Re: [Gimp-user] Fwd: Buttons are blurry
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:06:39 +0300 Ilya Novikov via gimp-user-list wrote: > Hello all, > > Just want to ask - does anyone on gimp 2.10.22 (macos) also have > blurry buttons like in the screenshot - > https://yadi.sk/i/hgSg0cf3EZX58Q > > They look almost the same despite the used theme. I think you are seeing the 'new' icons which appear now. They are more 'stylized' from the icons from previous GIMP versions. In my eyes not an improvement, but I guess that's a personal matter. Also, I think they are meant to indicate that they have sub-menus to select the actual function you need by right-clicking (notice there are less icons than before?). John ___ 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] gimp users matter
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 20:13:00 +0100 Wolfgang Hugemann wrote: > Perhaps it would suffice to turn special warning messages permanently > off, something like a checkbox in the warning dialog: "Don't show this > message again." This is rather common in modern programs and would make > live somewhat easier. I already re-defined CTRL-S to export, but still I > have to click the warning message each time when I close an image. Hi Wolfgang, http://www.shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/ This plugin provides a new 'file command' for the GIMP, which exports, and also marks the file as clean, so the confirmation does not appear anymore. It was posted by Akkana on this list a long time ago. John ___ 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] gimp users matter
On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 11:07:55 -0700 John Meyer wrote: > Infrequent user of GIMP, but I'll ask: is there no way to map the > control keys differently? Yes you can reassign the control keys. But that doesn't completely solve the inconvenience. Ypu still have to confirm losing info on exiting GIMP. There is also a plugin (from Akasha?) which is slightly better than reassigning, but introduced another problem (I seem to recall). John ___ 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] Monochrome 1-bit export?
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 17:26:33 +0200 (CEST) oli...@des-or-mad.net wrote: > I achieve good results using ImageMagick convert with the monochrome option: > > convert -monochrome input.png output.pcx Hi Oliver. -monochrome alone didn't do it. Adding -depth 1 neither, -color 2 neither. After quite a bit of experimenting I did find a combination which produced the correct colors and resolution: convert fk4.pcx -colors 2 -type bilevel -density 72x72 fk4a.pcx (-monochrome did produce something: it separated the original into three color planes, each 8-bit) A pity Gimp doesn't offer a dialog at the export, which offers 1-bit PCX output, instead of insisting on 8-bit, even if the image is marked as indexed B/W) John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Monochrome 1-bit export?
Hi guys. I used to save images in 1-bit PCX format, as required by several label (thermal transfer) printers. I can't find any way to do that anymore. Export to PCX does not give any options, and exports 24bit color. Even after changing the image format to indexed, and selecting 1-bit B/W, export to PCX is still 8-bit colour, 300 x 300 dpi, RLE compressed Any way to accomplish 1-bit colour, 72 x 72 dpi, RLE compressed John Note that another accepted format is monochrome BMP, but this does not seem to work either in GIMP. The only options offered are RGB. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] (no subject)
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 06:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Red Green wrote: > unsubscribe But it's not Yahoo's fault you didn't send the 'unsubscribe' to the correct address. Connect to the site at the bottom of this mail to unsubscribe. John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] DON'T HATE the new save vs. export behavior
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:34:53 +0200 Johannes wrote: > But I guess the old ladies wouldn't find the opt-out switch for this > behavior in the GIMP preferences, if there was any. So you could still > be relaxed and happy. Not entirely sure. I'm guessing a frequent action on a computer (windooze or linux) is editing a picture from a camera (jpg) and sending it along. So, with Gimp 2.8, those old ladies will end up with a bunch of .xcfs which they won't be able to pass on to other, non-gimp users. So, they'll have to learn how to export to .jpg, which seems an extra complication. John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:55:50 +0200 Jernej Simončič wrote: > > Did you search the dialog? Did you see the large button "Type a file > > name" in the top left corner? > > It's not there while you're in the (totally and completely useless) Recent > files view. You have to switch to some other folder first. GTK+ devs seem > to have some kind of contest on how to make the file dialogs more > frustrating to use. There is thread on the 'Recently used' 'feature' here: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=658280 You could add your opinion there too. (It does not help complaining on the Gimp list ;) John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:01:32 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > "most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the subject." Which means that _you_ take the liberty of assigning sentiments to people who do not express their opinion. You effectively say: 'The people who say nothing much on the subject, like it change'. So, how do you know, if they don't say anything, that they actually _like_ it? Maybe they don't like it, but don't want to add to the 'hundreds of mails already exchanged about the matter'. John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:19:13 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > Stats that there have been hundreds of mails? > That most people who like it have nothing much to say about it? > > Do _you_ have stats that prove the opposite? :) No Alexandre... This was a serious question. It's easy to say 'there is a silent majority who says...'. I can always say 'I changed this, and almost everyone is fine with it' because I don't get any feedback. Why not do a _real_ poll on the opinion of the users re: the new 'save feature'? John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Why I went back from GIMP 2.8 to 2.6.x
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 07:45:13 -0700 Richard Gitschlag wrote: > There have been hundreds of emails on this topic already - and mind the fact > that most of the people who like it have nothing much to say about the > subject. That is just wishful thinking... Dp you have stats to prove that statement? John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] What HAVE I done??
