Re: [Gimp-user] Math graphics
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:19:21 -0500, Brian Vanderburg II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a plugin (or high speed script-fu) that would allow me to enter > a math expression and from it create the pixel data also given a > 'viewport range'. Have a look at MathMap: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/mathmap/ It can process existing images using arbitrarily complex mathematical formulas. It can also create new images from scratch, as you can see on the examples page with the moire pattern or the Mandelbrot fractal. It comes with a tutorial and an extensive reference manual. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] remember last location for "save as", "save a copy", "save", "open"
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:20:33 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If an image already has a filename associated to it, then open the Save > file-chooser in that folder. Otherwise use the folder of the most recent > save operation. Would that make sense? Definitely. That should be the default behavior. If needed, the current behavior (always use the last directory) can be emulated with a temporary bookmark. The opposite is not true: if you are working on several images and want to save each of them in the directory they came from, then the current file-chooser behavior gets in the way. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing
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 audience already knows about his > > points. That ironically makes his mails pointless... > > > 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 a policy I have followed over 30 > years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest > to keep on topic, ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off > topic by making personal comments. I assume that you have read the part of Simon's message that you have quoted above. He did not write that your contributions are noise. He wrote that they are addressed to the wrong audience. Furthermore, the developers (who may be a better audience for feature requests) are already aware of the benefits of non-destructive editing, and the GEGL library is a step in that direction. Considering that most developers are already aware of the benefits (and overhead) of non-destructive editing, I am wondering why you keep on arguing about it. You are posting this on the user list. Although this list can provide good feedback about what some users like or do not like, this may not be the best place to argue about how to implement a feature that has already been discussed several times. Well, unless you think that some members of this list who are not already developers would be so convinced by your arguments that they would decide to learn programming, study the GIMP internals, and start redesigning the whole GIMP core on their own. But I consider this to be rather unlikely. So please think twice before arguing about these issues. I suggest that you take a look at GEGL if you haven't looked at it already. Then feel free to bring back this topic on this list or on the developers list in about two years if you think that GIMP is not making progress in the right direction. -Raphaël P.S.: The suggestion to bring this back in two years is not a way to keep you away. It is just a reflection on the speed at which GIMP is developed and probably the earliest date at which some of the suggested features could be reviewed. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Forensic analysis using gimp
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:22:14 -0600, Alex Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is getting off the topic of the Gimp, but you've piqued my > interest. I just took a digital photo and modified it very slightly > with the Gimp, and used exiftool to print out the exif data for the > original and the modification, and diff'd the two exif outputs. The > only things I saw that might have made a difference were fields called > "Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling" and "JFIF Version". I don't know what these are, > but neither one screamed Gimp!, at least to me. Is there an exif field > I am missing? Is there another tool for looking at all this data? Using exiftool will only give you a part of the EXIF information, and EXIF is only a part of the metadata available in the JPEG file. You will get a lot more information about the layout of the various blocks contained in the file by using exifprobe instead of exiftool. Although exifprobe shows much more than the EXIF metadata, it does not show you an additional bit of info that can be useful when trying to identify forgeries: what software has created the JPEG quantization tables used in that file. In case you are not familiar with JPEG compression, these tables define how the luminance and chrominance components of the image are compressed. Most cameras use their own tables, Adobe uses their own tables in Photoshop and other products, GIMP uses the IJG tables, etc. That's why I suggested using the jpegqual test tool that I included in the GIMP source tree (only in SVN for the moment). That program allows you to check the quantization tables used in a JPEG file and guess what program or device could have created them. This program is very incomplete and not intended for general distribution (I wrote it to validate some algorithms used in the jpeg save plug-in), but you can already have some fun with it. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Forensic analysis using gimp
