Hi saulgoode,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 7:00 PM,
wrote:
> Quoting David Gowers <00a...@gmail.com>:
>
>> The eraser currently does change color values, in the case of layers
>> without alpha (it's like using paintbrush or pencil with the
>> background color). Yahvuu's proposition would make sure it
Hi,
Sparr schrieb:
> I just want to point out that PNG supports a background color (and the
> GIMP plugin to save PNG offers an option to save the current brush
> background color as the image background color), and being the only
> format to do so we should probably consider its specified functio
Quoting David Gowers <00a...@gmail.com>:
> The eraser currently does change color values, in the case of layers
> without alpha (it's like using paintbrush or pencil with the
> background color). Yahvuu's proposition would make sure it never
> changed color values because there would be no layers
Hi,
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com schrieb:
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding this proposal, but the ramifications
> seem to be more confusing than the present method. And while I realize
> that GIMP does not make any guarantees about retaining the colors of
> transparent pixels, its
Hi,
David Gowers schrieb:
> Hi saulgoode,
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM,
> wrote:
>> If a PNG is loaded as a layer, should the "image background color" be
>> updated to the PNG file's background color? or should it remain what
>> it was originally? If a JPEG is loaded as a layer, should t
Hi,
David Gowers schrieb:
> Yahvuu's proposition is essentially
> a) have a 'virtual layer' always at the bottom of the stack, filled with a
> color
> and
> b) make all layers have an alpha channel
>
> Nothing more.
Yep.
Just in case this rooted a misunderstanding, i'd like to add that
the eras
Thank for clearing
I also searched the bugzilla report for overlay mode but i could not find it
anymore
But instead i find a interesting proposal of Jao O Buono that, i believe
risk to be forgotten because posted in a no so strictly related topic
(here http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?
Hi all,
Alchemie foto\grafiche schrieb:
> The possibility to add "CUSTOM " layer modes [..]
that sounds interesting. Just curious: i wonder how custom layer modes
differ from filters that take a second layer as input (e.g. LIC)?
i mean, other than that filters currently work destructively.
gree
yahvuu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Alchemie foto\grafiche schrieb:
>
>> The possibility to add "CUSTOM " layer modes [..]
>>
>
> that sounds interesting. Just curious: i wonder how custom layer modes
> differ from filters that take a second layer as input (e.g. LIC)?
> i mean, other than that filt
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> yahvuu wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Alchemie foto\grafiche schrieb:
>>
>>> The possibility to add "CUSTOM " layer modes [..]
>>>
>>
>> that sounds interesting. Just curious: i wonder how custom layer modes
>> differ from filters that take a sec
>
> Spontaneously I don't think custom layer modes is a good
> idea. Might be
> fun for programmers to play with, but graphic
> professionals?
>
> HTH,
> Martin
Actually Graphic professional do complain ,but for missed option:
for the absence in Gimp of modes they learned to use in Photoshop
Alchemie foto\grafiche wrote:
>> Spontaneously I don't think custom layer modes is a good
>> idea. Might be
>> fun for programmers to play with, but graphic
>> professionals?
>>
>> HTH,
>> Martin
>>
>
>
> Actually Graphic professional do complain ,but for missed option:
> for the absence in G
12 matches
Mail list logo
