[Gimp-user] (no subject)
Hi, I want to know where I can get the fontconfig thing that I found on this link http://www.gimp.org/unix/fonts.html ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Fontfonfig (Was: (no subject))
On 03.08.13 at 02:57 AM, christopher.draper93 wrote: Hi, I want to know where I can get the fontconfig thing that I found on this link http://www.gimp.org/unix/fonts.html The original source is: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/fontconfig/ If you are using Linux, search for fontconfig in your package manager. This has the advantage to give you the choice between development and prebuilt binary packages. To discuss development related questions, feel free to submit to the gimp-developer mailing list. Kind regards, Sven ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] The code for layer blending modes.
On 03.08.13 at 00:44 AM, Sumdag wrote: It's the first time I check GIMP's source code and I've been trying to find the file(s) where the layers blending mode formulas are coded. To find the formulas and behaviour described you can also check http://docs.gimp.org/2.8/en/gimp-concepts-layer-modes.html. You will probably have no luck if you look in GIMP for the blending modes. They are already ported to GEGL, so you will have more success looking in the GEGL sources. You find the GEGL API documentation at http://gegl.org/operations.html. The section 'Compositors' is your friend ;-) The GIMP version I have right now is 2.8.2 (the git version of gegl didn't compile here). Make sure, you have all necessary tools and dependencies installed. See also our developer wiki for more information: http://wiki.gimp.org/index.php/Hacking:Building To discuss development related questions, feel free to join the Gimp-developer or Gegl-developer mailing lists. Good luck + kind regards, Sven ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] (no subject)
On 8/2/2013 8:57 PM, christopher.draper93 wrote: > Hi, I want to know where I can get the fontconfig thing that I found on > this link http://www.gimp.org/unix/fonts.html http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/fontconfig/ ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] batch mode in gimp?
On Fr, Aug 02, 2013 at 08:18:58 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: > On 08/02/2013 10:47 AM, Josef Wolf wrote: > >On Do, Aug 01, 2013 at 09:44:59 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: > >>For such simple processing, you should consider using ImageMagick. > >Thanks for the pointer, Ofnuts! > > > >I am currently using IM. But my processing got so complicated, including > >various levels of quoting through muiltiple levels of schell scripts. > > > >I have a strong feeling that it is time for me to switch to a real, reliable > >programming language, which script-fu would be (so I hope). > > At the risk of raising some eyebrows, better switch to python. > You'll find more uses for it outside of Gimp, I know python and I know scheme (and a lot of other languages, if that matters). Granted, I don't know the scheme dialect used by gimp. I'd rather use any lisp dialect in favour of python. I started to learn python, but I broke, since I just can't get used to python's lambda's. Due to the indentation syntax, defining lambda's seems to be very ambiguous to me. OTOH, I'd probably never need lambdas for picture manipulation 8-) What about perl? how stable are perl's bindings to gimp? > and inside Gimp you > can do more things with it than with script-fu (like create your own > dialogs...). It is also a thousand times more readable. Ough? Isn't script-fu the _primary_ scripting language for gimp? How comes that python, which is working on top of the primary language can be more reliable than the primary language? Maybe my best bet would be cl-magick? Unfortunately, all the links on http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-magick/ seem to be dead :-( -- Josef Wolf j...@raven.inka.de ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] batch mode in gimp?
On 08/03/2013 11:57 AM, Josef Wolf wrote: On Fr, Aug 02, 2013 at 08:18:58 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: On 08/02/2013 10:47 AM, Josef Wolf wrote: On Do, Aug 01, 2013 at 09:44:59 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: For such simple processing, you should consider using ImageMagick. Thanks for the pointer, Ofnuts! I am currently using IM. But my processing got so complicated, including various levels of quoting through muiltiple levels of schell scripts. I have a strong feeling that it is time for me to switch to a real, reliable programming language, which script-fu would be (so I hope). At the risk of raising some eyebrows, better switch to python. You'll find more uses for it outside of Gimp, I know python and I know scheme (and a lot of other languages, if that matters). Granted, I don't know the scheme dialect used by gimp. I'd rather use any lisp dialect in favour of python. I started to learn python, but I broke, since I just can't get used to python's lambda's. Due to the indentation syntax, defining lambda's seems to be very ambiguous to me. OTOH, I'd probably never need lambdas for picture manipulation 8-) What about perl? how stable are perl's bindings to gimp? I don't think anyone is still using them these days. and inside Gimp you can do more things with it than with script-fu (like create your own dialogs...). It is also a thousand times more readable. Ough? Isn't script-fu the _primary_ scripting language for gimp? How comes that python, which is working on top of the primary language can be more reliable than the primary language? Define "primary". Historically first, yes... but all script-fu bindings are also availabe as python-fu ones, and the python interpreter you use has likely several millions more lines of code executed under its belt than Scheme, so its stability cannot really be a concern. Python-fu isn't written on top of Scheme but on the side... And just in case, I said 'readable', not 'reliable'... for instance in Python you can access some member of an aggregate using mnemonic names and not random bursts of C,A,D,R,(,) Maybe my best bet would be cl-magick? Unfortunately, all the links on http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-magick/ seem to be dead :-( Not sure that would be a significant progress... ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] batch mode in gimp?
