Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.6.10 unstable installer for windows32and64bit
I did not find anything relevant. Also, the first installation has been done with the 32 bits version ahead of moving to the 64 version. So I believe that the best solution is to unsinstall everything (clearing also user data if they are not removed) and restart a proper installation with the new installer. Is it your own feeling too ? -Message d'origine- From: Paul Saumane Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 1:15 AM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.6.10 unstable installer for windows32and64bit On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:29:12 +0100, Paul Saumane wrote: I have two OS : XP32 and W7-64 onto two separate discs with a third one just for data. So, I don't believe it might be any confusion regarding W7-64 looking somewhere else than C when it is operating. On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 9:48PM JernejSimončič wrote : It shouldn't normally, but check that your %PATH% doesn't include any directory from another drive (you can see %PATH% by opening command prompt and typing echo %PATH% ). The result from echo %PATH% just give programms related to drive C:\ only Microsoft Windows [version 6.1.7601] Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. Tous droits réservés. Quote C:\Users\Paulecho %PATH% C:\Program Files (x86)\NVIDIA Corporation\PhysX\Common;C:\Program Files\Common F iles\Microsoft Shared\Windows Live;C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Windows Live;C:\Program Files (x86)\MiKTeX 2.8\miktex\bin;C:\Windows\sys tem32;C:\Windows;C:\Windows\System32\Wbem;C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\ v1.0\;C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Ulead Systems\MPEG;C:\Program Files (x 86)\Windows Live\Shared;C:\Program Files (x86)\Pinnacle\Shared Files\;C:\Users\P aul\AppData\Roaming\MiKTeX\2.8\miktex\bin\ C:\Users\Paul Unquote ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.6.10 unstable installer for windows32and64bit
Hi, After unstalling 2.6.10 everything was not cleared. So I cleared everything concerning GIMP in C:\Program Files (x86) ; C:\Program Files then in User Data (there is nothing concerning GIMP in the Regedit). I reinstalled the Gimp with the unstable installer and everything seems to work properly from now being noted that it installed himself in C:\Program Files. gimp-help-2-2.6.0.fr-setup.exe (fr in this case) is still to be installed in C:\Program Files (x86) otherwise it does not work. Thanks again for your help and for your very helpfull installers for such a beotian as I am. Hapy and properousNew Year Paul -Message d'origine- From: Paul Saumane Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 11:13 AM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.6.10 unstable installer for windows32and64bit I did not find anything relevant. Also, the first installation has been done with the 32 bits version ahead of moving to the 64 version. So I believe that the best solution is to unsinstall everything (clearing also user data if they are not removed) and restart a proper installation with the new installer. Is it your own feeling too ? -Message d'origine- From: Paul Saumane Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 1:15 AM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.6.10 unstable installer for windows32and64bit On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:29:12 +0100, Paul Saumane wrote: I have two OS : XP32 and W7-64 onto two separate discs with a third one just for data. So, I don't believe it might be any confusion regarding W7-64 looking somewhere else than C when it is operating. On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 9:48PM JernejSimončič wrote : It shouldn't normally, but check that your %PATH% doesn't include any directory from another drive (you can see %PATH% by opening command prompt and typing echo %PATH% ). The result from echo %PATH% just give programms related to drive C:\ only Microsoft Windows [version 6.1.7601] Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. Tous droits réservés. Quote C:\Users\Paulecho %PATH% C:\Program Files (x86)\NVIDIA Corporation\PhysX\Common;C:\Program Files\Common F iles\Microsoft Shared\Windows Live;C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Windows Live;C:\Program Files (x86)\MiKTeX 2.8\miktex\bin;C:\Windows\sys tem32;C:\Windows;C:\Windows\System32\Wbem;C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\ v1.0\;C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Ulead Systems\MPEG;C:\Program Files (x 86)\Windows Live\Shared;C:\Program Files (x86)\Pinnacle\Shared Files\;C:\Users\P aul\AppData\Roaming\MiKTeX\2.8\miktex\bin\ C:\Users\Paul Unquote ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Copyright and brushes, fonts - was Help