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:23:13 +0200 (CEST), "Alchemie foto\\grafiche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raphael Quinet wrote > _" I do not > want to say too much about that because I do not want to give too many > ideas to the crooks, but let's say that the way some things are split > or ordered in the JPEG file is usually different between digital > cameras and image editing software."_ > > > Well i too don't want give ideas to crooks, but i want say that there is no > way to demonstrate that a imagine is faked, > > You can only demonstrate that is a fake if some mistake were done, if not, > simply there is no way, Well, the point is that most people do make mistakes. We can even play a little game if you want: give me the URL of some JPEG image that claims to come directly from a digital camera. I bet that I can tell you immediately if it was modified by some other program. And with a bit of luck, I could even tell you which program has modified it even if the EXIF metadata is not included in the file or has been modified. Note that the removal of the EXIF block is already a hint that the image has been modified, since almost all digital cameras include EXIF blocks in all their images. If you have the latest GIMP from SVN (soon to be 2.4-rc3), you can also try to run the small test program in plug-ins/jpeg/jpegqual and it may tell you some things that you did not expect about some of your JPEG files. Note that this tool is still under development, but you can already do some interesting things with it. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Forensic analysis using gimp
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:56:53 -0300, "Lucas Prado Melo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How can I identify (using gimp) if a photograph has been faked? > There are different techniques that can be applied. Some of the focus on detecting if the image has been modified (detecting suspicious patterns in the pixels after loading the image) and some others focus on analyzing the file, not the pixels. You already got several replies mentioning the first part (changes in the image), so let me give you a few hints about the second part (changes in the file). For example, if you have a JPEG image to analyze, then the first thing you can do is to see if the image has been saved directly by a digital camera or if it came from GIMP, Photoshop or any other image editing software. If the EXIF metadata tells you that the image was saved by Photoshop, then you can already be sure that it did not come straight out of the camera. This does not necessarily mean that the contents of the image have been modified, but at least you know that the image may be different from what was taken by the camera. And even if the JPEG file does not contain any EXIF block or if some clever hacker has replaced the EXIF block by the original one from the camera, then you can look at the JPEG quantization tables and check if these match the tables that are used by some cameras, or if these are the tables used by Photoshop or any other program. This is a bit harder to fake and most of those who create fake images and go through the trouble of replacing the EXIF block ignore the fact that the quantization tables in the JPEG file can betray them. Note that I recently added a feature in GIMP that allows you to preserve the quantization tables from the original image, so that could in theory be used to "improve" some forgeries. However, there are other details in the JPEG file layout can can reveal if the file came straight out of the camera or if it was processed by some other software. I do not want to say too much about that because I do not want to give too many ideas to the crooks, but let's say that the way some things are split or ordered in the JPEG file is usually different between digital cameras and image editing software. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] How to save a selection to file?
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:38:56 +0200, "Lars Ruoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How can i save a selection (just the shape, not the content) to a file, so > that i can use it in another image? You cannot really save the selection itself, but you can save and reuse a channel. To be more precise, XCF files allow you to save the selection, but then it will be difficult to reuse that selection in another file. The best solution is to convert your selection to a channel (using the menu "Select->Save to Channel") and then save that channel to a file. You can then reload that file later and copy the channel into any other image. You can use Channel to Selection in the Layers/Channel/Paths window when you want to convert that channel back into a selection. Or you can just click on the pretty buttons... -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] A GIMP book
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:48:01 -0400, Michael Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Greg wrote: > > Speaking of books, I have Beginning Gimp, which was published in '06 > > but says it includes material on the "latest 2.4 release" > > > > Wha? > > Actually that book was written based on a development snapshot of > GIMP. I find it to be a very useful book IMHO. I'm not sure how > relevant it will continue to be though, based on the fact that the > author really seems to have jumped the gun in regards to the GIMP 2.4 > release. [...] Many users and developers were hoping for GIMP 2.4 to be released around the end of summer last year. Alas, that didn't happen because it took a long time to fix some nasty bugs, then it was decided to include some new features because the release was not ready anyway, then more bugs popped in, then it also took a while to fix them, then even more features were added, even more bugs were discovered and fixed, and so on... It is not surprising that the authors of some books were hoping for 2.4 to be released earlier. Maybe they were a bit too optimistic, but I wouldn't blame them for that. Now that we already have the first release candidate with lots of nice features (and a few bugs that have already been fixed), we are finally getting very close to the official release of GIMP 2.4. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] jpeg compression levels
