Thanks for the info. It seems exciting things are on the horizon. I eagerly
await with much anticipation.
/Gary
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but it seems that in gimp I have to make a
> copy of the base layer and apply any adjustments to the copy; and repeat
> this for any new ad
>
>> >I really appreciate the replies. In the work flow example I gave earlier
in
>> this thread, am I correct that there is no other practical way to
accomplish
>> those steps on a photo other than to perform them destructively on a
single
>> layer (set levels, hit ok, correct color, hit ok, etc.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> On 08/12/2009 04:21 PM, David Gowers wrote:
> btw, martin nordholts is doing some great work
> on layer trees presently and in the last few months.. they are shaping
> up well.
>
> You are confusing me with another M.N.
>
> It is Michael Na
On 08/12/2009 04:21 PM, David Gowers wrote:
btw, martin nordholts is doing some great work
on layer trees presently and in the last few months.. they are shaping
up well.
You are confusing me with another M.N.
It is Michael Natterer that has been doing great work recently on
preparing for layer
I hope you don't change GIMP too much. I'm just getting
used to the way it works now.
I've never used PS so I don't care how PS does things.
David Gowers wrote:
> This is certainly true; all of your points are true.
> This is being worked on.
> However, the specific idea of 'effect layers' is r
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Gary Collins wrote:
> It seems to me that gimp works a bit differently from photoshop. In
> photoshop (actually, I'm still using 'elements-2', can you believe? Although
> I have got Richard Lynch's excellent "hidden power" installed which releases
> a lot more of th
It seems to me that gimp works a bit differently from photoshop. In photoshop
(actually, I'm still using 'elements-2', can you believe? Although I have got
Richard Lynch's excellent "hidden power" installed which releases a lot more of
the underlying photoshop 7 functionality - and the book was
> >I really appreciate the replies. In the work flow example I gave earlier in
> this thread, am I correct that there is no other practical way to accomplish
> those steps on a photo other than to perform them destructively on a single
> layer (set levels, hit ok, correct color, hit ok, etc. so t
>I really appreciate the replies. In the work flow example I gave earlier in
this thread, am I correct that there is no other practical way to accomplish
those steps on a photo other than to perform them destructively on a single
layer (set levels, hit ok, correct color, hit ok, etc. so that you c
> > Ok, but, when you merge, do you not lose the ability to go back and fix
> > something that you might decide needs adjusting?
> Yes, which is why you don't merge until. you're absolutely sure that
> everything you're merging is to your satisfaction. And if there are a
> couple of layers which
Carusoswi wrote:
> Ok, but, when you merge, do you not lose the ability to go back and fix
> something that you might decide needs adjusting?
Yes, which is why you don't merge until. you're absolutely sure that
everything you're merging is to your satisfaction. And if there are a
couple of layers
Ok, but, when you merge, do you not lose the ability to go back and fix
something that you might decide needs adjusting? I thought that was the main
point of using layers. I see that xcf files seem to take a long time to save
- I guess that is, I suppose, due to their size. One thing puzzles me,
> I've learned the hard way to SAVE OFTEN!!! Or
> you can lose your work when GIMP freezes and dies.
I don't suffer from Gimp freezing or dying but I have been known to
press the wrong button and loose an hours careful cloning.
Norman
___
Gimp-user m
I've learned the hard way to SAVE OFTEN!!! Or
you can lose your work when GIMP freezes and dies.
Greg Chapman wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 10 Aug 09 07:29 Norman Silverstone said:
>
>>The short answer is yes, this is how I would do things. The only
>>difference is that when I am satisfied with
Hi Robert,
On 10 Aug 09 07:29 Norman Silverstone said:
> The short answer is yes, this is how I would do things. The only
> difference is that when I am satisfied with a stage I would merge
> the layers otherwise the file becomes very large. Also, from time to
> time I would save my work and ke
< big snip >
> The .xcf file archives my progressive work on the photo so that I can go back
> and refine my work/revise my edit decisions, etc. The TIFF gives me a full
> resolution "final" product. The RAW file archives the original image as it
> came out of the camera.
>
> This business with
>Hi Carusoswi
>On 09 Aug 09 22:37 "Carusoswi" said:
>> Seems if I copy the background layer leaving the mode normal, I can
>> then perform most any operation on that new level and give it a name
>> suggestive of that operation. Then, make a copy of that new level,
>> and perform some other oper
Hi Carusoswi
On 09 Aug 09 22:37 "Carusoswi" said:
> Seems if I copy the background layer leaving the mode normal, I can
> then perform most any operation on that new level and give it a name
> suggestive of that operation. Then, make a copy of that new level,
> and perform some other operation
Ok, perhaps I'm on the right track, now. Someone tell me if I'm moving in the
right direction. Seems if I copy the background layer leaving the mode
normal, I can then perform most any operation on that new level and give it a
name suggestive of that operation. Then, make a copy of that new leve
I have never really worked much with levels (in Gimp or anywhere else such as
PS) because I've really never gotten the hang of it. So, I was starting
through the 'meet the gimp' tutorials (from session 001!!) and realized that
part of my problem is that I need to change the mode in order to see th
20 matches
Mail list logo
