Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
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 higher, I'm gonna have to stick to Photoshop for now. Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW. True for all DSLR's (I think), but some better PS's also can produce TIFF's which uses a lossless compression (actually being pedantic) as sort of pseudo raw format. For me at least, the big reasons for PS CS over gimp are the following: - The plugins. For the pro/semi pro shooter, there are just way too many very cool plugins for PS. Everything from Noise-Ninja to lens distortion corrections to some very interesting portrait tools to virtual view camera adjustments (more than just perspective correction). - Integration with the color spiders and CMS - 8/24 vs 16/48 - This is at least on the horizon for GIMP In GIMP's defense, many (if not the vast majority) of digital photographers will have no need of these features. Even if by some magic they were available, few would use them because of the cost or complexity. It's a good tool. I use it a great deal myself, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it to teach an into to digital darkroom course. The exception would be, for students who were on a professional photographer track. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
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 images? From prints? no. On your monitor? maybe. You will notice it when you try and correct for under or over exposure or gamma, and you'll notice it more in the underexposed areas where sensor noise will be more visible. Much of this would be done in the UFRAW converter which DOES use all the bits, so you can argue it's less of an impact. Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original bit-depth or as 8-bit? Once the image is pulled into GIMP, it's 8/24 bit for processing and display. Here's a reasonably quick experiment. Gather a few images that represent your typical shooting Download UFRAW and the GIMP (maybe not so quick depending on your download speeds). Pull your 12/36bit image into UFRAW and make whatever exposure/balance tweaks needed and then have it hand it off to GIMP. Have both images up at the same time. What do your eyes tell you? I've posted this before, and in case you missed it, you really need to do a bit of digital darkroom 101. Go to www.normankoren.com and read through his site. Really. I'm not trying to be pedantic or condescending, but when you finish going through his tutorial, you'll be asking questions that will get you more targeted answers. You might drop him a little paypal gelt when you're done because people charge $500 for one day seminars to present similar material. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
Greg 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. I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary. In fact, there are more similarities than differences: o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers) o And each has a main image window The UI differences, IMO, are minor: o Distinct windows for palettes and image window o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar. Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new to Photoshop, I don't see the problem I came from the other direction. Started with GIMP and occasionally use PS. I often use PS books or tips from various sites and unless they invoke a PS specific plugin, I don't have too much trouble translating the techniques. If you don't understand the concepts and are just trying to find identical menus and buttons, I can see where you'd get lost. As for it's professional use, it depends. I've talked to wedding shooters in PPA meetings who ship nothing but JPG's. Due to the volume of images they process, they rarely do any more tweaking then bulk exposure and color balance. For that matter, one of the more successful ones doesn't even shoot raw. Formal's get a bit more attention, but nobody ships raw or TIFF's in that market. PJ and sports seem to use jpg from what limited exposure I've had to them. Landscape/Fine Art might want to store as 16/48 bit, but no current printing technology is going to exceed the range of a 8/24 bit representation. alamy.com takes jpgs as does istockphoto. Generally they seem to be more interested in image size and what compression level was used. Don't know about advertising, but I'd assume they want CMYK's for pre pro? I'd say the real drawback is if you're manipulating your images quite a bit, and I can see where you'd want to keep as many bits around as possible till the end of the edit. BTW, when I said, a mere $649US (for PS CS3), I assumed the sarcasm/sarcasm tags were understood jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