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:31:27 +0200, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need to make a JPEG "saved at a high quality setting (i.e. Photoshop > level 10 or above)". Since I don't know what Photoshop is ;), could > someone please tell me what the equivalent would be using GIMP? Here is a table that provides an approximate mapping between Photoshop quality levels and GIMP (actually IJG JPEG library) quality levels: Adobe Photoshop quality 12 <= GIMP quality 98, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 11 <= GIMP quality 95, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 10 <= GIMP quality 93, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 9 <= GIMP quality 91, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 8 <= GIMP quality 90, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 7 <= GIMP quality 89, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop quality 6 <= GIMP quality 90, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 5 <= GIMP quality 89, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 4 <= GIMP quality 88, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 3 <= GIMP quality 88, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 2 <= GIMP quality 87, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 1 <= GIMP quality 86, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop quality 0 <= GIMP quality 85, subsampling 2x2 Some remarks: - I designed this mapping in a way that is a rather pessimistic for GIMP. It tries to be "at least as good", which means that in practice you could reduce the GIMP quality by a few points and still get about the same quality level. - Photoshop includes several parameters in a single "quality" setting, while GIMP provides separate controls for the "quality level", the choice of subsampling and other parameters hidden in the Advanced options in the JPEG dialog. It is likely that future GIMP versions (after 2.4) will also offer a simplified interface by default and hide the current quality slider inside the advanced options. - Subsampling 1x1 and 2x2 are short ways to write "1x1,1x1,1x1" and "2x2,1x1,1x1" that you find in the GIMP JPEG dialog. - If you still intend to do more work on the image, you should never just save it as JPEG. Always keep a copy in XCF format (GIMP's native file format). - Because of the change of subsampling, Photshop quality 7 uses a "GIMP quality level" that is lower than Photoshop quality 6. This may seem strange, but apparently the Photoshop developers designed the quality levels to be related to the expected file size rather than the quality of the JPEG quantization. - The default GIMP quality level is 85. This matches the worst quality level for Photoshop (quality 0). This is not really true because of the different subsampling (GIMP uses 2x1 by default, which is better than 2x2) and because the mapping that I described here is rather pessimistic for GIMP. But level 85 is good enough in most cases and the default Photoshop quality levels are designed for high-quality storage, not for publishing on the web. - Photoshop includes a totally different quality scale in its "Save for web" interface. It goes from 0 to 100 (like in GIMP) with the following mapping (again, rather pessimistic for GIMP): Adobe Photoshop Save for web 100 <= GIMP quality 98, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop Save for web 75 <= GIMP quality 92, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop Save for web 50 <= GIMP quality 86, subsampling 1x1 Adobe Photoshop Save for web 25 <= GIMP quality 72, subsampling 2x2 Adobe Photoshop Save for web 0 <= GIMP quality 51, subsampling 2x2 - Setting the GIMP quality level to 95 or higher is a waste of disk space and/or bandwidth. - Setting the GIMP quality level to anything below 50 is a bad idea. - I just saw that the GIMP user manual has a very confusing description for the subsampling parameter and it is not even correct. I will try to fix that soon. This is probably way more information that you were expecting. The short answer is: set your GIMP quality level to 93 or higher (but in fact, 90 should be OK). And set the subsampling to 1x1,1x1,1x1. -Raphael ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - gimpshop - newbie
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:27:49 -0500, Eric P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm all into usability as I use a high ratio of keyboard shortcuts vs. mouse > in GIMP. Can you elaborate on some of the > new usability enhancements? I'm all ears. Well, it's difficult to single out a specific feature. I suggest that you read the recent changes summarized in: http://developer.gimp.org/NEWS And maybe more importantly, that you look at the work done by Kamila and Peter for improving the user interface: http://gui.gimp.org/ Some of these improvements have already integrated in the current version in SVN but others are still pending. For example, have a look at: http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Selection_%2B_crop_tool_specification You will also find many little things that have been improved to guide the user along the way, such as tooltips for all menu items (quick description of what each filter does) or status bar messages that help you to remember how to use each tool and what to do with Ctrl/Alt/Shift. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - gimpshop - newbie
