Hi,
William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The change is almost trivial, if my suggestion of simply using the
selection without asking any questions is acceptable. The status of
this, as far as I can see, is that the bug report (
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959 ) is
I wrote:
The change is almost trivial, if my suggestion of simply using the
selection without asking any questions is acceptable. The status of
this, as far as I can see, is that the bug report (
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959 ) is waiting for
somebody to say that it is
Hi,
Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in
the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining
this?
Yes, I think you are imagining this. There's a rather old bug report
about it and basically we agreed that we
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the
past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there
a way
Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in
the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining
this?
Sven writes:
Yes, I think you are imagining this. There's a rather old bug report
about it and basically we
Joseph Heled wrote:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the
past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there
a way to get the histogram for just the selection?
Carol wrote:
it is easy enough to make a new layer of the selection
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:35:51PM +0530, Laxminarayan Kamath wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the
past it
Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
Joseph Heled [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in
the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining
this?
Yes, I think you are imagining this. There's a rather old bug report
about it and basically
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:24:59 -0800, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:35:51PM +0530, Laxminarayan Kamath wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:
In
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it
took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get
the histogram for just the selection?
-Joseph
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL
William Skaggs wrote:
Joseph Heled wrote:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it
took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get
the histogram for just the selection?
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the
past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there
a way to get the histogram for just the selection?
it is easy enough to make a
12 matches
Mail list logo