Greg wrote: I've read a few msgs. that talked about how GIMP only does 8-bit processing. Does that mean if I load, say, a 16-bit image, Will GIMP display and/or save the image as an 8-bit image? If that IS the case, that's a rather serious short-coming for photographers and such. Probably should be in a FAQ somewhere. 1. I don't know of any current DSLR whose raw file format is more than 14bit per RGB value per pixel or 42bits per pixel. 2. Better flatbed scanners can do 16/48 bit, but there's some debate as to any observable increase in range. I think drum scans are usually 48 bit. 3. Currently, PS CS2/3 are 16/48 bit but not all plugins are. I think Corel PSP11 is also (not that I'd use it) 4. If you are going to use GIMP to do image processing from camera raw, then use the UFRAW plugin to GIMP. Pull the raw image in, and do the first pass at color balance and exposure correction (which is where having the extra bits are the most useful). UFRAW will then pass an 8/24 bit file to GIMP for further processing 5. If you hand GIMP a 16/48 bit file (like a TIFF) it will convert it down to 8/24 6. An upcoming version of GIMP will support 16/48bit and non-destructive editing, but it's not a near term release last I heard 7. There are other FOSS editors such as Krita that support 16/48, but they're not very mature yet 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) ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] large tile sizes and large images on Freebsd
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. When I set the tile cache to 512MB or more it stops with error: GLib-ERROR **: gmem.c:135: failed to allocate 16384 bytes I checked in top while the gimp was opening the image and I still had 400MB free before it stopped (not counting my 4000MB free swap). I have another computer with Fedora 7 and less RAM (1 gig) and here this does work, tile size is set to 512MB and editing is rather fast. I found this old thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg07633.html wich a bit the same. So my questions are: -Is there some magic setting wich allows the tile size to be bigger ? -Can't the gimp be configured to not save to disk after every edited pixel ? If you put one pencil dot on an image it takes 4 seconds before you can do the next. -Is there a way to work in ram only ? Can I for example buy 2 additional gig and then force the gimp to use only this memory and give me a messages out of memory when this does not work ideas As the original poster of that thread, let me tell you what I know. 1. No magic. I assume there's something bad happening between glib and the FreeBSD memory allocation routines, but whatever it is carried across 5.3 to 6.2. I'm pretty sure I logged a bugzilla case, but in the end, I switched to a linux platform and lost interest. I get the feeling that the GIMP devs don't use FBSD and as long as it builds and runs, they're not all that interested in what seems like corner cases. 2. You could try setting undo level to 0 at the risk of not being able to recover from any mistake 3. nope, at least not that I've found 4. nope Don't bother with film-gimp or whatever they're calling the project these days. It does HDR, but their big memory handling is even worse. Turns out that the images projected in theaters are actually not all that hi rez. Your eye fills in the missing spots frame by frame. If you built KDE for your desktop, you might want to check out Krita as an image editor. Last I looked at it (which is maybe 9 mos), I still liked the GIMP better, but it (krita) handles images completely differently, so it might be worth a shot. Didn't get a chance to run any of my scans through it. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Lens distortion correction
I think in PS CS2 you can compensate (roughly) for actual lens distortions like barrel, pin-cushion, vignetting as well as key stoning (the last, you can do easily in GIMP) This company claims to actually have distortion profiles and lots of lenses to do specific corrections http://www.dxo.com/en/photo ASJF wrote: Hi ! You can try the Gimp Wideangle filter : http://members.ozemail.com.au/~hodsond/wideangle.html Cheers, Jeff Hi! Is there an easy way in GIMP to make corrections to those distortions that happen for instance, when we try to take a photo from a very high building (when the straigh edges get a bit rounded or inclined). I think there are some similar apps in wich we can do that by using a grid to distort the whole picture. Is there anything like that in GIMP? Thanks in advance, Victor Domingos http://lojamac.com/blog ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] How to tone down sun spots