>I know python and I know scheme (and a lot of other languages, if that >matters). Granted, I don't know the scheme dialect used by gimp. >I'd rather use any lisp dialect in favour of python. I started to >learn >python, but I broke, since I just can't get used to python's lambda's. >Due to >the indentation syntax, defining lambda's seems to be very ambiguous >to me. > >OTOH, I'd probably never need lambdas for picture manipulation 8-) > I'm a Python programmer by trade, and I develop my scripts in Script-Fu. It has numerous advantages over Python, such as being truly dynamic (you can refresh your scripts without restarting GIMP), better console (Python's indentation is hell), and like you noticed it has real lambdas. The scheme interpreter used by GIMP also has macros, which can be used to eliminate repetitive code. Script-Fu API is also more consistent than Python's (almost everything is an integer, and all gimp library functions return a list of return values), so Procedure Browser is also a complete documentation of the library. Granted, it would be nice if GIMP included a more powerful Lisp (such as ECL, Embeddable Common Lisp), but Script-Fu's Tinyscheme is surprisingly fun to program in. -- Grue (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] batch mode in gimp?
On 13-08-03 05:57 AM, Josef Wolf wrote:
I know python and I know scheme (and a lot of other languages, if that
matters). Granted, I don't know the scheme dialect used by gimp. I'd
rather use any lisp dialect in favour of python. I started to learn
python, but I broke, since I just can't get used to python's lambda's.
Due to the indentation syntax, defining lambda's seems to be very
ambiguous to me.
If you know Scheme then you know the Scheme of Script-Fu. The TinyScheme
interpreter used in Script-Fu follows the official Scheme standard as
documented in the R5RS but it is not a full implementation of R5RS.
I finally started learning to work with Python by writing a new GUI for
avrdude using wxGlade and wxPython. I don't find using indentation in Python
to be much of a problem (so far) but doing the GUI doesn't use much of
Python. I might have more issues with it when I do something more
complicated. The general rule seems to be that you indent anywhere you would
have used { } if one was writing in C.
What about perl? how stable are perl's bindings to gimp?
They are so stable you could measure the dust that has settled on the
bindings in inches. ;)
The gimp-perl binding is in need of a lot of TLC. It really needs a complete
overhaul. It has not been kept up-to-date with changes in GIMP. I have too
many other projects on my plate so I haven't touched the Perl binding in a
long time.
Isn't script-fu the _primary_ scripting language for gimp? How comes
that python, which is working on top of the primary language can be more
reliable than the primary language?
Script-Fu has been part of GIMP for many years. Whatever operating system
you are running when you use GIMP, Script-Fu is there. Other bindings, such
as Python, rely on external programs or packages (e.g. a Python
interpreter). Some operating systems ship with Python already installed and
some do not (or have not in the past). That has been addressed in some cases
by the GIMP installer including the option to install Python if a user needs it.
The Python, Perl, and Ruby language bindings (to name three bindings) do not
operate on top of Script-Fu. They are completely independent of Script-Fu.
Any language binding can still invoke a procedure supplied as part of
Script-Fu if desired.
Maybe my best bet would be cl-magick? Unfortunately, all the links on
http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-magick/ seem to be dead :-(
The top two links from a simple search using Google returned:
http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-magick/
http://www.cliki.net/cl-magick
--
Cheers!
Kevin.
http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're
| powerful!"
#include | --Chris Hardwick
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] batch mode in gimp?