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:08:26 +0800, Leon Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then future queries can be answered like this: > > GimpShop is a different product to GIMP. Read about > the differences and support issues here: > > http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/GimpShop > > I'd happily write up such a page but I know practically nothing > about the background of GimpShop, so I've just put a brief > stop-gap into the Wiki. Thanks a lot for this good idea! I have updated this wiki page and provided a link to a GIMPshop forum that may be helpful for GIMPshop users. If anybody finds more mailing lists or forums dedicated to GIMPshop, feel free to add the relevant links to that page. I have also added a short description of some technical problems related to the fork (code conflicts, breaking translations) and again, this section can be expanded if anybody feels like writing more about it. Now I hope that we can get back to discussing GIMP on this list... -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - gimpshop - newbie
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 05:02:19 -0700, David Southwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would mean more developers, features and a bigger > > and better community of users. IMHO gimpshop is a great idea. According to > some its developers have not behaved well -- my guess is there are two sides > to the story. The important thing is to look to what can be provided not what > can be stopped!! Unfortunately, more users does not automatically mean more developers and more features. In some cases, this is even the opposite: some projects have seen their number of developers decrease as the number of users increased, because the community became worse (large number of conflicting user requests, unrealistic expectations, developer burn-out, etc.). You claim that there are "two sides to the story" regarding the development of Gimpshop. This may be the case, but I encourage you to take a look at the archive of the gimp-developer mailing list and find the early discussions about Gimpshop. Then see the suggestions about how to do it "right" and what happened since then (hint: Gimpshop is still a fork using modifications to the source code instead of being an add-on). As I wrote in my previous message, the GIMP developers are not opposed to some of the ideas included in Gimpshop, if only they were implemented in a correct way. The developers are open to suggestions and are looking at alternative solutions whenever possible. Just check the recent usability enhancements in SVN if you are not convinced about that. > Currently all I am suggesting is that people with a history of scores to > settle need to keep quiet and if others want to talk about gimpshop then let > them do so. Noone is saying any single individual should feel obliged to > contribute to those discussion. I don't think that I have a history of scores to settle with Gimpshop. If fact, I do not even remember contributing to previous discussions (I haven't checked, though). But please be a bit more open yourself and consider what others have written in the last days. Discussions about Gimpshop tend to create confusion on this list. Even if we ignore the technical and political aspects of how Gimpshop was implemented, the simple fact that any discussion about Gimpshop on this list tends to generate noise should be a sufficient reason to avoid such discussions in the future. This doesn't mean that Gimpshop is a taboo that should not be mentioned here. But instead of discussing it here, it would be much better to point users to a more specific mailing list. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - gimpshop - newbie
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:06:22 +0200, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Southwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I suggest you treat gimpshop as an intermediate hack. Get the best out of > > it > > you can until someone is encouraged to dvevelop something more > > sophisticated. > > That simply is impossible, since the "solutions" of Gimpshop are no > solutions. I tried to explain that already, but you apparently do not > understand the impact of changing strings in the sourcecode. > > The hacks of Gimpshop simply cannot be applied to the gimp, they are > technically too bad. Sorry for the harsh words, but this is reality. Just to clarify a bit... The GIMP developers are not opposed to some of the ideas included in Gimpshop, but are opposed to the way they are implemented. Some users would like an interface that is similar to Photoshop in the terms that it uses and the menus that it offers. That's fine. Some users prefer an interface in which all windows (images, tools, etc.) are attached to a main window. That's also fine. If these options are implemented correctly, they will be included in a future version of GIMP and will be supported. But as several developers have already pointed out, Gimpshop did it wrong both from a technical perspective and from a social perspective. Instead of using the existing infrastructure for replacing/translating strings and for customizing menus, Gimpshop modifies the source code directly and makes it very difficult to share code with the standard GIMP (every upgrade requires a code re-write). And instead of discussing the best solutions and the best way to proceed together with the GIMP developers, the author of Gimpshop refused to consider the technical advice and decided to maintain a fork instead of an add-on. Gimpshop is different from GIMP because it is a fork of an older version, it has some bugs that GIMP doesn't have, its menus are different, etc. It makes sense to have a separate mailing list for discussing issues specific to that fork, in order to avoid confusing GIMP users with advice that relates to a different program. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Points cloud images in GIMP