DJ wrote: Hi gimp-user, I'm not sure what they are called in photographic terminology, but I have a picture of a long winding road with sunspots. The sun shines through the trees and is so bright that the eye immediately goes to those spots. They are pretty big at the beginning of the road. I need to brighten the picture, but how do I tone down those spots on a gravel road. They appear almost white. I've played around with a couple of processes, but nothing looks realistic or addresses the problem. Any suggestions? Thank you. Do you have an example online somewhere? Do you have a raw file for the image? The reason I ask, is that if the spots are blown out (that is they are pure white with no detail) there may not be much to do short of actually retouching them out of the picture. The raw image might still have detail that a camera created jpg lost.If so, you could create overlays to capture the high and low details (I can dig up some links on how). You could create a mask to tone them down, but then you end up with gray dots and my personal opinion is that looks worse. Unless this is a special picture, it may not be worth your time. Chalk it up as a learning experience on how to better visualize your final images as you look through the viewfinder. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Photos negatives scanned into the gimp
Joao Moreira wrote: jim feldman wrote: Like others have said, you were probably better off to have done this while scanning using either xsane or vuescan (not open source, but a pretty good scanner prog). I'm surprised whatever s/w you were using didn't give you the option when you told it you were scanning color negs. I have an HP LaserJet 3057, and I just did Acquire in the gimp... but maybe the option was there, I don't remember. I'll try that again, though. I'd like to thank Alex for the link to www.c-f-systems.com, they have a paper there, called Negative to positive, that seems to explain it all. But it is definitely NOT simple ! Thanks all, Joao Isn't that a multifunction reflective scanner? I didn't know it did transparencies. I believe you were probably using the xsane plugin for the gimp to do the scan. It probably didn't prompt you for film type since it didn't think you would be scanning film on that model. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Photos negatives scanned into the gimp
Claus Cyrny wrote: Owen wrote: Or do I need to code a plugin, and if so, what exactly is the operation to be done (in terms of RGB) ? Image-Layers-Colors-Invert ? Actually it's not that easy, because the film contains a mask (yellow red), which has to be filtered out. Claus And different films have different masks. Kodak is different from Fuji. Like others have said, you were probably better off to have done this while scanning using either xsane or vuescan (not open source, but a pretty good scanner prog). I'm surprised whatever s/w you were using didn't give you the option when you told it you were scanning color negs. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Best online guide for photographers
At the risk of being a heretic let me make the following suggestions Tanveer Singh wrote: I use GIMP for image manipulation. though lots of resources are availalbe for photoshop, gimp docs are hard to come by(from a photography point of view). Can somebody link me to a good online guide. I am looking for things like 1. Working with levels and curves, not just how to, but the technique too It's been my experience that the gimp tutorials are helpful, but no where near as complete as whats out there for Photoshop. That being said, if you understand the techniques in photoshop, it's not to difficult to map those to the gimp controls to do the same things. 2. Bulk watermarking, resizing ImageMagik is your friend here 3. Using RAW under windows ufraw as a plugin to gimp (install gimp first, then ufraw) works really nicely. At least as well as some of the commercial raw processors out there. You might want to check out noise ninja too. 4. Psuedo HDR by superimposing 2-3 images I seem to remember that the gimp tutorials cover this as will most PS books. Here's the problem. GIMP is only 8 bits of dynamic range per color channel. Better digicams are 12 bits or better in their raw format. Your display screen can handle that dynamic range, but last I looked, your printer probably won't. So basically, what you're really doing is compressing a much wider dynamic range into a smaller one. Sometimes it looks right, and sometimes it doesn't. I think it's most useful for pulling up shadow detail where you really notice digital noise. I am a newbie, so I apologize if this has been discussed before. In that case can somebody link me to the old thread? regards Tanveer ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP used in prisons / secure institutions