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Steve Kinney ad...@pilobilus.net wrote: Beware of free download fonts. Dafont.com is a good source for truly free fonts. Some are marked Personal Use Only, however this is almost unenforceable*. The whole area of typeface licensing is murky as hell. For example, I have a fully-licensed copy of Akzidenz-Grotesk Pro - but that is a typeface originally designed in the 1890s and in no sane society should require any sort of license! And then there are all the knock-offs: due to a quirk in the laws* concerning typefaces, one can extract the glyphs, create a new font with those glyphs, and then distribute it. The 'README' in the font's zip file may or may not be truth. In short: tracking the legality of a specific typeface is hellish at best, and sometimes near-impossible. I try to spend my time designing these days, and not worrying about font licenses. Out of necessity, I have several large commercial libraries - but I try to use free fonts whenever possible. I also use free (open source) software whenever possible - but again, out of necessity, I also use Adobe's products as well (those are licensed too, in case any of the jack-boots of the BSA are reading). The BSA only needs an excuse - if they raid you, they WILL find a violation. So kids: encrypt your hard drives and keep your heads down ;) Chris *IANAL, this is not legal advice ;) PS - the BSA is the most compelling argument I've ever seen for running an all-linux shop ;) Ask Ernie Ball about them sometime... ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Copyright and brushes, fonts - was Help
On 12/30/2011 07:37 PM, Steve Kinney wrote: On 12/30/2011 04:14 PM, Ofnuts wrote: Hai guise, Beware of free download fonts. A lot of the fonts on the big sites are under all rights reserved copyright. I once had an employer who was a font Nazi: He insisted on documenting the terms of use on every font installed on every machine in the shop, because a couple of years earlier he was raided by the BSA and had to pay a couple of thousand dollars to get out from under them. All the software in the shop was legal but many of the fonts on the machines were not. That does not mean never download a font. But it is a very good idea to check the copyright and terms of use on every font you do download. This is often spelled out in a text file that comes in a zip file with the font. In other cases it may be necessary to hunt down the author's website, if any. I don't have the links handy but if you add the terms +gpl and creative commons (with the quotes) when you search for font sources, what you find will mostly be easy to verify as free for all personal and commercial uses. If you want a whole bunch of brushes for the GIMP, here's the set I am using now: http://pilobilus.net/xfer/brushes.zip That's a 5 MB file, with the full standard GIMP brush set, plus nearly all of the extra brushes I have picked up over the years. There are a couple of readme text files in the archive, read them for terms and conditions on a few of the brushes in the collection (the author of one set wants you to mention his name when they are used). The rest I will not warrant as free of copyright encumberances, but I will say that I was careful to check when I was acquiring them and odds are you will have no problems. Especially since the BSA does not know what the GIMP is or what the .gbr file extension means. :o) Steve BTW I will leave the archive up on my site for a week or so. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list On another side note, while the whole tagging resources in 2.8 is a step in the correct direction, I STILL think the best long term direction for GIMP resource management would be a folder/subfolder approach. Personally, I use GURM( http://registry.gimp.org/node/13473) to manage my resources(brushes, patterns, etc) since it allows me to keep resources in their own folder AND any license information stays with the resource(some people have even put their license information as a .png to make it easier to say inside of GIMP and still view the license). Side note two: typically creators of artwork always retain copyright, but LICENSE the use of the artwork for specific uses. In general, you as a use NEVER get copyright to something, but are granted License to use that something for some purpose or another. I do some work on the CartographersGuild, and while there are many map making brushes available you have to be very carefl, because some brushes may free, but their license may or may not allow commercial use. Ie, one brush pack I might only be allowed to use for personal stuff only(but I can't do any commissioned work with these), while different brush pack may allow just about any use (including being used in commercial work) as long as I credit the source.In other words, just carefully read the license, abide by the terms, and don't assume any freedom in use of the resources beyond what the license explicitly states. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Daniel Smith wrote: or has anyone heard of using/modifying Gimp for mobile dev purposes? It doesn't make a terrible lot of sense :) Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
To all early New Years partiers... Just to be clear, though it's funny, I didn't mean using gimp ON mobile devices, I meant using gimp to develop FOR mobile devices. Now reread those links I sent, rethink, repost. Thanks Dan On 12/31/11, Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Daniel Smith wrote: or has anyone heard of using/modifying Gimp for mobile dev purposes? It doesn't make a terrible lot of sense :) Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
