is my purpose? Could we add another shortcut to make the
> > layer name still? For example right bu
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 23:35 +0100, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> Brendan wrote:
> > When dropping two images from GQView to the Gimp "Empty Image Window"...I
> > get
> > two layers in one image...Huh? Is this on purpose? Wouldn't it be more
> > rational to open two images, and not combine them
Alexandre Prokoudine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote (in part)
(on 2008-11-03 at 17:39):
> Dropping on the Emtpy Image Window opens as layers (just as
dropping on
> > an already open image).
> >
> > To open them as separate images, drop on the toolbox instead.
Doh! This should go to user manu
Martin Nordholts wrote:
> Martin Nordholts wrote:
>
> After doing the rearrangements we end up with the following groups.
> Things to note is that Addition does not have a counterpart, and that
> Divide is a bit of an outsider in its group when looking at the blending
> formulas. If no one objec
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> Dropping on the Emtpy Image Window opens as layers (just as dropping on
> an already open image).
>
> To open them as separate images, drop on the toolbox instead.
Doh! This should go to user manual for 2.6+ :-) Thanks for telling!
Alexan
Brendan wrote:
> When dropping two images from GQView to the Gimp "Empty Image Window"...I get
> two layers in one image...Huh? Is this on purpose? Wouldn't it be more
> rational to open two images, and not combine them into an image with two
> layers? Maybe I'm missing something, or this was un
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:58 PM, weskaggs wrote:
> I think it would be impossible to give any sort of full answer to this
> without
> more information. Are you talking about a level of support that would:
>
> 1) allow somebody like Sven or Mitch to work full-time on a project if
> they wanted to
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Brendan wrote:
> When dropping two images from GQView to the Gimp "Empty Image Window"...I get
> two layers in one image...Huh? Is this on purpose? Wouldn't it be more
> rational to open two images, and not combine them into an image with two
> layers?
Oh, it would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> hi guys and girls :)
>
> As far as we know the name, we still have to scroll the slider to reach
> it. So what is my purpose? Could we add another shortcut to make the
> layer name still? For example right button click. It would make my life
> easier. :)
Hi!
Edit -> Pre
hi guys and girls :)
I know that adding grouping of layers requires recreating of xcf format.
Working on dozens of layers requires lots of attention and good sense of
orientation. ;) I've found another inconvenience. Namely: suppose that
we have 50 layers (nothing unusual), current layer is at the
Martin Nordholts wrote:
> One have to differentiate between mathematical similarities of the
> blending formulas and the effect the modes have on the colours we
> perceive. From this point of view Multiply pairs better when Screen than
> with Divide.
>
> Actually from this point of view Divide and
When dropping two images from GQView to the Gimp "Empty Image Window"...I get
two layers in one image...Huh? Is this on purpose? Wouldn't it be more
rational to open two images, and not combine them into an image with two
layers? Maybe I'm missing something, or this was unintended...
_
> all colors can be specified with light wavelength measures isn't that true?
> can't it be that instead of RGB color you say
> light color wavelength instead?
Not at all. There are lots of coloursthat are not equivalent to that
of visible light of some single wavelength. Just think of purple.
T
13 matches
Mail list logo