Draw a picture of a shiv? sorry. I can't imagine GIMP being a problem. That being said, it's linked to libraries that have occasionally had security issues. Both closed and open source rendering libraries have at various times suffered from buffer overflows. I tend to see resistance to FOSS solutions with these inane arguments that force you to prove a negative. GIMP (or whatever) could start a nuclear war, can you prove it won't?. I say, then lets make that a testing prerequisite for any app, including the one you want to use. jim Simon Davis wrote: HI, Does anyone have any experience / anecdotal evidence of using the GIMP in prisons or situations where security was of paramount importance. Coming accross resistance and would like to be able to point to precedent. Thanks a lot, Si ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP used in prisons / secure institutions
On a more practical note, when I'm looking at a new app, the first thing I do is search over at securityfocus.com to see what it's exploit history has been. If I see a pattern, or something I can't remediate, I pass. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] calibrate monitor using linux
Gracia M. Littauer wrote: I tried SuSE list...no answer. Since art/photos need good/correct color for printing I'll try here. Best way to calibrate a new LCD monitor using linux OS To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing like eye-one or other color calibration feedback system available for linux. You should go here for good background http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html. You can also check out http://www.pcbypaul.com/software/monica.html which is a basic one for linux. You calibrate your gamma and black levels. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Deleting background on photos
tcb888 (sent by Nabble.com) wrote: I need to remove the background of a photo and can't figure out how to quickly do this using GIMP. Basically, I have about 40 photos that I need to remove the background from for someone's website. I tried using the eraser to manually do it by hand but its taking too long. Can someone let me know if they have any ideas on how to quickly take care of this?? Attached is a sample photo, my client wants the photo to just show patio furniture with none of the grassy background. If I click on the grass to select the color to cut/delete, it also picks up some of the furniture as well... Your sample didn't attach. Have you tried looking at the Select Contigious Regions tool (the magic wand icon) and either quick mask or layer mask? jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] levels picker tool
Quoting Francois du Toit [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:09:59 -0600 jim feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a way to increase/average the number of pixels that the black/grey/white picker sub-tool samples in the levels tool? Dialogs - Tool Options (F5)Merci beaucoup! This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
[Gimp-user] levels picker tool
Is there a way to increase/average the number of pixels that the black/grey/white picker sub-tool samples in the levels tool? The question behind the question. I'm using a QPcard (black/18% grey/white) target when I take digital images to make fixing contrast and white balance easier. What I'm noticing is that none of the three targets are consistant in the RGB values across the target patch (according to the info window). I suspect that camera sensor noise is responsible. So while any given pixel might have a range of RGB values, a group of pixels (from one of the targets) should average close to the correct value. I noticed the color picker tool can be set to have a radius and average. Did I miss how to do this for the levels tool? BTW, the QPcard (according to competitor WhitBal) is about as accurate as a Kodak Q13 target for the w/g/b values and reflective spectral responses. I also have a Q13 target that yields similar results. I can post example tiff or jpgs. TIA Jim F. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] reading 42bit colour files
Quoting Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I'm scanning in images at 42 bit depth, but unfortunately my software doesn't do LZW TIFF compression so I'm using gimp for that. If I read in to gimp a 42 bit file and write out a compressed TIFF, I guess I've lost my 42 bit depth until gimp supports 42 bit. Is that right?Yes. Cinepaint (formally film gimp) will handle 16 bit/color, 48 bit images. It's main problem is that it's not really meant for big scans (film frames are actually not all that big), and it's based on an old fork of gimp. I use it to tweak levels and write the image back out. I then use regular gimp (2.2.8)from what I gather from the list, the gimp devos are holding off supporting more than 8 bits till they re-write major portions of the code. As in not in the near future. (feel free to correct me)I've got a 16/48 bit scanner, and I'm looking at a DSLR that produces 12/36 bit raw files. Thats a lot of data to toss, and it's what will drive me to a windoze platform to support the tools (raw decoders and image manipulators) that will work with all the data thats in the image. I wish I had the skillz to contribute because it's definitly a scratch I need to itch.jim This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [Gimp-user] Batch converter for web optmisation