On 13-08-03 08:37 AM, Grue wrote: Script-Fu API is also more consistent than Python's (almost everything is an integer, and all gimp library functions return a list of return values), so Procedure Browser is also a complete documentation of the library. There are a couple of minor points one has to keep in mind when reading the information provided by the PDB while working on SF scripts. Apart from that, the procedure browser does provide a (mostly?) complete documentation of the library. Granted, it would be nice if GIMP included a more powerful Lisp (such as ECL, Embeddable Common Lisp), but Script-Fu's Tinyscheme is surprisingly fun to program in. There have been discussions where people have said GIMP should use a more complete Scheme implementation. Guile was mentioned in particular in those discussions. SF has tried to stay small by using a small Scheme interpreter. It let's you automate tasks in GIMP and you can do some reasonably complex tasks. However, it does have its limitations and there are times when a more full featured programming language is useful. To that end, there other language bindings available one can use. -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're | powerful!" #include | --Chris Hardwick ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
Hello, I wanted to give my opinion about that subject ; here's my story… I am a long time user of Gimp, I used to have previous versions than the current 2.8 on my previous old computer (who was running on Windows XP!). I took many fonts, brushes, special effects, all I can find interesting over the Internet to have a full and useful Gimp. I recently bought a new computer (damn, it's so so fast now! *_* ), so I downloaded the last versions of my usual softwares. So as Gimp, with that 2.8 version. And… errr… this topic is exactly what I think : I really don't like that "export" feature, which is totally useless to my eyes. As I am a bit of a webmaster, I use many browsers to see how my websites look like in each of them. And when Google Chrome, some years ago, came up, and begin to get more and more people using it, I knew what was its mean strenght: the URL bar is the same as the Search bar. It means : 2 differents things can be treated by only 1 place ; the software is enough clever to "know" what the user want to do. And so was a good point with the "Save" function of Gimp : 1 button, and we were able to save our files as everything we wanted. Xcf, jpeg, png, gif, etc., and that was awesome. 1 button to do everything. That's why I think this "Export" function is really pointless, and I'll probably downgrade to the previous version of Gimp, because it's apparently the only way to get back what is, to my eyes, a great improvement : 1 button for everything. -- Sam_ (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 18:44 +0200, Sam_ wrote: > a great improvement : 1 button for everything. I'm guessing that a window with only one button marked Save, and no open, paste, open as layers, cut, copy, filters or other features would not in fact satisfy you, Sam_. In fact no recent version of gimp has had only one button even just for writing out images to disk. Maybe you've only _used_ one button? You should try the others. Variety is the spice of life and change keeps us young. Liam PS: re. your comment on Web browsers, firefox also lets you enter a search into the location bar bar, as did epiphany and even galeon a decade earlier. Maybe the GIMP team needs to hire a marketing firm to help convey The Power of Export. -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] HATE the new save vs. export behavior
I understand exactly how you feel. I hated the export feature too for like a month or so until it just became second nature for me to use it. It shouldn't take you that long to get used to it. However, if it bothers you that much, there's a plugin you can install that'll add a new option "Save/Export Clean" to the File menu. https://github.com/akkana/gimp-plugins/blob/master/save-export-clean.py There are a few drawbacks to using it though, which are addressed on the page. Sent from my iPod On Aug 3, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Sam_ wrote: > Hello, I wanted to give my opinion about that subject ; here's my story… > > I am a long time user of Gimp, I used to have previous versions than the > current > 2.8 on my previous old computer (who was running on Windows XP!). I took many > fonts, brushes, special effects, all I can find interesting over the Internet > to > have a full and useful Gimp. > > I recently bought a new computer (damn, it's so so fast now! *_* ), so I > downloaded the last versions of my usual softwares. So as Gimp, with that 2.8 > version. > > And… errr… this topic is exactly what I think : I really don't like that > "export" feature, which is totally useless to my eyes. > > As I am a bit of a webmaster, I use many browsers to see how my websites look > like in each of them. And when Google Chrome, some years ago, came up, and > begin > to get more and more people using it, I knew what was its mean strenght: the > URL > bar is the same as the Search bar. It means : 2 differents things can be > treated > by only 1 place ; the software is enough clever to "know" what the user want > to > do. > > And so was a good point with the "Save" function of Gimp : 1 button, and we > were > able to save our files as everything we wanted. Xcf, jpeg, png, gif, etc., and > that was awesome. 1 button to do everything. > > That's why I think this "Export" function is really pointless, and I'll > probably > downgrade to the previous version of Gimp, because it's apparently the only > way > to get back what is, to my eyes, a great improvement : 1 button for > everything. > > -- > Sam_ (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) > ___ > gimp-user-list mailing list > List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] The code for layer blending modes.
Thanks for the reply, I had installed the Gimp version from Ubuntu software center, when I uninstalled it and compiled again 2.8.2 it started to take into account the changes in the gimp-composite-generic.c file so I could make a modification to a layer mode and it worked after compiling 2.8.2. >Make sure, you have all necessary tools and dependencies installed. The optimal would be to compile the git version. The problem is that GEGL 0.3 gives this error when compiling: ../gegl/.libs/libgegl-0.3.so: undefined reference to `g_type_get_type_registration_serial' So couldn't attempt to compile GIMP (git). It would be great to be able to do it since the way that the last version handles layer modes allows more control over the blending proportions with the layer below. -- Sumdag (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list List address:gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