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:27:50 +0100, Enrico Galletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > is there any tool in GIMP to convert a grey-scale image into a > black&white (1 bit bitmap) points cloud image, i.e. an image where the > grey scale is given by density of dark points ? This can be done with a simple conversion to black and white with dithering enabled: - select Image->Mode->Indexed - for the colormap, choose black and white (1-bit) - for dithering, select Floyd-Steinberg dithering - click "Convert" and you will get your black and white dots If the resolution of your image is not sufficient to get nice clouds, the you can scale up the image before converting it to black and white. So you would go to Image->Scale Image and double or triple the width and height before going to Image->Mode->Indexed. You may also want to play with the overall brightness or contrast of the image before converting it to black and white. You can play with Colors->Curves or Colors->Levels. Another option is to use the Newsprint plug-in. You can find it in Filters->Distorts->Newsprint, although I doubt that this is exactly what you are looking for. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] This must be possible
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:37:37 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am trying to create some backgrounds for webpagesand they must > have that "flattened" look. That's the only way I can describe > it. They look like the contrast has been reduced and the page > brightened overall. Considering all the tools available in GIMP, one > of them must be the one , but I can't seem to find the proper one. I > have tried reducing contrast and brightening but the look isn't what > I want. If anybody understands what I want can they help ?? There are many ways to do that. If you are not too familiar with GIMP and the various color tools that it offers, the easiest way is probably this: - Open the image. - Add a new layer on top of the background. - Fill it with white (or light gray, or any light color). - Reduce the opacity of the new layer to 50% or less. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] suggested behaviour change of layer masks
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:43:47 +, David Marrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I want to apply the same layer mask to a number of stock photos. In this case > the mask is text but it could be anything. I want to get the best image for > the > mask and this means not only trying different photos but also aligning those > photos for best composition. Although this is not implemented yet in the current GIMP, what you are trying to do for your composition could be done easily once "masking groups" or "clipping groups" are implemented. This feature, which exists in some other popular image manipulation program, allows you to group several layers and apply a single mask to the whole group. There is an old GIMP enhancement proposal about this feature: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51112 With this feature, you could have all your stock photos as layers in the same masking group and toggle their visibility or reposition them individually while the same mask is always used. I only use GIMP myself but I have seen some designers using that feature in other programs with great efficiency. It is very useful when you are working on a composition and you want to change some masked layers without changing the mask itself. Or vice-versa, when you want to change the mask without having to change several layers using that mask. It is too late to add that feature to GIMP 2.4 and it is probably not appropriate for 2.6 (unless the scope of 2.6 changes significantly) but it would be nice if someone could work on this for GIMP 3.0. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] there adjustment layer in the next gimp feature plan??
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 02:35:21 -0500, "Teddy Widhi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe some developer that also read my milis know, that the adjustment > layer will adding in the next gimp feature plan? i want to know the news > about it. bcos i very-very hope the gimp add adjustment layer for change > some color correction or etc. Adjustment layers will not be in 2.4. This will probably have to wait until the GEGL-ification of GIMP is complete (i.e., GIMP 3.0). For details, see: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79025 -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] gimpui.pc
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 06:24:25 -0600, Alex Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, let me restate the question. I can't find any sort of development > package for gimp for FC5 separate from the Gimp itself. I've googled, > looked on the Gimp downloads page, the Gimp Unix page, and searched > RedHat, and Sourceforge. I can't find it. But neither can I find > anything with a name like libgimp-dev on my computer. I don't use Fedora, but it wasn't hard for me to discover that there is indeed a package called gimp-devel for FC5: http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=gimp-devel&system=fedora > But please don't lose sight of my original question - I just want to > have Gutenprint make the print plugin, which it is not presently doing. > From my examination of the configuration log, it appears that it wants > the gimpui.pc file, which seems like a reasonable thing to want, but I > don't know. I didn't see anything in the Release notes, so it seems > like if it was there once, it ought to still be there. The main purpose of the *.pc files is to include the right directories and compiler options that are specific to your system in order to ensure that the plug-ins can be built and installed correctly. The file gimpui-2.0.pc is automatically generated when GIMP is built and there must be some package for your distribution that includes the appropriate version of this file. It is important to use the right package for your distribution because each distribution is likely to use slightly different directories or compiler options for building and installing GIMP. If you take some random *.pc file from another distribution, you are likely to break things. So please install the correct package (gimp-devel-2.2.13) and it should work fine. If gimpui-2.0.pc is not included in the gimp-devel package, then you should report a bug in the Fedora bug tracker, because this is problem in the distribution and not a GIMP bug. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] gimpui.pc
