Re: [Gimp-user] bucket fill
Madeleine Fisher animatrix1...@gmail.com wrote: You could make your path a selection and then fill that selection. There's a button at the bottom of the Paths tab that looks like a dotted-line square--that's Path to Selection. Click that, then fill. Should be fine. IMHO, this is a partial solution. It works, but is sub optimal if the is ANY chance that you might want to edit this in the future. The full correct solution would be to make a selection and save to a channel. Cancel the selection(this part is important!!) Create a new layer ABOVE the one with the path. Right click on the new layer and add a layer mask, with your channel as the source. Ensure you have the layer(and not the mask!) selected in the layers window and just drag your color of course to the top layer. The new color will be constrained to the the layer mask created. The benefit to this approach is that you don't destroy the original layer in any way since you did not modify it!!! Just make sure to Save the result xcf file so that if you need to change the color or whatever at a later time, you can easily open the xcf and just drag a new color to that top layer. If you want to add an effect such as having the filled section have a slight blur to it for a gradual fade out, click on the layer mask for the top layer, and apply your blur. Since I almost always use layer masks in my compositions, I can't honestly remember the last time I used the bucket fill tool(though I'm sure it has some uses). ___ 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] export vs save
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:43:12PM +0100, Simon Budig wrote: What would you say to We did it this way for reasons x, y, and z, but we recognize that what you're asking isn't like the broken spacebar comic. You have options a and b now, and we're thinking about some even better approaches in the future, but we won't revert to the old behaviour. Because this is what we said in the past. Over and over again. I would say: okay, cool. But that's not what I've been seeing. It's largely along the lines of you just don't understand that your way causes data loss. Well.. that is a part of it, but it really stops short of the entire point, which is not you just don't understand that your way causes data loss, but more like there are many things in GIMP currently that cause data loss. We are working over the next few releases to change this model such that data loss will never be part of the expected workflow. The change to the save vs. export file handling is just one step in many toward this goal. We won't totally stop you from losing data if you really want to, but we will keep anyone from doing it accidental. Also, please remember that big part of the tone of many around here is that it keeps coming up and in some cases, the same people continually repeat their arguments and some who are just plain rude about it(calling someone working for free on a program you use stupid is generally not a way to endear them to your opinion..not saying *you* have but a few people have said such things and even far worse) I don't know if you have kids or not, but it's kind of like being on a road trip and the kid saying are we there yet dad? The first few times(hopefully), you are nice, but after the kid asks for the 50th time, you feel like breaking something. And Overwrite is pretty close, but it doesn't mark images as clean, so I get confused about what I've saved already. But see, that's because it's not supposed to. Again, you have to remember that as of 2.8, any image pulled into Gimp is NO LONGER a .jpeg or .png or whatever, it's a Gimp image(xcf). You can verify this by looking at the filename in the titlebar which has the (imported) modifier beside it. This shows up for non GIMP file formats and is your cue that you are working on a non native file format(also notice that it goes away once you save to a Gimp file format, as well as the overwrite flag.) This is the whole point in that going forward, it is expected that you work in a non destructive methodology. Another thing to remember is that you are using a plugin to try to get around a behavior that was built in and it's never going to be able to override all of the default functionality(yet another reason I suggest people just bite the bullet and change their thought processes). Anyway... Joe ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open
Now, the objective of Gimp seems to stay in the fields of amateur and therefore to delegate the role of single photo$hop image editor for professionals. BS! I would posit that amateurs invoke DESTRUCTIVE editing techniques(because they don't know any better) while professionals do the strive for the NON-DESTRUCTIVE techniques(or should). One of the main feature goals of Gimp is to get to a point, over the next several release versions, of non destructive editing. This save/export feature change is but one step in a series of releases to enforce this philosophy(as much as possible.) You STILL have the option of destroying the original image file, but now you are forced to provide your consent by performing an explicit export as opposed to the previous open, edit, save in prior versions. You may be a professional, but even professional's are human and make mistakes. While I am not a professional, I have made plenty of mistakes which destroyed the original image(though most of the time in a recoverable way..but not always), this new workflow totally prevents this as an accident and this is a good thing. As a potential client, knowing what I know right now, I would NEVER, EVER, EVER work with any professional who overwrites the original image file with his edits... no matter how good he/she thi nk they are they are human and it's a hell of a lot easier to NOT destroy the original than it is to fix it after its been damaged. Since I and a few others have noted this previously, could you please signal that you understand the reasoning? I don't expect you to necessarily accept it to be accurately reflect your opinions on the matter or that you agree, only that you *understand*. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Suggestions for the GIMP