Quoting Stefan Frings [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello, I like to optimize more than 100 photos (jpeg, 640x480) for web publishing. I would like to do this with all my pictures in an automatic batch job. Ho can I do this? If there is another nice Linux program, then this would also be ok GIMP is very good at lots of things, but ImageMagick convert is what you want. This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Odd behavoir with big images and memory
my options are tiff, jpg and pdf. Of possible interest is that if I read in (using TC set to 400mb) one of the big tiff's, write it back out as a xcf (GIMP native), set the TC up to 600, read back the xcf, and it still crashes with the same errors.why doesn't GIMP like TIFF?Quoting Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 08:03:07PM -0600, jim feldman wrote: I'm working with scanned medium format film images that are TIFF's of 100MB each. The GIMP environment is gimp 2.2.6 (built from ports about a week ago) on FreeBSD 5.3 Release. The display is a Linux (RH9) box. The tiff's are created by vuescan on linux. i am curious if you have other file format options. just because the gimp can open and save as tiff does not mean that it likes to do this. can you make your scans directly into png and see if you still have the same problems? carol my options are tiff, jpg and pdf. Of possible interest is that if I read in (using TC set to 400mb) one of the big tiff's, write it back out as a xcf (GIMP native), set the TC up to 600, read back the xcf, and it still crashes with the same errors.why doesn't GIMP like TIFF? This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [Gimp-user] Odd behavoir with big images and memory
Quoting Asif Lodhi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Jim, Though I have never worked with such large images, don't you think it would be a good idea to save each TIFF as XCF, do whatever you want to do on XCF and then save the modified XCF as TIFF again? May be odd behavior will go away that way because XCF is the native file format. May be increasing the tile cache will work with the XCF! Best regardsThanks for the offer, but thats exactly what I WAS doing. Both TIFF and XCF blow up, and it's not just during decompose, thats just one way for me to get it to happen relieably. I've had it happen during levels, making a layer copy, anything which seems to effect the whole image.jim This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
[Gimp-user] Odd behavoir with big images and memory
I'm working with scanned medium format film images that are TIFF's of 100MB each. The GIMP environment is gimp 2.2.6 (built from ports about a week ago) on FreeBSD 5.3 Release. The display is a Linux (RH9) box. The tiff's are created by vuescan on linux. The FreeBSD box was running with only 512MB memory. GIMP and the OS paged so much, the disk light went solid red for 2 minutes every time I touched the image. I doubled the system memory, and figured I should set GIMP's tile cache up to 600MB. I load the first image, and gimp tells me the image is 6228x5117, True color, and 247 MB in memory. I then tried to filters colors decompose RGB (so I could play with BW) and GIMP died. I've attached a log from a run that included stack trace mode and debug handlers. we died in gmem.c trying to allocate 8192 bytes. If I set the tile cache back down to 400MB however, everything works fine. 500MB also caused it to crash. I fI don't instrument it, I get a script-fu:29966: LibGimpBase-WARNING **: script-fu: wire_read(): error before it exits. Bugzilla time? thanks jim This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. bash-2.05b$ gimp --debug-handlers --stack-trace-mode always (gimp:29873): Gimp-Display-CRITICAL **: gimp_display_shell_shrink_wrap: assertion `GTK_WIDGET_REALIZED (shell)' failed GLib-ERROR **: gmem.c:141: failed to allocate 8192 bytes aborting... gimp: terminated: Abort trap #0 0x28436aea in g_on_error_stack_trace () #1 0x08064672 in ?? () #2 0x083520a0 in ?? () #3 0xbfbfdd90 in ?? () #4 0x in ?? () #5 0x10e0b400 in ?? () #6 0x in ?? () #7 0x in ?? () #8 0x in ?? () #9 0x in ?? () #10 0xbfbfddb4 in ?? () #11 0x2705c720 in ?? () #12 0xbfbfdde4 in ?? () #13 0xbfbfdde4 in ?? () #14 0x0282 in ?? () #15 0x2897099c in ?? () from /usr/lib/libpthread.so.1 #16 0xbfbfddd8 in ?? () #17 0x080645da in ?? () #18 0x082203b0 in ?? () #19 0x10e0b400 in ?? () #20 0x0001 in ?? () #21 0x2897099c in ?? () from /usr/lib/libpthread.so.1 #22 0xbfbfe160 in ?? () #23 0xbfbfdea0 in ?? () #24 0xbfbfddf8 in ?? () #25 0x080641b6 in ?? () #26 0x2705c720 in ?? () #27 0x08d61680 in ?? () #28 0xbfbfde08 in ?? () #29 0x2896dcde in __error () from /usr/lib/libpthread.so.1 ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Default JPEG quality setting - where?
