[Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu Linux
I'm running Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu 8.10 (64-bit) and I've noticed when I load an image, the image window stays behind the toolbox and the layers window all the time. I didn't see a preference where I could control always on top behavior. This makes it challenging for me to work with images. Is there anything I can do about this? Thanks! Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu Linux
Go to Edit Preferences, select Window Management, change the Hints for the Toolbox and Docks to Normal Window. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Tom Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm running Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu 8.10 (64-bit) and I've noticed when I load an image, the image window stays behind the toolbox and the layers window all the time. I didn't see a preference where I could control always on top behavior. This makes it challenging for me to work with images. Is there anything I can do about this? Thanks! Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user -- Nathan Lane Home, http://www.nathandelane.com Blog, http://nathandelane.blogspot.com ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu Linux
Nathan Lane wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Tom Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm running Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu 8.10 (64-bit) and I've noticed when I load an image, the image window stays behind the toolbox and the layers window all the time. I didn't see a preference where I could control always on top behavior. This makes it challenging for me to work with images. Is there anything I can do about this? Go to Edit Preferences, select Window Management, change the Hints for the Toolbox and Docks to Normal Window. Or use the Tab key to toggle visibility of the Toolbox and Docks on and off. - Martin ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu Linux
Nathan Lane wrote: Go to Edit Preferences, select Window Management, change the Hints for the Toolbox and Docks to Normal Window. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Tom Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm running Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu 8.10 (64-bit) and I've noticed when I load an image, the image window stays behind the toolbox and the layers window all the time. I didn't see a preference where I could control always on top behavior. This makes it challenging for me to work with images. Is there anything I can do about this? Thanks! Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU mailto:Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user Thanks for the info! That did the trick! :) Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu Linux
Martin Nordholts wrote: Nathan Lane wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Tom Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm running Gimp 2.6.1 on Ubuntu 8.10 (64-bit) and I've noticed when I load an image, the image window stays behind the toolbox and the layers window all the time. I didn't see a preference where I could control always on top behavior. This makes it challenging for me to work with images. Is there anything I can do about this? Go to Edit Preferences, select Window Management, change the Hints for the Toolbox and Docks to Normal Window. Or use the Tab key to toggle visibility of the Toolbox and Docks on and off. - Martin Thanks for this tip as well. I prefer having the Toolbox and Docks windows displayed all the time, just not on top of the image window all the time. I tried the Tab key toggle and it worked just fine. Neat. :) Thanks! Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about GIMP CMYK support.
On Tuesday 14 August 2007, John R. Culleton wrote: On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Chris Mohler wrote: On 8/7/07, Bhavin Suthar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone tell me the truth behind this? Does this also mean that if you write text on image (like your jpeg Canon photos) then they can't be printed properly? Point #1 is almost accurate. The true part: GIMP does not natively support CMYK yet. It will in time, and there is a plug-in if you truly need CMYK separations. The false part: you can't use GIMP to prepare for printing. You certainly can, but be aware of the RGB-CMYK translation process - eg, there is no way to print the color #FF in CMYK. Point #2 is pretty much FUD. I occasionally convert something to CMYK in PS just to check the shift, but if you are a graphics professional [sic] you should already be aware of the RGB colors that exist outside of CMYK color space and avoid them. A cheap inkjet printer will show you the result of converting your RGB to CMYK if you really need to know - and this type of proof (a hard proof) is more accurate anyway, owing to the fact that all monitors operate on the principal of additive light (hence RGB), and most printers operate on subtractive light (thus CMYK). A soft proof can easily[1] be obtained by using imagemagick[2]. Short answer: I doubt you need CMYK. You certainly won't be prevented from printing your photos by not using it. Many desktop printers expect RGB input these days[3]. Chris I would expect that flesh tones would give the most trouble in converting from RGB to CMYK . Among free software programs Krita, TeX, Cinepaint and Scribus handle CMYK natively, and all but TeX can use ICC color profiles. Gimp and Inkscape don't yet, and that limits their acceptablity in the publishing world despite their other excellent features. Book designers want CMYK plus ICC profiles and won't consider a product that lacks that capability for color work. The free programs listed above that most closely approximate Gimp are Cinepaint (a Gimp offshoot0, and Krita. But neither has the range of other features offered by Gimp. and Krita only runs under the KDE desktop found on many Linux systems. KDE Libraries, not desktop. You do not have to run the desktop actively to use the program. Please be clear about that, or you will be spreading misinfo. Krita is great, and going to be amazing, but right now, it fails on the basics. The developer is incredible, but has worked on some very high-end functionality, but not so much on the basic stuff like workflow, GUI design, ease of use and basic tools. He's working mostly alone, so it's understandable. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about GIMP CMYK support.