maderios mader...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/11/2013 05:03 PM, jfrazie...@nc.rr.com wrote: - Libreoffice : the same This is a selective functionality comparison on your part based upon a specific file format(s) or lack of knowledge of the actual product you are comparing. For example, Libreoffice has PDF as an EXPORT option, NOT an option under the save/Save as menu item. My LibreOffice Draw 3.5.4.2 Debian Wheezy I have a save option and save as options for the formats otg odg sxd std fodg and I can export as pdf, gif,jpeg and many other image file formats http://www.libreoffice.org/features/draw/ https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Publications#LibreOffice_Draw_Guide Though I was actually thinking of Write, the concepts are exactly the same. How is the above functionality any different from GIMP? You open a file of some type in GIMP and GIMP creates it as a new .xcf file. It expects that you to save in that format to maintain GIMP features. Likewise, when you open ad file in Draw(such as .jpg), Draw creates new .odg file and expects you to save in that format to maintain Draw features. When you save it back out, it expects you to go to the Export menu instead of the Save menu. Again, how is that different from what GIMP is now enforcing, with the exception of Draw supporting a few additional save formats? ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Suggestions for the GIMP
Example with gimp file = open = nut.png adjust contrast = ok I want to save it I can't... XCF ? But I don't want xcf now. Ok , I export # many many many files = export ok # many files later = export Arghhh..: what happens I believe the above illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what GIMP is and where it is going(at least my understanding). The underlying Mantra is keep the original unaltered(or some such) and GIMP is slowly working toward that approach. To accomplish the above workflow of altering the contrast of an image, a future version of GIMP(2.10, 3.0, ???) would not have you modify the original layer, but instead would have you add a Layer Style(or some such thingy of whatever name) that would modify the VISUAL representation of the layer, but would not actually edit the layer's pixels directly. You could add/remove layer styles at whim and could always get back to the original image both during the same editing session as well as in future sessions days/weeks/months/years removed. This rollback is not possible by direct editing of the original file. Yes, this is a really really simple example, but the same applies for an image that would need many modifications, again , the goal should be non destructive editing. For example, I have used GIMP in the past to edit and create Tabletop Role Playing game maps. I may for example source an image of a rock which wish to place into my final image, but wish to add additional shadows and highlights to give the image depth to make it appear more three dimensional. Typically, I will place the rock(or multiples) onto a single layer. However, I NEVER, EVER, EVER modify that layer. My approach is to create a new layer filled with 50% grey set to overlay. I then use the dodge/burn tool upon this layer with various settings. Sometimes I copy this layer with reduced opacity. Again, the point being that the original layer is NOT destructively edited!!! Likewise, I NEVER, EVER make a selection and fill with some texture, especially on an existing layer with other image data on it. Instead, I put the texture upon it's own layer and then use a selection-Channel-Layer Mask. I spend a few additional minutes of work, but now I can far easily change to a different texture in the future if required. Again, it's a matter of learning and using the tool as it is intended to be used. Yes, it takes up more memory to use additional layers and layer masks, but it's well worth it in the flexibility it gives me if I ever need to go back and edit it. Here is the point: you have to remember/watch what kind of file you're working on. Nope, you are ALWAYS working on a GIMP .xcf file. The original format is irrelevant. You need to train your brain that this is fact. As noted by Alexandre multiple times, it may well be that you are refusing to accept that you are using the wrong tool. If you never need features that GIMP provides with the .xcf format, then this is almost certainly true. I am not trying to push you away from GIMP, but get you to really think about your needs and how they match up with GIMP's functionality both now and in the future. Based upon the above, if simple edits like contrast changes are what you use most of the time, then another product really is the best suggestion as GIMP will continue changing it's paradigm to support non destructive edits as new releases come out in the future(thus changing where you see items in the menus, how many steps you take to do the same thing may increase, etc.) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Save Export Complaints
