Re: [Gimp-user] large tile sizes and large images on Freebsd

2007-08-09 Thread gimp_user
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.

Re: [Gimp-user] photography

2007-09-13 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

2007-09-26 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

2007-09-26 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI

2007-09-28 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI

2007-09-28 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI

2007-09-28 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI

2007-09-28 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI

2007-09-29 Thread 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

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI

2007-09-29 Thread 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

Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

2007-10-02 Thread 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

Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

2007-10-02 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

2007-10-02 Thread gimp_user
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.

[Gimp-user] non-destructive editing

2007-10-02 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing

2007-10-02 Thread gimp_user
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:07:56 gimp_user wrote: 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

Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

2007-10-03 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

2007-10-03 Thread gimp_user
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,

[Gimp-user] Creativity Ceilings

2007-10-04 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing

2007-10-04 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing

2007-10-04 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing

2007-10-04 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing

2007-10-04 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] photo resolution

2007-10-04 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] photo resolution

2007-10-05 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] carol's art work over on YouTube, Picasa web albums Cafe Press

2007-10-07 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] photo resolution

2007-10-07 Thread gimp_user
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

Re: [Gimp-user] sharpen vs. levels, curves, saturation

2007-10-10 Thread gimp_user
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