On 04/02/2013 08:53 PM, Ulrich Pegelow wrote:
> Am 02.04.2013 20:46, schrieb Ammon Riley:
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Togan Muftuoglu
>> wrote:
>>> Why not just put the explanation in a para element and then place the
>>> image below.
>>
>> Personally, when doing the proofreading, I found
Am 02.04.2013 20:46, schrieb Ammon Riley:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Togan Muftuoglu
> wrote:
>> Why not just put the explanation in a para element and then place the
>> image below.
>
> Personally, when doing the proofreading, I found the dual column layout
> nice. First, having the image
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Togan Muftuoglu
wrote:
> Why not just put the explanation in a para element and then place the
> image below.
Personally, when doing the proofreading, I found the dual column layout
nice. First, having the image adjacent to the text decreases the chance
that the i
Am 02.04.2013 20:06, schrieb Togan Muftuoglu:
> On 04/02/2013 07:41 PM, Ulrich Pegelow wrote:
>> Hi Togan,
>>
>> although I also only inherited the structure as it is currently, I
>> strongly recommend to not make structural changes right now. We are just
>> ahead of darktable 1.2, including the ne
On 04/02/2013 07:41 PM, Ulrich Pegelow wrote:
> Am 02.04.2013 19:27, schrieb Togan Muftuoglu:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been working on getting the docbook sources into shape. Although
>> I manage to get them into a shape that they are now validating, I am
>> having difficulty understanding the intention
Am 02.04.2013 19:27, schrieb Togan Muftuoglu:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on getting the docbook sources into shape. Although
> I manage to get them into a shape that they are now validating, I am
> having difficulty understanding the intention of the author who made
> markup.
>
> For example why
Hi,
I have been working on getting the docbook sources into shape. Although
I manage to get them into a shape that they are now validating, I am
having difficulty understanding the intention of the author who made
markup.
For example why there is a need to create an informaltable for the
module (
Hallöchen!
jeremy rosen writes:
> hmm, wouldn't that tool make more sense as part of lensfun rather
> than DT ?
In the suggested form, yes.
> [...]
>
> A tool that helped/automated lens profiling would be awesome,
> though it would make more sense as an add-on like our
> noise-profiler rather t
hmm, wouldn't that tool make more sense as part of lensfun rather than DT ?
we have seen with profiled-denoise that DT is in a very good position to
collect hardware data from our users... probably in a better position than
projects like ufraw or lensfun...
A tool that helped/automated lens profi