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 05:32:07 -0600, Alex Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, is there a place I can get more information on this? Google showed > up surprisingly little for libgimp2.0-dev, and most of it was either for > Debian or not in English (which I prefer). Can I just download the > package from the Debian site and install it in FC5? I've never done > that before. Certainly not! It is unlikely that a Debian package will install cleanly in FC5. And even if you manage to install it (e.g., using alien to convert the package), it is very likely that your system will be unusable or at least unmaintainable after that. Some Linux distributors have decided to split the GIMP files in two or more packages: one of them (usually just called "gimp") contains the files that are needed for normal usage and another one (usually called "gimp-dev" or "gimp-devel" or something similar) contains the files that are only needed if you want to build and install plug-ins. The latter usually includes the header files, the *.pc files needed by pkgconfig, etc. It should not be too hard for you to find the right package for your distribution. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Please Change the Derogatory Name
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:00:25 -0500, Eric P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally, I think the name should change not because I find GIMP derogatory > but because I think a name that somewhat > identified (even vaguely) what sphere the software is used it would be a > boon.> > Inkscape is an excellent name in my opinion. It is somewhat ambiguous, but > you definitely know that software named > Inkscape must have something to do with the artistic sphere. That's all you > really need. I agree. Among the various arguments about changing GIMP's name, this is probably the only one that makes a bit of sense. This is not a problem for those who know that "GIMP" actually stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program" but those who do not know GIMP yet will probably not know the expansion of the acronym either. Besides, the acronym is rarely expanded in casual talks and most users see only "GIMP" in the splash screen and in the window titles so they may not even know what this stands for. It may be interesting to associate the name of the application with what it does. If we look at GIMP and its derivatives, we have: GIMP- Meaningless unless it is expanded. FilmGimp- Not too bad, but not used anymore. CinePaint - Good. Unique and directly linked to the right area. GIMPshop- Awful. This only has a meaning for Photoshop users. If the goal was to use a name that contains parts of Photoshop's name, then picking PhotoGIMP would have been better. But plagiarism is not a good idea anyway. Seashore- Meaningless. And if we look at other projects and products, we have (besides several products called Paint or Painter): Krita - Meaningless except if you speak Swedish KolourPaint - Good. Tux paint - Good. Tile Studio - Not too bad but specialized. mtPaint - Not too bad. Dogwaffle - Bad. Picasa - Not too bad. PicMaster - Not too bad. Pixel - Good but the term is too common. Photoshop - Not too bad. PaintShop Pro - Not too bad. Fireworks - A bit confusing, but inspiring. PhotoImpact - Good. PhotoPaint - Good. For the vector drawing programs, names like InkScape, Skencil or Sketch are rather good. Several other applications in the same area seem to have more interesting names. Maybe GIMP could become more popular if it switched to a name that is more directly associated with graphics. Maybe not. As Yosh mentioned, GIMP already has some mindshare and a new name would not only have to be good, it would have to be good enough to justify sacrificing the popularity of the current name. So feel free to propose better names that are: - related to the graphics, photo or image manipulation domains - cool, inspiring - unique so that we don't run into trademark problems - short enough to fit in the applications menu or window titles - suitable for most languages and cultures If you find a name that meets all these criteria and would probably be immediately adopted by a marketing team if GIMP were a commercial product, then keep in mind that you would still have 90% chance to have the name rejected because some developers simply do not want to change the name. With that in mind, I wish you good luck... -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] gimp not respecting locale
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:19:22 +0100, MIlos Prudek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Curiously, gimp compiled from sources did not show this problem. Only gimp > RPM > included with my current distro, Mandriva 2006, shows this problem. Even > though locale messages are installed in > > /usr/share/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/gimp20-libgimp.mo > /usr/share/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/gimp20-script-fu.mo > /usr/share/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/gimp20-std-plug-ins.mo > /usr/share/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/gimp20.mo > > I guess you will now rebuke me for bringing a distro-specific issue to this > list... I have never used Mandriva so it will be difficult for me to help. However, did you check what is invoked when you run "gimp"? Some distributions replace the GIMP binary by a shell script that does some checks and modifies the environment. I do not know if this is the case for Mandriva. Other than that, you should probably seek help from Mandriva or from other Mandriva users. Or fetch the source RPM from Mandriva, extract it and review the patches that get included when you rebuild. Good luck, -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] retouching dark photos
