Re: [Gimp-user] Adding to Quick Mask using a white brush
El jue, 05-05-2016 a las 14:15 -0400, Rick Strong escribió: > I’m trying to add to a Quick Mask using white as both foreground and > background colours. White is supposed to add to the mask. But it > keeps removing the mask. In other words, using a white brush deletes > that part of the mask and reveals the image underneath when it should > be covering it up. v. 2.8.16 > > Any ideas? It looks like you got it wrong. Think about black and white as 0 and 1 respectively. In a selection, 0 means "it's not selected" and 1 means "it's selected". This is also consistent with layer masks, where black makes pixels transparent while white makes them opaque. Since you can produce layer masks from selections, it makes sense that those values are consistent. And why are black and white used that way in layer masks? Because masks work like alpha channels. So, when you paint white, you're painting the pixels you want to be selected, the ones to be visible. It makes sense that those are not "masked out" by your quick mask. Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Path Tool Annoyances
El sáb, 20-02-2016 a las 13:12 -0500, akovia escribió: > > It just strikes me funny that there is a built in excuse to not > improve, > or fix bugs for the path tool. > "Use Inkscape" Not at all. I'm just a user like you. I honestly think that Inkscape is a more appropriate tool for what you're trying to do than GIMP. > It's not a bad excuse for sure, but when functionality is going > backwards, I would think it should be looked at and fixed if > possible. As I mentioned in my message, I agree that the problem you found needs to be addressed. It looks like a bug and it means that it could keep somebody from doing what they need with GIMP, so it has to be fixed. That being said, I still think that a vector drawing program is more adequate for that kind of uses. You gain editability, being able to see the result (the stroke) as you draw, resolution-independence, etc. Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] How to shrink photo, retain quality?? Business card design
El lun, 15-02-2016 a las 10:35 -0500, Rick Strong escribió: > As always, the best thing to do is work closely with your printer and > give > them what they want. In that case, the only program capable of producing such PDF is Scribus (inkscape can't export CMYK PDF). It's important to note that you don't need to convert the images using a different application. You can create your artwork and images in RGB and let scribus do the conversion to CMYK during the PDF export. In Scribus, when you choose "Printer" as output for PDF, it will convert all the assets (swatches and images) to CMYK, even when they are RGB in your working document. It's also important to note that different PDF and PDF/X versions allow different color models. Some of them allow only CMYK, others allow CMYK or RGB, and other even allow to have both, RGB and CMYK elements in the same document. In my experience, woring in scribus with RGB and then exporting from PDF version 1.4 and choosing "printer" as output produces a solid PDF that every print shop will accept without questions. The upcoming versions of Scribus will allow PDF/X, which is a variant of PDF specially taylored for printing, but meanwhile the settings offered above are fine. Just keep in mind to set the right color profiles in the color management section of the preferences so the conversions are properly managed, according to the colorspace provided by your print supplier. TL;DR: Use Scribus, export PDF 1.4, choose "printer" as output and don't convert stuff to CMYK, Scribus will do it for anything that is not in the printer colorspace already. BTW, since this is the GIMP mailing list, keep in mind that you can produce files for print from GIMP, but you can't produce a CMYK PDF. You can, however, produce a CMYK TIFF file with GIMP and the Separate+ Plugin that should be acceptable f Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Path Tool Annoyances
El vie, 19-02-2016 a las 18:56 -0500, Rick Strong escribió: > "Inkscape", another free program, was recommended to me for vector > work. > Check it out. > > Rick I agree with Rick. Although this issue needs to be taken care of, GIMP doesn't seem the most appropriate tool for the work you're doing. As long as GIMP doesn't have a vector layer feature, the strokes produced with this technique will be always resolution-dependent, which is not really useful for what you're doing (i.e. if your source image is low resolution, your strokes will be low-res too, and you won't be able to scale them up keeping detail and smoothness). Use inkscape instead, it will work better and you'll keep the editability of the strokes all the time. Gez ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] How to shrink photo, retain quality?? Business card design
