On Wednesday 08 August 2007 18:31:10 jim feldman wrote:
Bram Van Steenlandt wrote:
Hi list,
I run FreeBSD 6.2 (2 gig ram) and use gimp-2.2.17 for editing my large
(1x1pixels) photos.
This works when the tile cache is set to 256MB but this is not enough
for fast editing.
On Thursday 13 September 2007 06:13:52 Mogens Jæger wrote:
Thank you all for the interesting comments and information. In the
past
I was a great fan of the SLR and I had several starting with a
Russian
camera, 'Zenit', which I still have and finishing up with a Nikon
with
28mm and
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:27:06 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote:
Even with it's bit depth shortcoming, I'd still take GIMP's
mature tool set over anything OTHER than PS CS2/3 (at a
mere $649US)
Approximating the $USD-$AUD conversions
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 02:22:14 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 19:13:48 David at ATF4 wrote:
They all need to facilitate collaboration using a common
software interface, so that all users in the supply chain
can be mutually supportive and produce compatible
On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
--- gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user
transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool
On Friday 28 September 2007 06:20:05 gimp_user wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
--- gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user
transition
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
--- gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user
transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is
ready for adoption by high quality image makers.
FUD your
On Friday 28 September 2007 14:12:30 David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote:
While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin
similar to PS) is a serious obstacle
On Saturday 29 September 2007 07:46:37 Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09-29-07 02:00]:
On Friday 28 September 2007 14:12:30 David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user
On Saturday 29 September 2007 07:46:37 Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09-29-07 02:00]:
On Friday 28 September 2007 14:12:30 David Southwell wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user
On Monday 01 October 2007 16:09:23 jim feldman wrote:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-01-07 13:29]
In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right tool
for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP
natively supports 12-bits or
On Friday 28 September 2007 17:28:36 jim feldman wrote:
Greg wrote:
I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than
I expected...and that's a good thing.
I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
loss if image quality from my 12-bit
On Monday 01 October 2007 16:41:02 carol irvin wrote:
I've done some photography but usually I end up painting over it and
converting it to mixed media as I really prefer painting to photography. I
think for users who are drawn to art and painting, GIMP may satisfy their
needs more easily.
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have
at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for non-
distructive editing. The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps
you can take the time to
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 23:11:19 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote:
IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the average user.
Average can mean typical it can mean numbers (as in
mean/mode/median), either way, PS fits the bill.
You are
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 11:58:47 Greg wrote:
--- Patrick Shanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for
it) and you need to shoot RAW.
I know, but if you can retain your original bit-depth, the lossyness
isn't as noticeable,
ORIGINAL Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
Date: Wednesday 03 October 2007
From: gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 23:11:19 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote:
IMHO photoshop
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:
Not just noise, his points have some merit. But they are directed to
the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his
points. That ironically makes his mails pointless...
If you regard my contributions as noise then
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 11:52:13 Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-02-07 13:47]:
Much unnecessary quote removed.
One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an
image for your own use and can revisit the original then the absense
On Thursday 04 October 2007 03:41:05 Michael Schumacher wrote:
Von: gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time
reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will
not be successful here because I will follow
On Thursday 04 October 2007 04:42:55 Raphaël Quinet wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 02:55:35 -0700, gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:
Not just noise, his points have some merit. But they are directed to
the wrong audience and the intended
On Thursday 04 October 2007 07:03:14 David Heino wrote:
Hello,
If I am producing images for the web, is 72 dpi still sufficient across all
possible monitors--a little lap top screen to a large screen HDTV?
Think in pixels. If you need to cater for full screen digital projection
1024x768
On Friday 05 October 2007 00:44:14 Johan Vromans wrote:
Leon Brooks GIMP [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One possible/partial answer is to use some JavaScript to read
the window's dimensions alter the width height parameters
of the IMG tag to scale whatever you provide, so it fits.
This will
On Sunday 30 September 2007 13:46:01 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
On Sunday 30 September 2007 03:26:33 carol irvin wrote:
I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to do this
completely in Gimp if I set my mind to it. I don't
collaborate with any other artists so it doesn't matter what
On Sunday 07 October 2007 00:26:54 Johan Vromans wrote:
gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 05 October 2007 00:44:14 Johan Vromans wrote:
This is not stictly on topic for this list
To make it even more off-topic: it doesn't work for me (FireFox 2.0),
even after fixing the quotes
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 20:49:24 carol irvin wrote:
in both photoshop and GIMP you do not need to do these functions as a layer
adjustment
(i.e. work on layers). You can use the Image menu in photoshop and make
these adjustments
without layers or in Gimp you can go to the Tools menu and
26 matches
Mail list logo