* Daniel Smith opened...@gmail.com [12-31-11 12:17]: I used to work with Photoshop every day for 10 years, and I think that people who truly have a preference merely like the interface better because they're used to it. I haven't been in graphics for a while now, and I find Gimp every bit as good as the old(er) Photoshop I used to use, especially for print or web pages. Of course, the last versions I ever even opened was CS or CS2 of pshop. It does seem support for RAW in Gimp is rather problematic. I don't understand this statement, last sentence. RAW support for/in gimp is provided by the same decoder most of the commercial apps utilize, dcraw. And is updated much more frequently and w/o cost compared to the commercial apps. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Daniel Smith wrote: To all early New Years partiers... There are, you know, timezones ;-) Just to be clear, though it's funny, I didn't mean using gimp ON mobile devices, I meant using gimp to develop FOR mobile devices. http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2010/10/19/exporting-qml-from-photoshop-and-gimp/ That's about all I know of. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote: I don't understand this statement, last sentence. RAW support for/in gimp is provided by the same decoder most of the commercial apps utilize, dcraw. And is updated much more frequently and w/o cost compared to the commercial apps. Only if you mean DCRaw. Because UFRaw development pretty much stagnated. Two releases in last two years. Compare that to ACR. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
* Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com [12-31-11 14:11]: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote: I don't understand this statement, last sentence. RAW support for/in gimp is provided by the same decoder most of the commercial apps utilize, dcraw. And is updated much more frequently and w/o cost compared to the commercial apps. Only if you mean DCRaw. Because UFRaw development pretty much stagnated. Two releases in last two years. Compare that to ACR. :^) quote from above is provided by the same decoder most of the commercial apps utilize, dcraw. And is updated much more frequently and w/o cost compared to /quote and I cannot compare to ACR, will not pay license fees. Rather buy glass for my D3 :^). -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote: Only if you mean DCRaw. Because UFRaw development pretty much stagnated. Two releases in last two years. Compare that to ACR. Yeah, the current version of UFraw is pretty far behind. Gimp does not make use of dcraw directly, it uses UFraw. And since dcraw is not a library, UFraw doesn't benefit from updates to dcraw unless they keep up with releases. UFraw currently barely supports my 2-year-old Pentax K-x, it's pretty pathetic. -- Frank Gore THE place to talk photography! www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On 12/31/2011 01:45 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Daniel Smith wrote: or has anyone heard of using/modifying Gimp for mobile dev purposes? +1 - a bitmap image is a bitmap image, as long as the editor and the target app support one relevant format in common, that's all there is :o) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Help
Alina Laue wrote: Kind regards from Alina, - from Denmark Alina, One of the areas of law where there is least conformity between jurisdictions is in the area if intellectual property, which includes copyright. The answers to your post seem to be mostly from the US, and in my experience may be significantly not in conformity with the intellectual property laws of the EU. I would caution you to get competent legal advice in your own jurisdiction, or in the jurisdiction in which you propose to engage in commercial activity. An example of the difference: in the US, a typeface cannot be copyrighted; in the EU it can. OTH, in the US, a digital representation of a typeface has been held to be a computer program, and thus eligible for copyright protection. ns ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message cal8n2zm3hdjocyvjpcqr_56qdnkoxquqyzmksnyfmorw9s4...@mail.gmail.com , Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote: Only if you mean DCRaw. Because UFRaw development pretty much stagnated. Two releases in last two years. Compare that to ACR. Yeah, the current version of UFraw is pretty far behind. Gimp does not make use of dcraw directly, it uses UFraw. And since dcraw is not a library, UFraw doesn't benefit from updates to dcraw unless they keep up with releases. UFraw currently barely supports my 2-year-old Pentax K-x, it's pretty pathetic. I've only been skimming the messages in this thread, but the discussion of raw files caught my attention, and I have a question... I've been planning on buying a Lumix DMC-FZ150 next year, when the prices come down some more. (I already own a DMC-ZS7 and I think it is probably the best camera I've ever owned. Images are sharp, and when the thing is in it's intelligent auto mode, it is almost impossible to take a bad picture.) One of the advantages of the FZ150, compared to its predecessors in the FZ series, is that it can do raw. (It also has an intelligent hotshoe... one of only about three or four long zoom bridge cameras that has that, and something I personally find indispensible.) Anyway, I just now went and resarched it and found that the Lumix cameras produce their raw images into something called .RW2 files. I'd just like to ask if there is going to be any problem in reading those into Gimp and/or getting them converted into something like standard tiff files, preferably on Linux/FreeBSD, rather than say, Windoze. (I don't like to use Windoze if I can avoid it.) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
* Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com [12-31-11 16:42]: I've been planning on buying a Lumix DMC-FZ150 next year, when the prices come down some more. ... I'd just like to ask if there is going to be any problem in reading those into Gimp and/or getting them converted into something like standard tiff files, preferably on Linux/FreeBSD, rather than say, Windoze. I would guess that when it doubt, the best course of action would be to check. http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
* Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com [12-31-11 16:54]: * Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com [12-31-11 16:42]: I've been planning on buying a Lumix DMC-FZ150 next year, when the prices come down some more. ... I'd just like to ask if there is going to be any problem in reading those into Gimp and/or getting them converted into something like standard tiff files, preferably on Linux/FreeBSD, rather than say, Windoze. I would guess that when it doubt, the best course of action would be to check. http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ Guess I should do the entire job :^) http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Cameras.html -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote: Anyway, I just now went and resarched it and found that the Lumix cameras produce their raw images into something called .RW2 files. Might be worth checking if it can also generate .DNG files. All of my Pentax cameras from the last 3 years (K-7, K-x, K-5) have the option of creating either Pentax-specific RAW files (.PEF) or .DNG RAW files. The .DNGs are pretty standardized and can be processed by most RAW processing software regardless of camera-specific support. The only issues you'll come across is that sometimes the extra pixels on some edges of the frame won't be automatically cropped out if your specific camera model isn't supported. -- Frank Gore THE place to talk photography! www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message 20111231215357.gs25...@wahoo.no-ip.org, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote: * Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com [12-31-11 16:42]: I've been planning on buying a Lumix DMC-FZ150 next year, when the prices come down some more. ... I'd just like to ask if there is going to be any problem in reading those into Gimp and/or getting them converted into something like standard tiff files, preferably on Linux/FreeBSD, rather than say, Windoze. I would guess that when it doubt, the best course of action would be to check. http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ Well, yea, I looked at that. But often, online documentation doesn't tell the real or complete story, so I thought that I would ask. Also, dcraw may grok .RW2 files OK, but didn't somebody here just say that UFRaw (which Gimp also needs to read these kinds of files?) is seriously behind the curve? Bottom line: Has anybody here actually, personally, and successfully used Gimp+DCRaw+UFRaw to read Lumix raw files? That's my real question. (And I'd like to know before I spend about four hundred bucks on a new Lumix camera.) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message 20111231215523.gt25...@wahoo.no-ip.org, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote: Guess I should do the entire job :^) http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Cameras.html Yes, thanks. I saw that too. But if you will recall, is was just earlier today that Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com wrote: Yeah, the current version of UFraw is pretty far behind. Gimp does not make use of dcraw directly, it uses UFraw. And since dcraw is not a library, UFraw doesn't benefit from updates to dcraw unless they keep up with releases. UFraw currently barely supports my 2-year-old Pentax K-x, it's pretty pathetic. The Pentax K-x is listed on the page you pointed me to (as being a supported camera type) but there's a difference between supported and (in Frank Gore's words) barely supported. And I've experienced that difference myself in other situations with other (entirely unrelated) software and it is most frustrating and unproductive. (I still can't get my new Epson Perfection V500 Photo scanner to work with anything *NIX, even though it theory it should be able to.) So this explains why I asked about gimp support for .RW2 files, even though I did in fact already see the pages you helpfully pointed me to. I'd like to know if Gimp supports .RW2 files, or if it only barely supports them (perhaps even, God forbid, in a pathetic way). ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message CAL8n2zN+=44uKMko4QbAww10XR2SVg3v1bFtoL=Lu4Qud4=5...@mail.gmail.com , Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote: Anyway, I just now went and resarched it and found that the Lumix cameras produce their raw images into something called .RW2 files. Might be worth checking if it can also generate .DNG files. All of my Pentax cameras from the last 3 years (K-7, K-x, K-5) have the option of creating either Pentax-specific RAW files (.PEF) or .DNG RAW files. The .DNGs are pretty standardized and can be processed by most RAW processing software regardless of camera-specific support. The only issues you'll come across is that sometimes the extra pixels on some edges of the frame won't be automatically cropped out if your specific camera model isn't supported. Thank you! I am researching this now. So far it doesn't look good, which is to say that I don't think that the Lumix cameras can produce .DNG files on their own. But I also learned that there is a free DNG Converter utility available on the adobe.com site, an I just downloaded a copy of it, so I'll have it later on, just in case. The bad news? Of course, it is only available for Windoze and Mac. :-( Oh well. Better than nothing if I can't get Gimp+DCRaw+UFRaw to work for any reason. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote: But I also learned that there is a free DNG Converter utility available on the adobe.com site, an I just downloaded a copy of it, so I'll have it later on, just in case. The bad news? Of course, it is only available for Windoze and Mac. :-( Oh well. Better than nothing if I can't get Gimp+DCRaw+UFRaw to work for any reason. http://www.digikam.org/drupal/node/373 I've used Digikam for my photo collections for years. -- Frank Gore THE place to talk photography! www.FriendlyPhotoZone.com ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:55:21 -0800 Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote: The bad news? Of course, it is only available for Windoze and Mac. :-( Oh well. Better than nothing if I can't get Gimp+DCRaw+UFRaw to work for any reason. Did you check digikam? http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y7.htm Exceptionally, this product is also listed below as a raw converter, (but only counts once towards the total of products that support DNG). It is the first DNG Converter that runs native on Linux. (It also runs on Windows and MacOS-X). John ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
On 12/31/2011 05:55 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: But I also learned that there is a free DNG Converter utility available on the adobe.com site, an I just downloaded a copy of it, so I'll have it later on, just in case. The bad news? Of course, it is only available for Windoze and Mac. :-( Oh well. Better than nothing if I can't get Gimp+DCRaw+UFRaw to work for any reason. Since this is not the kind of application that would be expected to depend on proprietary Microsoft libraries, and runs on Windoze and Mac, it is very likely (99% or so) that it will work perfectly well under WINE on Linux. If you can get hold of any file that it can convert, you can test it under WINE and if it works at all, it should work for all supported file formats. Or if that fails, Virtualbox and and any old Microsoft OS installer disk should be just a little less inconvenient than buying a low end used computer with the required OS already on it... :o) Steve ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
* Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com [12-31-11 17:39]: So this explains why I asked about gimp support for .RW2 files, even though I did in fact already see the pages you helpfully pointed me to. I'd like to know if Gimp supports .RW2 files, or if it only barely supports them (perhaps even, God forbid, in a pathetic way). Surely you can find and download a native raw, .rw2, file from your chosen camera and try it :^) ps: I did before getting my d70, then d200, d3. Too big a step for unknowns -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Photoshop vs Gimp for mobile dev?
In message CAL8n2zMck+rVT-xF=6k621a6iyzfoczmjvprvrbun-gffb_...@mail.gmail.com , Frank Gore g...@friendlyphotozone.com wrote: http://www.digikam.org/drupal/node/373 I've used Digikam for my photo collections for years. Hey! Thanks a bunch! I didn't know about that one at all. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Printing a large image in sections
I have an image sized 20 x 24. I just have a standard 8.5 x 11 printer. Can I print the image in sections? If so, how? I did this with a PDF document once. Thanks, George ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Printing a large image in sections
On 12/31/2011 07:32 PM, george seifert wrote: I have an image sized 20 x 24. I just have a standard 8.5 x 11 printer. Can I print the image in sections? If so, how? I did this with a PDF document once. Thanks, George I think I would probably open that thing in the GIMP, and drag guide lines into the canvas from the rulers to divide it into 6 sections, 2 sections x 3, so that each section will easily fit onto one page the printer can handle. Then crop the image down to one of the sections, print the resulting image, and undo the crop. Crop to another section, print, undo, etc. until you have six hard copy images. The guide lines make pixel perfect precision easy. If for some reason you want precise dimensions for the sections, calculate using the DPI of the image to get linear measurements, and use the Image Guides New Guide command to position guides exactly where you want them. You could also save six images in the format of your choice and print them elsewhere or with a different application, depending on what works best with your combination of hardware and software. :o) Steve ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Unsubscribe
On 31-Dec-11, at 10:06 PM, Steve Brady wrote: Ya I knowuse the webpage link in each forum message. Done it several times and it has yet to work. So would the moderator of said forum please remove me from the list. Thank you kindlyand no I don't use photoshopI get my pictures right the first time ;) S ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] Thanks for this plugin!
On 12/31/2011 03:41 PM, Akkana Peck wrote: Here are some other good sources for freely usable images: http://gimpbook.com/links.html#freeimages ...Akkana That started me poking around and I found this on Akkana's site: http://shallowsky.com/software/gimp/arrowdesigner/ Making arrows like these is not hard but it can be very time consuming, especially when you need a bunch of them. This script can be a massive productivity booster. :o) Steve ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