El lun, 15-02-2016 a las 10:35 -0500, Rick Strong escribió: > As always, the best thing to do is work closely with your printer and > give > them what they want. In that case, the only program capable of producing such PDF is Scribus (inkscape can't export CMYK PDF). It's important to note that you don't need to convert the images using a different application. You can create your artwork and images in RGB and let scribus do the conversion to CMYK during the PDF export. In Scribus, when you choose "Printer" as output for PDF, it will convert all the assets (swatches and images) to CMYK, even when they are RGB in your working document. It's also important to note that different PDF and PDF/X versions allow different color models. Some of them allow only CMYK, others allow CMYK or RGB, and other even allow to have both, RGB and CMYK elements in the same document. In my experience, woring in scribus with RGB and then exporting from PDF version 1.4 and choosing "printer" as output produces a solid PDF that every print shop will accept without questions. The upcoming versions of Scribus will allow PDF/X, which is a variant of PDF specially taylored for printing, but meanwhile the settings offered above are fine. Just keep in mind to set the right color profiles in the color management section of the preferences so the conversions are properly managed, according to the colorspace provided by your print supplier. TL;DR: Use Scribus, export PDF 1.4, choose "printer" as output and don't convert stuff to CMYK, Scribus will do it for anything that is not in the printer colorspace already. BTW, since this is the GIMP mailing list, keep in mind that you can produce files for print from GIMP, but you can't produce a CMYK PDF. You can, however, produce a CMYK TIFF file with GIMP and the Separate+ Plugin that should be acceptable for printing (unless it has a lot of small text, in which case a vector format is more suitable and easier to handle). Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Basic Color Management
El mié, 20-01-2016 a las 13:54 -0700, Mike Brennan escribió: > GIMP 2.8.14 Windows 7 64 > > In Preferences -> Color Management I've selected "Mode of operation" > = > "Color managed display" > > There's a checkbox: "Try to use the system monitor profile" that I'm > unclear about. > > I've calibrated/profiled my display with ColorMunki hardware. My > understanding (wrong?) is that ColorMunki installed an appropriate > profile for my display on the system, and that all output from ANY > application to the display goes through an OS driver that uses that > profile. If that is so, my assumption is that GIMP will "use" the > correct display profile implicitly, without needing to be told to do > so. > > I do not understand whether checking "Try to use the system monitor > profile" is unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful. As far as I can tell from my linux install, marking that checkbox overrides whatever display profile you selected and uses the profile installed in your current user. I'm not sure if other platforms behave the same, but that's how it works on Linux. Having selected a display profile from disk doesn't result in a redundand or harmful adjustment, as it's just ignored when that checbox is set. I guess it's easy to check if that's working in your system: Just set the display profile to none, and mark the checkbox, then flip between "color managed display" and "no color managment". If there is a change, then your system color profile is working. You should get the same change turn on and off the checkbox (and your monitor display is set to none). If you set manually the same display profile your system use, turning on and off the checbox shouldn't make any difference. Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Black and White photos
El sáb, 30-01-2016 a las 15:53 -0500, Liam R. E. Quin escribió: > On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 08:52 +0100, oulefty wrote: > > Black and White Yearbook pictures that people have signed their > > name > > across their face. Wondering if there is a way to remove whatever > > they wrote on the picture? Painting a selection over the signatures and using resynthesize to reconstruct the pixels behind the strokes could work, at least partially, then some manual healing/cloning. Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] 2015 project report
El jue, 31-12-2015 a las 21:33 +0300, Alexandre Prokoudine escribió: > We expect 2016 to be much less about new features > and even more about stability, bugfixing, performance improvements, > and overall polishing. And releasing? ;-) G. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)
El sáb, 05-12-2015 a las 13:00 -0500, Steve Kinney escribió: > On 12/05/2015 11:36 AM, Ofnuts wrote: > > > > > Wouldn't it be useful to have a different file extension for > > > > the new > > > > high-precision contents? > Speaking strictly from a user perspective, it always sucks when you try to open a file and the program fails to open complaining that it was created with a newer version. It's awful UX. Personally, I would prefer that the program warns me that the file was created with a newer version and some features can be missing and open at least something. As GIMP is going to take some time to be released, it's probably a better idea to try to keep some two way compatibility for the people who's going to use 2.9 as part of their production pipelines. I know that 2.9.x is a development version and it's not ready yet, but since it has some really attractive features, some people will use it as a complement for GIMP 2.8.x I'm one of those users. I use GIMP stable mainly for my work, but high bit depth editing is attractive since it allows me to do some things that aren't possible with 8 bpc sRGB. Once GIMP 2.10 is out I will definitely use it, but for now, I'm going to use it only for some tasks, as a complement for the stable version. The XCF version incompatibility is certainly a hurdle. Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] ai files in gimp