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Chris Mohler wrote: On 8/7/07, Bhavin Suthar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone tell me the truth behind this? Does this also mean that if you write text on image (like your jpeg Canon photos) then they can't be printed properly? Point #1 is almost accurate. The true part: GIMP does not natively support CMYK yet. It will in time, and there is a plug-in if you truly need CMYK separations. The false part: you can't use GIMP to prepare for printing. You certainly can, but be aware of the RGB-CMYK translation process - eg, there is no way to print the color #FF in CMYK. Point #2 is pretty much FUD. I occasionally convert something to CMYK in PS just to check the shift, but if you are a graphics professional [sic] you should already be aware of the RGB colors that exist outside of CMYK color space and avoid them. A cheap inkjet printer will show you the result of converting your RGB to CMYK if you really need to know - and this type of proof (a hard proof) is more accurate anyway, owing to the fact that all monitors operate on the principal of additive light (hence RGB), and most printers operate on subtractive light (thus CMYK). A soft proof can easily[1] be obtained by using imagemagick[2]. Short answer: I doubt you need CMYK. You certainly won't be prevented from printing your photos by not using it. Many desktop printers expect RGB input these days[3]. Chris I would expect that flesh tones would give the most trouble in converting from RGB to CMYK . Among free software programs Krita, TeX, Cinepaint and Scribus handle CMYK natively, and all but TeX can use ICC color profiles. Gimp and Inkscape don't yet, and that limits their acceptablity in the publishing world despite their other excellent features. Book designers want CMYK plus ICC profiles and won't consider a product that lacks that capability for color work. The free programs listed above that most closely approximate Gimp are Cinepaint (a Gimp offshoot0, and Krita. But neither has the range of other features offered by Gimp. and Krita only runs under the KDE desktop found on many Linux systems. It is possible to conceive of a workflow that involved doing most of the creative work in Gimp but a final checkout/conversion to CMYK in e.g., Krita or Scribus. Color separations where needed for the press can be prepared by specialized prepress software and need not involve the publisher. Most printers will accept color files in pdf form so long as the color is in CMYK model. It helps if the PDF adheres to the X3 specification however. Since Scribus already has all this a Gimp to Scribus workflow makes some sense. -- John Culleton Able Indexing and Typesetting Precision typesetting (tm) at reasonable cost. Satisfaction guaranteed. http://wexfordpress.com ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about GIMP CMYK support.
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 09:19, Owen wrote: 2. Do you really need to make cmyk plates? Printing companies do, yes. Cheers; Leon -- http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication http://www.taslug.org.au/ Member, Tasmania Linux User Group http://slpwa.asn.au/Member, Linux Professionals WA http://osia.net.au/ Member, Open Source Industry Australia http://linux.org.au/PastCommittee Member, Linux Australia ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Question about GIMP CMYK support.