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:16:28 -0400, Roger D Vargas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all, Im a total newbie in image management. I have made just > some simple things with Gimp. I have some pictures I took with low > lights, and I would like to know the correct method to improve it. Right > now Im using Brigth and contrast to increase bright. There is no single method that works perfectly in all cases, but you can try ->Layers->Colors->Levels or ...->Curves. In the Levels dialog, try moving the left handle (the black one) to the right. Try moving the middle one as well. The preview will allow you to see what happens and should help you to find the best values for correcting your pictures. The "Auto" button can give interesting results, but can also introduce color casts so maybe you should experiment first with manual adjustments. See also: http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html?node60.html -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Compiling refocus
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:15:38 -1000, wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tried to compile the refocus plugin but failed. Can anyone translate this > and tell me what I'm missing? I'm running GIMP 2.2.4. Here's the output > from ./configure: [...] > checking for gimptool... (cached) no > checking for GIMP - version >= 1.2.0... no > *** The gimptool script installed by GIMP could not be found > *** If GIMP was installed in PREFIX, make sure PREFIX/bin is in > *** your path, or set the GIMPTOOL environment variable to the > *** full path to gimptool. > checking for pkg-config... (cached) /usr/bin/pkg-config > checking for GTK+ - version >= 2.0.0... no > *** Could not run GTK+ test program, checking why... [...] > configure:1836:21: gtk/gtk.h: No such file or directory [...] It is very likely that you have not installed the development packages on your system (probably called gtk-devel, gimp-devel or something similar). These packages contain the header files such as gtk.h that are necessary for compiling programs. If you have these files because you have compiled and installed these libraries from sources, then you may have to tell pkg-config where to find them (using PKG_CONFIG_PATH). -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: [Gimp-developer] storke selection?
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:35:03 -0800 (PST), Gezim Hoxha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm really frustrated with the storke tool in gimp > 1.3.23, and I hope it's because of my ignorance. > Almost all selections (except rectangular ones) turn > out really ugly when storked...here is an example with > a circle > http://www.geocities.com/hgezim/stroke.html The circle is converted to line segments for stroking, and unfortunately there are not enough of them (12 here) so the results are ugly. Ideally, it should be possible to configure how close the segments fit the shape of the selection. It would also be nice to configure if the stroking is done inside, outside or on both sides of the edges of the selection. Anyway, there is a workaround that should allow you to get a better circle until some new options are added for stroking selections: just convert the selection to a path, then stroke the path. The results should look a bit better. Note that you will probably need to double the stroke width because that parameter is not interpreted in the same way for selections and for paths. Also, you may have to adjust the radius of your circle (another difference, probably related to stroking inside or on both sides of the line segments). -Raphael ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [Gimp-user] The Gimp Foundation
On 13 Oct 2003 11:55:27 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As was discussed at Gimp Con 2003 (and before, frankly) I am in the > > process of incorporating "The GIMP Foundation" as a non-profit > > organization devoted to supporting the gimp. > > Thanks a lot for organizing this. > > > Here are some of the ideas I am currently mulling over regarding TGF: > > [...] > > This sounds a lot more like an attempt to bring WilberWorks back to > life than what I was imaging from such a foundation. IMO it should be > a lot less commercially oriented but maybe I am only getting a wrong > impression from looking at this list. [...] Sorry if this sounds like a "me too" but I would like to second this. After watching your (Daniel) presentation at GimpCon2003 and the discussion that followed, I thought that the main roles of the GIMP Foundation would be: - to be a non-profit organization that can collect donations without trying to sell anything by itself; - to serve as a contact point for conferences and events interested in GIMP presentations. Selling GIMP tee-shirts, manuals, CDs and other stuff may be interesting, but I would prefer to have this done by a company that would be a separate legal entity. Otherwise, there could be some conflicts between a commercial GIMP Foundation and the companies that are already selling GIMP stuff (ftgimp, macgimp/wingimp, xdarwin and probably several others). I would like the GIMP Foundation to be seen as "neutral" and clearly non-commercial, so that the companies who are selling GIMP CDs could make a donation to the foundation without feeling that they are giving money to a potential competitor. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