I use .xcf files but my friends, my family members and most people, I think, don't use .xcf. Yes, I think you have just about FINALLY hit the point. I am NOT a developer for GIMP, but I am enthusiastically in support of this new change so that I CANNOT loose my multi-layer composition without explicit consent as could (and did a few times) in previous versions of GIMP.I am speaking for myself here, but I would say GIMP wants people to use GIMP's native file format. There are a large number of reasons for this, but saving multi-layer compositions is a key one. I suspect another reason is to attempt to force recognition by print shops. Ask how many print shops support psd files but not xcf? I would bet that number would be 20:1 and one way to change that would be to try to push the xcf usage among professional artists who use such print shops far more than the average joe blow on the street. They need an image editor, not an xcf editor. And these same joe blow users are NOT the intended audience of GIMP as has been stated likeoh... 500 times or so... People will leave the world of free software to turn to proprietary. Yep, and that's their right... why are you pushing so hard to keep them with a software that is not targeting them as it's core demographic? Especially when it's not a commercial project where anyone makes money from? Gimp is no longer the universal Swiss army knife of image editing, it's a fact. Umm... what are you smoking? The change in question did not REMOVE any functionality for editing images. It did not REMOVE any functionality as to what format files could be saved/exported to. It only moved functionality to create a CLEAR distinction between Saving to it's native format, and Exporting to every other format. More importantly as mentioned several hundred times, it reduced the code complexity AND(as much as possible barring power loss or computer crashes) now prevents one from accidentally loosing a multi-layer composition(which is the most important feature) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp-2.8_Save and save as bad behavior
So please, don't count my silence so far as indifference... Likewise... my silence is not indifference... I LOVE the new behavior. For what I do most, which is creating/editing images with multiple layer/mask support, the change is EXTREMELY welcome. First you have gotten rid of the annoying popup windows telling me I am loosing data when saving to jpeg/png. However, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the change now prevents an change being made with layer, mask, or other non JPEG functionality support, saving to jpeg, and the accidentally closing the image without first saving to xcf to ensure those changes are preserved. While it did not happen often in 2.6, it did happen enough to really appreciate the new behavior. Also, for me... EVEN if I hated the new behavior, for me the new features such as resource tagging, brush dynamics(I use a pen/tablet), Layer Groups(though really wish the masking would work on groups.. but will have to wait for 2.10 for that), and other new features are well worth the small change in routine. Of course, this does not even count all of the upcoming changes which will make life so much easier in 2.10, 3.0, and beyond such as layer adjustment masks, etc. For these features alone, I would gladly change my long standing habits. I also want to express my deep appreciation and respect for you guys who spend countless hours of your free time with little to nothing in return. As a few others have noted, I also am getting really tired of hearing all of the people acting like children who are not getting their way. I mean seriously, why keep arguing? The decision has been made, it was made on purpose, it was provided YEARS in advance for those who actually gave a DAMN about their input being heard so that they could provide their input(and in some cases ,their input allowed for some slight tweaks to be made while still following the direction the product wanted to head). Bottom line, if you don't like the new behavior please note your complaint ONCE and then move on... decide if you will relearn behaviors to accommodate the new GIMP UI, roll back to a previous version of GIMP(and thus never get new features again), fork the code, or find a new piece of software. This constant back and forth is pointless trolling... your not going to win and your just doing more to alienate the developers. Perhaps YOU may want GIMP 2.6 to be the perfect GIMP, but you risk ruining for everyone who either don't care about the new save vs export or those who like it from loosing the developers(and thus future updates) of the project. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Ubuntu version
Dave Kimble dave.kim...@gmx.com wrote: Thanks for your reply. The downloads page should at least have mentioned that, and given the magic four commands: Ummm... NO, IT SHOULD NOT. There is nothing official about this package at all(I have no problem with it working fine though). Note that the GIMP team does NOT produce binary files at all. If you go to the Downloads page(http://www.gimp.org/downloads/) you will notice that the Windows version is NOT hosted by the official GIMP site but created and hosted by a third party. Likewise when you click the Show other downloads link, you will see the very first header and text: GIMP for Unix-like systems It's very likely your Unix-like system such as a GNU/Linux distribution already comes with a GIMP package. It is a preferred method of installing GIMP, as the distribution maintainers take care of all the dependencies and bug fix updates. It is the distro's responsibility to create a package from the source code the GIMP team produces and place into their repository for their users. Debian base systems typically do so on the following major release AFTER a specific project has releasable code. Since GIMP 2.8 went gold very close to the time the last Debian release was put out, there was no time to package, test, validate, etc which is why 2.8 is not in those repositories. Debian systems do that to try to maintain a bit of stability since it gives the distro owners time to test, wait for high priority bug fixes/patches etc, before something gets into their repositories. If you