Hello All, I was evaluating GIMP and found below article about Adobe and GIMP http://www.labnol.org/internet/pictures/adobe-photoshop-vs-gimp-for-serious-photographers/920/ I was mainly concerned about below statements === If you use Photoshop to create artwork for print, then you can forget about replacing it with GIMP for now, as GIMP supports only RGB colour. CMYK support is due to be added, but for now it's not available. So can free software really compete with Photoshop? For the vast majority of ordinary users the short answer is certainly 'yes'. However, for graphics professionals — that is, Photoshop's target market — the answer has to be a resounding 'no'. Linkhttp://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/contentcreation/0,101068,39288136-1,00.htm . === Can someone tell me the truth behind this? Does this also mean that if you write text on image (like your jpeg Canon photos) then they can't be printed properly? Thanks Bhavin ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about GIMP CMYK support.
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:39:00 -0400 Bhavin Suthar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello All, I was evaluating GIMP and found below article about Adobe and GIMP http://www.labnol.org/internet/pictures/adobe-photoshop-vs-gimp-for-serious-photographers/920/ I was mainly concerned about below statements === If you use Photoshop to create artwork for print, then you can forget about replacing it with GIMP for now, as GIMP supports only RGB colour. CMYK support is due to be added, but for now it's not available. So can free software really compete with Photoshop? For the vast majority of ordinary users the short answer is certainly 'yes'. However, for graphics professionals — that is, Photoshop's target market — the answer has to be a resounding 'no'. Linkhttp://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/contentcreation/0,101068,39288136-1,00.htm 1. You can get a Gimpl Plug-in for cmyk, try http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml 2. Do you really need to make cmyk plates? Can someone tell me the truth behind this? Does this also mean that if you write text on image (like your jpeg Canon photos) then they can't be printed properly? 3. Well what happened when you tried? Does your canon printer print rgb images? Then that rgb image with added text is still an rgb image! Owen ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about GIMP CMYK support.
On 8/7/07, Bhavin Suthar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone tell me the truth behind this? Does this also mean that if you write text on image (like your jpeg Canon photos) then they can't be printed properly? Point #1 is almost accurate. The true part: GIMP does not natively support CMYK yet. It will in time, and there is a plug-in if you truly need CMYK separations. The false part: you can't use GIMP to prepare for printing. You certainly can, but be aware of the RGB-CMYK translation process - eg, there is no way to print the color #FF in CMYK. Point #2 is pretty much FUD. I occasionally convert something to CMYK in PS just to check the shift, but if you are a graphics professional [sic] you should already be aware of the RGB colors that exist outside of CMYK color space and avoid them. A cheap inkjet printer will show you the result of converting your RGB to CMYK if you really need to know - and this type of proof (a hard proof) is more accurate anyway, owing to the fact that all monitors operate on the principal of additive light (hence RGB), and most printers operate on subtractive light (thus CMYK). A soft proof can easily[1] be obtained by using imagemagick[2]. Short answer: I doubt you need CMYK. You certainly won't be prevented from printing your photos by not using it. Many desktop printers expect RGB input these days[3]. Chris 1. - If imagemagick is set up correctly. I've had trouble with certain versions provided certain distros. If colorspace conversion isn't working, visit imagemagick.org and get the source or a binary 2 - http://www.imagemagick.org/script/command-line-options.php#colorspace 3 - Purely my own observation. I can vouch for a $20,000+ USD printer manufactured by Brother that *requires* you to print from sRGB in order to get anywhere close to accurate output. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about GIMP CMYK support.