Antti Mäkelä wrote: Hi, Where can I set the default quality when saving JPEG images? The default 85 is too low, I want to use 98. I could not find a suitable setting anywhere, either in config files or in menus. Where is it hidden? (No lectures on the default 85 being enough, thank you - it is not enough, and I can clearly see artifacts on my edited digital photographs if saved with 85.). Thanks. I assume your camera is outputing jpeg. Does it have a raw or tiff output as well? The raw you'd have to drag through a converter thats specific to your camera, but you could probably write that out to tiff. As others noted, while working on the photo, save to gimp's native file format. After that, save as tiff or png for lossless compression. I also seem to remember that saving above the low 90's actually resulted in larger files (than the input) with no real improvement in image quality. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Underwater Photos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello! Does anyone know if there is some sort of documentation describing underwater pictures processing with The Gimp? I recently bought an underwater digital, camera but the pictures are too green. Any tips or suggestions? Luis Sauerbronn Well, part of tweaking underwater pictures is knowing why they look the way they do. Water absorbs the reds and to a lesser extent, orange, while passing the complement, blue-green. Depending on the distance from the white light source (sky/strobe) you might want to either try increasing red levels or turning down the blue/green components. http://www.scubaboard.com/cms/article18.html jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Blending skin tones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi-Looking for some help touching up our wedding photos. Apparently, the makeup person used something she shouldn't have, so my wife's face is quite a few shades lighter than the rest of her. I've read some of the manual and looked through a few tutorials, but I'm completely lost. If someone could point me in the right direction (in terms of a tuturioal or section of the manual), it would be a great help. I highly recommend this site http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints.html . While not a gimp tutorial it covers the concepts that can be mapped to most of the photo manipulation suites. There are gimp tutorials and books out there to get you gimped up This may be heresy on this list, but as a photographer I need to say it. Unless you intend to do a lot of photo-retouching (and given the importance of these photos), you may want to turn this over to a pro photo house that has people who do this full time. The point is that while it's not hard to get ok results, you'll spend a lot of time learning to get great results. Take a few passes at it, and if you're happy, fine. If not and you don't intend to make a hobby or business out of this, hand it over to a pro. High quality photo retouching is both a craft and an art, and can require the patience of Job. Assuming you had this shot professionally, I'm surprised they didn't suggest this. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Cleaning slides
I replied at length privately, but water is BAD for emulsions unless you're ready to go through a complete re-soak. Unless the re-soak ends in a bleach bath, it's probably not going to help, and could make matters worse. There are some very good sites that discuss photo material conservation/restoration and the appropriate materials and protocols. http://www.cr.nps.gov/museum/publications/conserveogram/cons_toc.html http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/conservation/photographs.html the USA library of congress web site also has some good references. I actually quoted a higher RH to him for storage. It seems 30-40%RH is now considered best. Last I heard it was 60% max PEC-12 is best to use if you need a cleaner. jim On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 19:22, Carol Spears wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:33:09PM -0500, Gary Montalbine wrote: I have some 40 year old 35mm slides and negatives that have mildew on them. What is the best way to clean them? I hope this is not OT. most of what i know about slides i learned 30 years ago -- i suggest water and a soft lint free cloth. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user -- BSD is what you get when a bunch of Unix hackers sit down to try to port a Unix system to the PC. Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a Unix system for the PC.Matt Fuller ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