want to always be on the bleeding edge(and thus have the possibility of more bugs), you should switch to a different distro such as Fedora where new software/updates are pushed out to you fairly quickly(as are bugs in said software in some cases.) For the record, I used Ubuntu until it switched to Unity(and really, I did try to use it for a year or so) after which I switch to Linux Mint using Gnome 3(better than Unity, but not by much... Mint's Gnome 3 extensions really helped quite a bit though), and am currently using Cinnamon which I quite like overall. Of course, you ALWAYS have the alternative of downloading the source code and compiling yourself. I have never compiled anything(other than a few java programs), and while it was a tedious process other than one issue(having to do with compiling the gtk+ prerequisite and my drawing tablet not being fully recognized) compiling on Linux was relatively straight forward... the hardest part was tracking down the dependencies(and in some cases, that libraries dependencies). All told, perhaps a few hours of work... but that few hours of work and experience now grant me access to know how to compile future versions of GIMP, including those which are currently in development to be able to test new features that are not as of yet in a release build. In v2.6.12 Edit Preferences Toolbox doesn't seem to offer that feature. Only 3 checkboxes for the Appearance (see attached screenshot) V2.8 has a Tools Configuration section, which is just what I wanted. Counter-intuitive was my polite term for horrible, but I suppose some people might like it. Hmm, I am not quite sure what you mean by that(though, it has been a while since I last did this process). Why do you think it's counter-intuitive? Is it because you are from a Windows based system where many applications have a right click menu-popup window to customize the toolbar(ala MS Office products) or is there something specific about that preference page that could use some changing? This might be a good topic for a separate email so as to keep things on track and make for easier referencing and searches though... ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Fwd: GIMP Customization
Firstly thank you very much for the reply. *Final result :* What I intend to do is image interpretation for intelligence and refining the particulars of the image with tools like Sharpening, Color change(Contrast), Hue saturatiuon and finally get a WYSIWYG ICC matching profile as per the printer.I would add few annotations and use few symbols here and there. I don't think that's what Michael Schumacher meant by his question, but if not he will verify. MY intpretation of what what he is asking is WHY are you wanting to remove menu items. Based upon your original email, my assumption(yes, I know it was wrong of me to assume but we can only go with the information provided) is that you plan to rebuild GIMP and sell it commercially or install it onto a number of computers such as in a school, senior center, or some other such place where you want to reduce complexity for other users. Though I could be wrong, I just can't see why anyone would care so much about extra(not needed for their personal use) menu items so much that they would want to go through the hassles of editing source code and compiling themselves. ie, what is your end goal of making the modifications in the first place? Not what you want to change, but WHY are those changes so important to you as to spend so much effort to do so? Joe ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP Customization
shyam megha shyamngui...@gmail.com wrote: Want to use GIMP for map publishing.Please help me with the links of source code download. 1. First is procedure for compiling. 2. Second is customization procedure for reducing menu structure. 3. Also tell me how can change the logo. I have to laugh at this. Your first question(not numbered.. ie links of source code) is already answered and at least to my reading clearly available on the GIMP website. Your second question(item number 1, which at least for linux is also answered) indicates to me that you are not likely not a programmer. Quite frankly, my suggestion to you is you need to *HIRE a competent programmer.. PERIOD...EXCLAMATION POINT*. While compiling is not hard(on Linux anyway), it is a quite tedious process to make sure your build environment is set up correctly and then you likely have to compile a number of dependencies prior to actually getting to compile GIMP. machines. If you happen to be using Windows, quite honestly, you will spend FAR more time and aggravation just getting your machine set up to do a compile than you would to do the compile itself. Next,the biggest issue is not so much compiling, but compiling it is such a way as to make it re-distributable to other machines. As for items 2 and 3, well... the information is documented in the source code. Once you obtain a programmer to do the work, he can likely figure out the answer to these two items within an hour or so of time, but if not, he can always either a) subscribe to the developers list or b) check out the IRC channel to answer the question. What your asking for is like asking a doctor to tell gas station clerk over an email how to do Brain Surgery. While anyone can quickly learn the beginning steps(ie, save the area of the head, cut skin flap and folder back, carefully cut a section of skull, remove skull section, cut out tumor, stop bleeding, replace skull section, sew/stable skin back), the hard part is making sure that your finished product works(ie, the guys brain actually functions and he is not a vegetable, lost motor function in parts of his body, lost cognitive functioning). ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] LOVE thread - resource tagging + sub folders = auto tag!!!!