On Mon, 28 May 2012 15:55:46 -0400 Allan Topp wrote: > I have been blissfully GIMPing away ... and all of a sudden when I try > to delete/erase/make transparent a selection it instead fills the > selection with the foreground colour. > > Anyone have idea what I've done and how to fix it? > > TIA Ctrl-Z comes to mind... I suspect you are in an image mode without transparency (alpha) layer. Add it and cutouts should be transparent. John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
On Sun, 06 May 2012 23:24:04 -0400 Steve Kinney wrote: > On 05/06/2012 10:51 PM, John Coppens wrote: > > > -When starting to edit, why not immediately do a Save as xxx.xcf? > > That's what I do and it has come in very handy. > > > -Why not add (to Gimp) the possibility to maintain an autosave copy > > in (.XCF format) each N minutes? And not delete it for X days? > > I would not use that. For instance, just a couple of minutes ago I > opened an XCF file, merged several layers for convenient export of > some image elements to another XCF file, and closed the file without > saving. If an autosave hit in the middle of that, it would "commit" > this strictly temporary state to my source file, wiping out layers I > need to keep if I closed the file - or somebody tripped over the > power cord - before reverting the changes. As 'GSR' also commented there are quite a few ways to avoid this problem. The autosave could save a copy with the same name in a temp directory, or add hashes (#yourfile.xcf#) or any other idea. > > -Why not make the Undo buffer for the last N edited images > > persistent for X days? Disk space is generally not an issue. > > That's an interesting idea. Over the years I have heard a lot > people "wishing" out loud that they could undo changes in a saved > image after closing out. Still though, there have been times when I > had to repeatedly flush the undo buffer when using an older/slower > machine to work on "big" files - a day's work could add up to > gigabytes of saved buffer in some instances... No doubt. Not unlike the cache of a browser... It's scary how much info gets saved in a machine, mostly never to be used again. But still, gigabytes are getting cheaper by the minute. Where's the time I my first harddisk was 20-odd MB ;-) John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
On Sat, 5 May 2012 12:32:22 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > > I'm not sure what this question means. > > The question should be understood literally :) Is GIMP the only tool > to get your job done? > I wrote a couple of macros in Guile which help me, so Gimp is my preferred tool, yes. Say 95% of bitmap editing is done in Gimp. For vector work, I use Inkscape (which, BTW, has a very convoluted file file flow). > >> We don't know if you need this unsafe workflow all the time or half the > >> time. > > > > I'm not sure what's unsafe. > > Losing multiple layers, masks, extra channels etc. is unsafe. Options for people who loose Y hours of work by slips of fingers: -When starting to edit, why not immediately do a Save as xxx.xcf? -Why not add (to Gimp) the possibility to maintain an autosave copy in (.XCF format) each N minutes? And not delete it for X days? -Why not make the Undo buffer for the last N edited images persistent for X days? Disk space is generally not an issue. John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:52:32 +0400 Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > We don't know exactly what you do ing GIMP during those unsafe workflows. About 90% of the time I load PNGs or jpegs (100s of them), edit them, and save them back in the same format - I don't have any necessity for XCF in these cases. > We don't know if the sequence of actions you do can only be performed in GIMP. I'm not sure what this question means. Would you prefer I use another program instead of Gimp? I only use Linux (have been for 15-odd years), and Gimp is the only mature (bitmap) graphics editor I know. > We don't know if your choice of GIMP as a tool is justified by logic, > habit or accident. Choice (see previous point). > We don't know if you need this unsafe workflow all the time or half the time. I'm not sure what's unsafe. I like the actual (2.6) flow for most of my work (see first point). Note that I haven't installed the new Gimp yet. From what I can understand in the discussion is that Open still opens all formats, but Save doesn't save anything but XCF. That's just not logical, practical or even aesthetic. It certainly is not intuitive. The operation should be symmetrical: If I open a PNG, save should save a PNG (unless I applied changes which would disappear if saved as a PNG, in which case I'd like a warning). Which is, in fact, the behaviour we have now in 2.6, isn't it? John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] How can I create huge billboard sized files in super high dpi?
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:29:31 -0300 "Joao S. O. Bueno" wrote: > Where did you get the "12" multiplying in there? 1 yard = 3 foot 1 foot = 12 inches I'm a metric man, but I seem to remember this... John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] How can I create huge billboard sized files in super high dpi?
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:44:39 -0400 "Tara Gover" wrote: > Just today, I installed the latest GIMP, and it doesn't seem to be letting > me create even a 58x72 inch image in 1440 dpi. Is there an add on or a way > that I can create huge tiff files in GIMP?.or do I have to shell out the > cash and get Creative Suite? 58 x (88 x 3 x 12) = 183744 square inches, at 1440 dpi would mean something like 183000 * 1440 * 1440 * 3 = 1143034675200 bytes. That's 1143 GB - entirely unpractical. I don't think even super hi res for posters really means 1440 dpi (unless the image is scaled). Anyway - I suspect you will want to look at vector images instead of bitmaps. (or panelling) John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:55:21 -0800 "Ronald F. Guilmette" wrote: > The bad news? Of course, it is only available for Windoze and Mac. :-( > Oh well. Better than nothing if I can't get Gimp+DCRaw+UFRaw to work for > any reason. Did you check digikam? http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y7.htm "Exceptionally, this product is also listed below as a raw converter, (but only counts once towards the total of products that support DNG). It is the first DNG Converter that runs native on Linux. (It also runs on Windows and MacOS-X). " John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
