Re: [Gimp-user] Re: So it's a layer border - not a crop frame
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:01:20PM -0600, Justin Gombos wrote: > * Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-08 07:23]: > > > > Unfortunately I discovered the float layer option _before_ I > discovered the move tool, so I was trying to float everything that I > needed to move. Combined with not knowing about the layer boundary, it > was a disaster. > yeah, sorry it is there at all. > Now that I've come upon the move command, I actually prefer to have > conservative layer borders and use the move tool. I have abandoned > the float tool, but that's not to say that I won't find a use for it > sometime. > unless you have disc space issues, saving an xcf with all of your layers in tact is a good thing, especially when going back to edit and such. > > i suggest that you want to use Photoshop; a not as complex graphics > > app that has been built for people who cannot understand (or hope to > > learn to understand) different sizes of layers. > > Yes, photoshop from what I understand is much better for users first > encountering this type of tool, because it requires very little > understanding. They can accomplish layer manipulation w/out needing > to study some of the esoteric details. > > Gimp obviously requires people to grasp this foreign concept. This > does not mean they "cannot understand," as you put it, but that they > will not gain an adequate understanding of this from the gui > interface. Until the GUI accommodates, this understanding is acquired > via explanation. > the gimp is more like real life i think. the layers would be like a collage going together. if you start with gimp, it is just as difficult to go to photoshop to do things as it is for you right now to go the other way. at least it is/was for me. > > nothing that a little experience would fix. the gimp is not > > photoshop so it is a mistake to approach using it as if it is. > > As far as I'm concerned, Gimp is Photoshop, simply because I'm not > doing anything complex enough to go beyond the basic functionality > that's offered in both packages. Furthermore, I would hope to see > Gimp get to a point where it can replace Photoshop. As it is now, it > seems Photoshop is a superset of Gimp. > well we get told both all the time. just like photoshop, not as good as photoshop. photoshop does this and that better. crap. gimp isnt photoshop. i know gimp runs on much smaller and older computers than photoshop and they both render graphic images. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: So it's a layer border - not a crop frame
* Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-08 07:23]: > > > and what does this get you? you only need to do this if you need > the extra space on the layer. Unfortunately I discovered the float layer option _before_ I discovered the move tool, so I was trying to float everything that I needed to move. Combined with not knowing about the layer boundary, it was a disaster. Now that I've come upon the move command, I actually prefer to have conservative layer borders and use the move tool. I have abandoned the float tool, but that's not to say that I won't find a use for it sometime. > i suggest that you want to use Photoshop; a not as complex graphics > app that has been built for people who cannot understand (or hope to > learn to understand) different sizes of layers. Yes, photoshop from what I understand is much better for users first encountering this type of tool, because it requires very little understanding. They can accomplish layer manipulation w/out needing to study some of the esoteric details. Gimp obviously requires people to grasp this foreign concept. This does not mean they "cannot understand," as you put it, but that they will not gain an adequate understanding of this from the gui interface. Until the GUI accommodates, this understanding is acquired via explanation. > nothing that a little experience would fix. the gimp is not > photoshop so it is a mistake to approach using it as if it is. As far as I'm concerned, Gimp is Photoshop, simply because I'm not doing anything complex enough to go beyond the basic functionality that's offered in both packages. Furthermore, I would hope to see Gimp get to a point where it can replace Photoshop. As it is now, it seems Photoshop is a superset of Gimp. > one thing that i do not understand is the need for floating layers. > i dont think that this term is being used properly here. is there > any reason that there needs to be the extra step to make pasting > directly to an existing layer easier? it is so rare that i paste > anything to an existing layer. it makes more sense to me to make > the extra step for those rare occasions that you do paste right to > an existing layer. I can see how floating a layer could be useful in some rare instances, but now that I've switched to moving layers as opposed to objects on layers, I could also live without the floating capability. If a majority of users agree that the floating capability is not very useful, maybe a good approach would be to remove it from the standard builds, and require users to proactively compile that option in if they want it. ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