El mar, 01-12-2015 a las 15:21 -0500, Alex Vergara Gil escribió: > Hello! > > Is there a way of importing ai files into gimp? I know i canuse them > in inkscape but i need to insert some figures in my project, i need > them to be very resolutive but converting them to png is not what i > expect, results are a disaster. Any hints? It's not clear what you need to do. Do you need to insert figures into your AI file, or do you need to take some figures from the AI and use them in your GIMP project? Gimp should be able to import ai files since they are based on PDF (from illustrator 10). If it doesn't, try to rename your file.ai to file.pdf and try again. Note, however, that importing them into GIMP will result in the rasterization of the vector shapes (turning them into bitmap images). If you want to keep them as vectors, GIMP is not the program you want. Also, if you want to keep the shapes separated from the background, rasterization could be a problem too. hth, Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] any tricks for making black look really black
Kevin Cozens wrote: > When it comes to printing, black ink by itself won't give you a real > dark black. The blackest-black you can get when printing in CMYK is > C-75 M-68 Y-67 K-90 (from a formula on a web page). These percentages > are different than I remembered. The main idea is that you need more > than just black ink. That's not correct. The amount of black generation is controlled by the target CMYK profile, and you just can't create something that is blacker than your RGB black when working in RGB. GIMP is an RGB editor, it can't produce CMYK separations unless you use a plugin, so the CMYK value in the picker is just a guide of how your colors are going to be separated when your RGB image is converted to a specific CMYK space. You can't force values. Those CMYK values you provided could be good for a certain CMYK space (which as a 300% total area coverage) but could be unsuitable for other colorspaces. At the end it doesn't even matter, as you're absolutely unable to control how the profile will separate your RGB into CMYK unless you're using a tool that lets you control that. In kwisj's case, I'd try to figure out why the printer is producing a weak black separation (maybe pulling a pure black from the separation, without any CMY beneath). That's unlikely that is caused by GIMP or the file produced in GIMP, it would be the same producing an sRGB image from any other program. Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] any tricks for making black look really black
El dom, 29-11-2015 a las 16:47 -0300, Gez escribió: > > In kwisj's case, I'd try to figure out why the printer is producing a > weak black separation (maybe pulling a pure black from the > separation, > without any CMY beneath). > That's unlikely that is caused by GIMP or the file produced in GIMP, > it > would be the same producing an sRGB image from any other program. Aaaand, replying to myself. If that's what I suspect (the printer/RIP producing pure K plate from the achromatic values), maybe there is a way to prevent it: Try to add some color. Instead of pure black, use RGB 1,1,5. Sometime RIPs, Printer drivers and preflight softwares have specific rules, as converting pure black to K-only black. By making it very dark gray and adding some tint to it, you cheat the RIP so it doesn't do that. That should work giving you a nice, deep black. Try it and let us know how it went. Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HEX to Pantone Color Conversion
On 11/25/2015 05:42 PM, Chris Mohler wrote: > I know of no reliable method (aside from having a swatch book and > using the mark-one eyeball). That being said, try this: > http://rgb.to/hex/3e479a > > Or if you search the web for "HEX to Pantone", you will see some > other > tools pop up. > > Also, (I think) Pantone used to have a color lookup on their own > site. > But I can't find it anymore. > > But once again - I doubt any of these tools are super-reliable. This > is from someone who used to mix Pantone ink colors. Pantone Formula digital swatches are stored in CIE Lab colorspace, which means that it is possible to reliabily choose a close match for a RGB value, given that we know *which* RGB colorspace those values belong to. An hex RGB value means nothing if we don't know the colorspace, so any conversion will be based on an assumption, we can't really know. So the very first question is: What RGB is that RGB value? Is sRGB? If not, what colorspace? Once you know that, you have to convert the RGB value to Lab and find the closest match for your Pantone. iirc, the Lab values of the Pantone Formula guide could be loaded from Pantone Xref using Swatchbooker. Gez. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
