> This new tutorial teaches how to apply a photographic quality
> smoothing to a person's body.
>
> All comments welcome...
First of all the tutorial result is nice. I don't quite get the sense of
creating a layer mask and then appliyng the filter on the whole image.
Maybe the procedure is not
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:40:00PM -0400, James Smaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is it just me, or are these CubicDesign tutorials a little too
> close to porn howtos? Must the object of the image touchup be
If somebody thinks that is porn he has much larger problems than
that tutorials. The
Jon Winters wrote:
>
> James Smaby wrote:
> >
> > Is it just me, or are these CubicDesign tutorials a little too
> > close to porn howtos?
>
> If you've ever done any portrait work you appriciate any and all
> techniques that can be used to smooth out skin, reduce wrinkles, remove
> unwanted hai
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:45:13AM +0200, Carl-Johan Sveningsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 2. How widely-used should script-fu still be? I recall hearing a
> discussion that SF would (should?) die in favour of perl-fu and c-plugins?
I don't. However, I would rather see a maintainer that tries
Anyone hear me complaining about the breasts?
Scott Durrant
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, James Smaby wrote:
> Is it just me, or are these CubicDesign tutorials a little too
> close to porn howtos? Must the object of the image touchup be
> a large breasted model?
Whomever the moron is that responded about the
newest Gimp tutorial on CubicDesign.com being porn needs to move out of his Mom
and Dad's house and get a life... There, I got that out.
As far as the new tutorial is concerned, I like the
smoothing effect that the new filter has on the sample
>Microsoft != Innovation
Now that's what I call 'dangerous'.
Maarten.
> Wandered Inn:
> guy, but in all fairness, how about some buffed up men in the next set
> of tutorials? Better yet, a cute baby.
i want a plant. nice and green. or an atomic one!
clemens
You can view this stuff at home... hmm... Are you a true computer geek if
you don't do stuff at home? Are there not other Gimp tutorial sites? Just a
few questions...
- Original Message -
From: "Chetan Dhavse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gautam N. Lad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "GIMP List" <[E
At 06:06 AM 8/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>guy, but in all fairness, how about some buffed up men in the next set
>of tutorials? Better yet, a cute baby.
No, in America, that would be considered child pornography. It's
ridiculous, but the same people that screech about women in bikinis would
kill
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, David Moisan wrote:
> At 06:06 AM 8/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> >guy, but in all fairness, how about some buffed up men in the next set
> >of tutorials? Better yet, a cute baby.
>
> No, in America, that would be considered child pornography.
Gentlemen, I believe I've dis
Now you're going to have that one group spamming the list, you know, the
one People Eating Tasty Animals, or something like that.
Scott Durrant
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, David Moisan wrote:
>
> > At 06:06 AM 8/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> > >guy, but in
David Moisan wrote:
> At 06:06 AM 8/17/2000 -0400, some fella wrote:
> >guy, but in all fairness, how about some buffed up men in the next set
> >of tutorials? Better yet, a cute baby.
>
> No, in America, that would be considered child pornography. It's
> ridiculous, but the same people that sc
David Moisan wrote:
> I'd guess inanimate objects are the least offensive, but that art (for me,
> anyway) should never be about doing the "safe" thing, or self-censoring.
Agreed.
--
Until later: Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microsoft != Innovation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, David Moisan wrote:
>
> > At 06:06 AM 8/17/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> > >guy, but in all fairness, how about some buffed up men in the next set
> > >of tutorials? Better yet, a cute baby.
> >
> > No, in America, that would be considered child porn
On 17-Aug-2000 Steve Cronje wrote:
> Sorry for the rudeness, but could someone please post the unsubscribe
> URL? Thank you very much
>
> Steve
Send a blank message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
E.S.
--
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is."
Ok.. so, reguardless of the women on the list being offended by the
sole use of busty women in tiny scraps of cloth and having perfect
bodies; you're going to continue to use only those pictures? Why?
Tell me what is wrong with a chubby baby in a diaper? a not so
perfectly built woman in a one pi
> Silvermist:
> Ok.. so, reguardless of the women on the list being offended by the
> sole use of busty women in tiny scraps of cloth and having perfect
> bodies; you're going to continue to use only those pictures? Why?
> Tell me what is wrong with a chubby baby in a diaper? a not so
> perfectl
Michael Schemer II wrote:
>
>As far as the new tutorial is concerned, ...
>
>However, it seems to me that the swimsuit now
>looks faked as a result. Is there any way to fix
>that so that the swimsuit looks as good as the
>skin and does not look like an afterthought?
Remove it, ... ?
Carl-Johan Sveningsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Would it be ok if this was maybe translated into Swedish some day and
> mirrored at a gimp-page? Maybe GUG will want it too.
Sure, take it, hack it, translate it, whatever you want.
> 2. How widely-used should script-fu still be? I recall
Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Using a guile interface has IMHO the same problems as python, perl
> etc.. namely that it isn't small and self-contained (everything
> needed c omes with the gimp!).
Well, I don't know how small or large a guile interface would be, but
it would have th
Hi,
Hm...it seems that some people are against my idea, while others
seem supportive...
The idea that you'd be looking at these tutorials at your workplace
and your boss catching is total bullsh*t to me...Why would you be
at this site in the first place? Shouldn't you be doing your job (unless
it
Hi,
Well there are several ways to I could've done this...only reason I chose
the alpha mask layer, was so I could introduce this feature...
Because of the mask, only the parts visible were blurred, and these would
include the light spots (mainly the skin tones)... Also, it is so that the
backgro
> George Crary:
> >However, it seems to me that the swimsuit now
> >looks faked as a result. Is there any way to fix
> >that so that the swimsuit looks as good as the
> >skin and does not look like an afterthought?
>
> Remove it, ... ?8-)
naa! make her hide behind a power plant!
At 19:36 17/08/00 -0400, Gautam N. Lad wrote:
>Hi,
>Hm...it seems that some people are against my idea, while others
>seem supportive...
Don't let any of this get to you, maybe some of the more technical replys
make sense, the others are just jokes, or simply nonsense.
next time when you use a
Keep right on with your tutorials.
As a fellow GIMP user I am always interested in what others are doing and how.
Choose whatever picture you want and flames to /dev/null
If you think you are going to get fired (yah right) by looking at these images
then don't look. Got that web page later, at h
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm new to both linux and the gimp - and will be picking up a scanner
> shortly. I've got SuSE 6.2 - a stripped down version that came with the
> SuSE for Dummies book, which had Gimp 1.1.7 with it.
> Anyhow, any suggestions out there for a scanner?
> Hi,> Well there are several ways to I could've done this...only reason I chose
> the alpha mask layer, was so I could introduce this feature...
>
> Because of the mask, only the parts visible were blurred, and these would
> include the light spots (mainly the skin tones)... Also, it is so that
28 matches
Mail list logo