This is a feature I learned about on IRC from Alexia Death. I have to thank her a TON for actually spending the time to really dig into what I was saying to show me the the new tagging feature actually did almost exactly what I was complaining about(I had said tagging was OK but I prefer the way the GURM plug-in allowed for natural folder based organization.) In any event, if you point GIMP to a folder: My Brushes And that folder has sub folders named: Grunge Artistic Splatter GIMP will AUTOMATICALLY create tags for those sub folders for very quick organization of your resources. THIS is a super feature for me, and I LOVE it Joe Frazier, Jr. ___ 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
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). And that's the point, GETTING rid of the damn warnings! For me, every single time I edit/create a jpeg/png file, this just goes to slow things WAY down. One dialog for export/ignore/cancel + if this is the first save, an additional one to set the quality. The change fixes that by forcing me to be be explicit(ie, I want to export). Also, one slip of the finger in 2.6(Ignore instead of export) on that damned dialog box and low an behold all of my layer work is GONE, PERMANENTLY, FOREVER Now my nice workflow where I do lots of non destructive editing is for naught because I hit the wrong damn button. The goal here is to be damn sure that this type of silliness does not happen anymore by making you be explicit in your workflow. I know dozens of people who have lost tens or even hundreds of layers in a second by a mis-key and this change will totally prevent them from loosing work at the cost of some people having to adapt to change and spend and extra 2-4 seconds per image. Do you really think your few extra seconds are more important than possibly hours worth of work by people who use the features of GIMP that take it far beyond a simple photo editor? BTW, I am high functioning autism, so I do not adapt to change well myself, but IMHO, this is a good change mainly because I have been burned by this exact problem before. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Tweaking performance
Ok.. so I am working on a large image and want to see if I can increase performance speed any. I knew things would be slow, but was hoping I could get a bit better than what I currently have. The image will be a map(as in fantasy world map) I want to print(will scale down for web version to .jpeg), 36x24 inches @300 DPI, so 10800x7200 resolution(ie, poster print size). I have a fresh install of Linux Mint 11 on a laptop which is about two years old. I don't remember the full PC specs off the top of my head though but is was a mid-high end range gaming Laptop(so probably in the top 70%-80% of best available laptop hardware specs at the time of purchase). What I do know off the top of my head: Machine: multiple partitions 20GB Linux swap Mint installed to single partition 190GB out of the entire HD's 500GB(both /home(location of the xcf file) and /tmp are on the same partition. 6GB RAM (8GB max) multiple USB 2 ports 1 eSATA port Wacom bamboo tablet video card is (I BELIEVE) a GTX 200M Gimp: built from source (git) as of umm... Friday night(or so) Currently, I have my tile-cache size set to 5GB I typically have 3-6 chrome browser windows open and perhaps 1-2 open directory folders, but other than that, there are few applications running other than those(occasionally Thunderbird). Currently, the file opens up around 4.5 GB in memory, with spikes up to 10GB so far that I have seen. I have about 15 layers so far, with about half of those using a layer mask. Most of the layers are transparent at this point, with a few being full color with layer masks to define geological features(grassy plains, desert, etc). I have yet to add the additional layers needed to represent mountains and forests(at least 4 layers each, line-work, color, highlights, and lowlights, so min 8 layers for that) as well as several layers for some type of desert texture, labels(4-5 layers), and likely a compass rose and a Cartouche of some type(likely 4-6 layers for shape/color as well as 2-4 text sections). So all together, this will likely encompass around 35-40 layers when completed(if I can get that far!!!). So, are there any suggestions you guys might make? As slow as it is currently, I don't know if I will even be able to get anywhere near to the number of layers I expect to need. Should I just give up on such a large image and reduce the scale or is there any additional tweaks I can make? Will adding a eSATA or USB2 drive to hold the the /tmp help at all? I this was a desktop, I could easily just slap another Harddrive(or two) in and have different read/writes working in parallel(ie, /tmp and swap on a separate physical drive), but I don't have that luxury with a Laptop... Would adding an additional 2GB make a noticeable(as in very noticeable) difference? I appreciate any suggestions you guys might have. Please let me know if there is any additional information(ie, L2 Cache, Processor, etc) and I can get that info later tonight though of course those are things I cannot change... Joe ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
