On 2009-08-28, Greg Chapman wrote:
>> I find it annoying that there
>> appears to be no selection tool that turns off all tools.
> I am confused by this feature request.
> The GIMP is an image editing package not an image display package.
Wrong. GIMP is a package for whatever the *USER* deci
On 2009-09-04, Chris Mohler wrote:
I find it annoying that there
appears to be no selection tool that turns off all tools.
>>> I am confused by this feature request.
>>> The GIMP is an image editing package not an image display package.
>> Wrong. GIMP is a package for whatever the *US
On 2009-09-06, David Gowers <00a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, when the program explicitly states its purpose
> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign#product_vision
>
> You will need to explain how your request is relevant to that vision
> in order to have any likelihood of having your
On 2009-09-04, GSR - FR wrote:
>> The first thing I do when entering GIMP is switching to the eyepicker
>> (or is is dropper? ;-) tool. But it is not non-destructive enough;
>> and it is useless as a default tool.
> Zoom tool only modifies the view... is that non destructive enough?
Not enough.
On 2009-09-05, Olivier Lecarme wrote:
> It seems that the whole preceding thread is focused on the wrong point.
> The initial writers want a "non-tool" because they want to click on the
> image window without doing anything. But why do they want to click it?
> Certainly only for giving it the focu
On 2009-09-06, photocomix wrote:
>
>> Zoom tool only modifies the view... is that non destructive enough?
>>Not enough. (Did you mean that you do not care about what
>>magnification an image is shown at?)
> The point was not if you (or somebody else) care about "magnification an
> image is show
I want to stroke the path with the current tool, with all the
parameters as selected in the tool options. I do not think I can do
it with the PATHs right-mouse-click menu, can I?
(What I see are only choices of "Paint" tools. What I want is "Select
tools", like color select and/or magic wand.)
On 2009-09-13, Sven Neumann wrote:
>> I want to stroke the path with the current tool, with all the
>> parameters as selected in the tool options. I do not think I can do
>> it with the PATHs right-mouse-click menu, can I?
>> (What I see are only choices of "Paint" tools. What I want is "Select
I'm investigating ways to make at least "semi-artistic looking" photo
frames. All GIMP examples I could find have a "designed by an
engineer" look. But if I allow PhotoShop, one can find some quite
striking examples; e.g., see
http://www.roge.ru/?page_id=151 "Ragged edges, fuzzy, photo frames"
On 2009-09-14, Jolie S wrote:
> What kind of outcome are you expecting to get when stroking a path with a
> selection tool?
??? Obviously, the same as when I click repeatedly along the path...
Imagine "select color" with "add to selection" and small threshold...
> I can't think of why you want
On 2009-09-15, jolie S wrote:
>>??? Obviously, the same as when I click repeatedly along the path...
>>Imagine "select color" with "add to selection" and small threshold...
>>E.g., select colors close to any one in the path.
> You say you want to select a color close to any one in the path, bu
On 2009-09-28, Marcus wrote:
> Geoff,
>
> great work, I am particularly impressed by the theory behind your plugin.
http://www.lionhouse.plus.com/photosoftware/gimp_plugins/
gives err404. Any idea where one can currently get it?
Thanks,
Ilya
___
G
[Repost after a list resurrection]
On 2009-09-15, saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com
wrote:
> a Script-fu which does this for Fuzzy selections; the command is added
> to the context menu raised by right-clicking on a path in the Paths
> Dialog. The script can be retrieved f
[Repost after a list resurrection]
On 2009-09-19, Jason van Gumster wrote:
>> Suggestion: Would it be possible as you "walk" the path, to compare each
>> pixel to prior and if they are the "same" to within the threshold
>> tolerance skip that pixel and proceed to next? My theory being that
On 2009-09-30, saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com
wrote:
A lot of thanks for helping me understand this problem.
>> And I can't guess reasons why you first do gimp-selection-none(), then
>> combine the orig-sel back?
> I assumed that you wanted to add together all of the fuzzy selections
On 2009-09-30, John Mills wrote:
> If you aren't making any adjustments in UFRaw you may be just as well-off
> to work with [say] JPEG images out of your camera. The intermediate stage
> of adjusting your image in UFRaw is one of the main reasons for using RAW
> format in the first place.
This
On 2009-09-30, Carusoswi wrote:
> In the spirit of the OP's question, if you make no adjustments in UFRAW, is
> there any more latitude for adjustment in the resultant JPG file (in Gimp or
> other editing application) than what you might get straight from the camera?
This is not a very have-a-cle
On 2009-10-01, John Mills wrote:
>> With cameras which use more advanced versions of the Apical Iridex
>> hardware or firmware (starting with Sony, but Nikon is reported to be
>> in process of catching up), the situation is not as clear. I did not
>> see any report of RAW processor which can matc
On 2009-10-01, Bryan wrote:
> Well, after opening the RAW file in UFRaw and whether
> I perforn any adjustments or not in UFRaw, if I hit OK to send it to
> Gimp isn't it still a RAW file when it's in GIMP or has UFRaw
> converted it to a jpg automatically and that is why the image looks
> crappy
On 2009-10-01, saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com
wrote:
>> Let me try to rephrase it... Consider two scenarios (with a particular
>> OP of CHANNEL-OP-*), left one and right one:
>>
>> save-selection + delete-selection
>> do few FuzzySelects with OP do few FuzzySelects
On 2009-10-02, Norman Silverstone wrote:
> I have been following this thread with interest so I decided to do some
> tests. The results may be relevant or not as the case may be but I think
> that they are interesting. My little camera gives a RAW image = 8.6 MB
> and a jpeg image = 2.6 MB. The de
On 2009-10-03, Norman Silverstone wrote:
>> What do you think are benefits of using jpegs with quality above 95%?
> I have absolutely no idea, it is just that I came across a reference
> somewhere which said "I use 98% jpeg compression when archiving images.
>> Better use compressed 8-bit sRGB T
[Looks like every time I post, I kill the list. My apologies; reposting]
On 2009-10-01, saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com
wrote:
>> Let me try to rephrase it... Consider two scenarios (with a particular
>> OP of CHANNEL-OP-*), left one and right one:
>>
>> save-selection + delete-s
On 2009-10-05, Marcus wrote:
>> http://www.lionhouse.plus.com/photosoftware/gimp_plugins/
>>
>>gives err404. Any idea where one can currently get it?
> Strange. I tried your link, and it works for me. Can you get to Geoff's web
> page with the following link?
>
> http://www.lionhouse.plus.com/
On 2009-10-18, Adam Majewski wrote:
> I would like to know how to make selection for whole layer
> and only area of layer.
> (should it be named "layer to selection"?)
Google for layer-select.scm and put it into your ~/.gimp/scripts (sp?)
directory.
Hope this helps,
Ilya
25 matches
Mail list logo