Thanks all for your replies. From below answers I guess I am ok with sRGB and do not required CMYK seperation. -Bhavin On 8/7/07, Chris Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/7/07, Bhavin Suthar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone tell me the truth behind this? Does this also mean that if you write text on image (like your jpeg Canon photos) then they can't be printed properly? Point #1 is almost accurate. The true part: GIMP does not natively support CMYK yet. It will in time, and there is a plug-in if you truly need CMYK separations. The false part: you can't use GIMP to prepare for printing. You certainly can, but be aware of the RGB-CMYK translation process - eg, there is no way to print the color #FF in CMYK. Point #2 is pretty much FUD. I occasionally convert something to CMYK in PS just to check the shift, but if you are a graphics professional [sic] you should already be aware of the RGB colors that exist outside of CMYK color space and avoid them. A cheap inkjet printer will show you the result of converting your RGB to CMYK if you really need to know - and this type of proof (a hard proof) is more accurate anyway, owing to the fact that all monitors operate on the principal of additive light (hence RGB), and most printers operate on subtractive light (thus CMYK). A soft proof can easily[1] be obtained by using imagemagick[2]. Short answer: I doubt you need CMYK. You certainly won't be prevented from printing your photos by not using it. Many desktop printers expect RGB input these days[3]. Chris 1. - If imagemagick is set up correctly. I've had trouble with certain versions provided certain distros. If colorspace conversion isn't working, visit imagemagick.org and get the source or a binary 2 - http://www.imagemagick.org/script/command-line-options.php#colorspace 3 - Purely my own observation. I can vouch for a $20,000+ USD printer manufactured by Brother that *requires* you to print from sRGB in order to get anywhere close to accurate output. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.4 and incorporation of the EXIF browser plugin
I see that Gimp 2.3.12 has just been released and I was wondering what are the chances of getting the EXIF browser plugin incorporated as a plugin that's part of the Gimp distribution? EXIF browser: http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=4153 Thanks! Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.4 and incorporation of the EXIF browser plugin
Hi, On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 00:05 -0700, Tom Williams wrote: I see that Gimp 2.3.12 has just been released and I was wondering what are the chances of getting the EXIF browser plugin incorporated as a plugin that's part of the Gimp distribution? The plan was to finish the metadata plug-in for 2.4. Not sure if Raphael will get around it in time. Perhaps you might want to help him to bring the plug-in to a state where it does at least provide enough functionality to obsolete the exifbrowser plug-in? Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.4 and incorporation of the EXIF browser plugin
Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 00:05 -0700, Tom Williams wrote: I see that Gimp 2.3.12 has just been released and I was wondering what are the chances of getting the EXIF browser plugin incorporated as a plugin that's part of the Gimp distribution? The plan was to finish the metadata plug-in for 2.4. Not sure if Raphael will get around it in time. Perhaps you might want to help him to bring the plug-in to a state where it does at least provide enough functionality to obsolete the exifbrowser plug-in? Ah, I wasn't aware of the metadata plug-in. The EXIF browser plug-in isn't crucial (obviously) but would have been nice. I'll see if I can help out with the metadata plug-in. :) Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.3.10 and auto level adjustment
Carol Spears wrote: On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 04:57:26PM -0700, Tom Williams wrote: Anywho, when I do an auto levels adjustment on the photo, the result looks quite a bit different and not as good as the original. I'm wondering if the result is actually correct or not. i do not know what the auto portion does for this tool. i assume it does something like determining the lightest color and it turns that to white and similar with the darkest color and black. i assume this because that is how the little eye dropper thingies work with the levels dialog. Ok. Here is the original image: http://www.bay-online-media.com/tom/gimp/bay-bridge1.jpg Here is the image after the auto level adjustment is performed: http://www.bay-online-media.com/tom/gimp/bay-bridge1b.jpg i actually enjoy playing with the levels tool and photographs, so i endulged myself: http://carol.gimp.org/files/bay-bridge1-levels.jpg Looks great! :) The original image was scaled to 1024x768 resolution at 72 dpi. The original photo was taken at 72 dpi. Is the resultant image correct? If so, why does it not look as good as the original? if you look at the different channels in the levels dialog, you can see what the Auto button did. it consistently moves the light side to where the color histogram starts for all three of the color channels. and it seems that the gray (center) triangle stays in the middle of the other two triangles. i have no idea if this works for a majority of photographs or not. i used the tool just on the Values Channel (which is not a real channel) and i like mine better than your original and also the auto adjusted image. to me, the only thing that was wrong with your photograph was that 'all over gray' haze that scanned photo prints would really get and digital photographs still seem to get somewhat. Thanks for the detailed explanation. Obviously, I didn't understand what the auto button did on the Levels dialog. I figured it would automatically adjust color levels to be correct, based on the photo being edited but clearly I was wrong. :) Now I have a better understanding of how to use that Levels dialog so I'll do more experimentation with it and other photos. Thanks! Yes, you did answer my question as did the other person who responded off-list. Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.3.10 and auto level adjustment
Hi! I took a photo using a Canon PowerShot A75 while driving at approx 65 mph. The shot came out ok and I didn't get into an accident. :) Anywho, when I do an auto levels adjustment on the photo, the result looks quite a bit different and not as good as the original. I'm wondering if the result is actually correct or not. Here is the original image: http://www.bay-online-media.com/tom/gimp/bay-bridge1.jpg Here is the image after the auto level adjustment is performed: http://www.bay-online-media.com/tom/gimp/bay-bridge1b.jpg The original image was scaled to 1024x768 resolution at 72 dpi. The original photo was taken at 72 dpi. Is the resultant image correct? If so, why does it not look as good as the original? Thanks! Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Question about Gimp 2.3.10 and auto level adjustment
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 04:57:26PM -0700, Tom Williams wrote: Hi! I took a photo using a Canon PowerShot A75 while driving at approx 65 mph. The shot came out ok and I didn't get into an accident. :) very fun when there are no injuries or damage to vehicles :) Anywho, when I do an auto levels adjustment on the photo, the result looks quite a bit different and not as good as the original. I'm wondering if the result is actually correct or not. i do not know what the auto portion does for this tool. i assume it does something like determining the lightest color and it turns that to white and similar with the darkest color and black. i assume this because that is how the little eye dropper thingies work with the levels dialog. Here is the original image: http://www.bay-online-media.com/tom/gimp/bay-bridge1.jpg Here is the image after the auto level adjustment is performed: http://www.bay-online-media.com/tom/gimp/bay-bridge1b.jpg i actually enjoy playing with the levels tool and photographs, so i endulged myself: http://carol.gimp.org/files/bay-bridge1-levels.jpg The original image was scaled to 1024x768 resolution at 72 dpi. The original photo was taken at 72 dpi. Is the resultant image correct? If so, why does it not look as good as the original? if you look at the different channels in the levels dialog, you can see what the Auto button did. it consistently moves the light side to where the color histogram starts for all three of the color channels. and it seems that the gray (center) triangle stays in the middle of the other two triangles. i have no idea if this works for a majority of photographs or not. i used the tool just on the Values Channel (which is not a real channel) and i like mine better than your original and also the auto adjusted image. to me, the only thing that was wrong with your photograph was that 'all over gray' haze that scanned photo prints would really get and digital photographs still seem to get somewhat. i honestly think that it is almost impossible to make a tool that will automatically fix the colors of every photograph and every photograph will look better. series of the same photograph (with the same subject and lighting -- as you might find in a GAP frame stack) can use the same levels settings. but that is a different situation than a one tool does all, like the Auto button attempts. also, there are some people who have the opinion that crisp bright colors are better. they might like what the auto levels did to the photograph. i usually don't like the auto button results. i am also not very good at working on the levels of the individual color channels. i think the best 'hack' in the levels dialog is that fake channel called Value. you can, without an understanding of colors or images at all, move those triangles until you get something that you like. usually, moving the left side and the right side triangles to where the color starts (in this particular image, only the right side needs to be adjusted) and then the center one just alittle bit to manage the contrast (and the direction it gets moved depends on how much you moved the other two) and the photograph looks better without looking different. if photographs were like children, the auto button on the levels dialog would be like trying to provide a snack for 30 to 100 children. depending on the snack, you might get 30 to 100 children that are very unhappy. well, i don't know if that is a good analogy for making a plug-in like this to work successfully all the time, but it is not that far off. i didn't answer your question, did i? carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] question about gimp
I have a question. When I go to paint the pic it blends all together. Do you know how you can turn off blending? TYIA. Jeri ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
