On Friday 20 July 2007 00:26:00 Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
> Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:52:58 +0100 schrieb David Marrs:
> > David Southwell wrote:
> >> Anyone...
> >> Finally does anyone have a handle on the timeframe for 2.4??
> >
> > Not really. I think you'll just have to be patient.
> >
> > Incid
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 18:31:10 jim feldman wrote:
> 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 ed
On Thursday 13 September 2007 06:13:52 Mogens Jæger wrote:
> >Thank you all for the interesting comments and information. In the
>
> past
>
> >I was a great fan of the SLR and I had several starting with a
>
> Russian
>
> >camera, 'Zenit', which I still have and finishing up with a Nikon
>
> with
>
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:27:06 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote:
> > 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)
>
> Approximating the $USD-$AUD con
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 02:22:14 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 19:13:48 David at ATF4 wrote:
> > They all need to facilitate collaboration using a common
> > software interface, so that all users in the supply chain
> > can be mutually supportive and produce compat
On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:
> On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
> > --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user
> > > transition from the indu
On Friday 28 September 2007 06:20:05 gimp_user wrote:
> On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
> > > --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > ...[GIMP] does not have an i
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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 b
On Friday 28 September 2007 14:12:30 David Southwell wrote:
> On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote:
> > > While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin
>
On Saturday 29 September 2007 07:46:37 Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09-29-07 02:00]:
> > On Friday 28 September 2007 14:12:30 David Southwell wrote:
> > > On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> &g
On Saturday 29 September 2007 07:46:37 Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09-29-07 02:00]:
> > On Friday 28 September 2007 14:12:30 David Southwell wrote:
> > > On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> &g
On Monday 01 October 2007 16:09:23 jim feldman wrote:
> 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 suppo
On Friday 28 September 2007 17:28:36 jim feldman wrote:
> 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
On Monday 01 October 2007 16:41:02 carol irvin wrote:
> I've done some photography but usually I end up painting over it and
> converting it to mixed media as I really prefer painting to photography. I
> think for users who are drawn to art and painting, GIMP may satisfy their
> needs more easily.
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
> Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have
> at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non-
> distructive editing". The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps
> you can take the time to
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:07:56 gimp_user wrote:
> On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
> > Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have
> > at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non-
> > dis
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 23:11:19 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote:
> > IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user".
>
> "Average" can mean "typical" & it can mean numbers (as in
> mean/mode/median), either way, PS fits the bil
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 11:58:47 Greg wrote:
> --- Patrick Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for
> > it) and you need to shoot RAW.
>
> I know, but if you can retain your original bit-depth, the lossyness
> isn't as noticeabl
ORIGINAL Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
Date: Wednesday 03 October 2007
From: gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 23:11:19 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote:
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:
>
> Not "just noise", his points have some merit. But they are directed to
> the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his
> points. That ironically makes his mails pointless...
>
If you regard my contributions as noise
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 11:52:13 Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-02-07 13:47]:
> Much unnecessary quote removed.
>
> > One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an
> > image for your own use and can re
On Thursday 04 October 2007 03:41:05 Michael Schumacher wrote:
> > Von: gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time
> > reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will
> &
On Thursday 04 October 2007 04:42:55 Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 02:55:35 -0700, gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:
> > > Not "just noise", his points have some merit. But they are direct
On Thursday 04 October 2007 07:03:14 David Heino wrote:
> Hello,
> If I am producing images for the web, is 72 dpi still sufficient across all
> possible monitors--a little lap top screen to a large screen HDTV?
Think in pixels. If you need to cater for full screen digital projection
1024x768 pix
On Friday 05 October 2007 00:44:14 Johan Vromans wrote:
> Leon Brooks GIMP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One possible/partial answer is to use some JavaScript to read
> > the window's dimensions & alter the width & height parameters
> > of the tag to scale whatever you provide, so it fits.
>
> T
On Sunday 30 September 2007 13:46:01 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Sunday 30 September 2007 03:26:33 carol irvin wrote:
> > I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to do this
> > completely in Gimp if I set my mind to it. I don't
> > collaborate with any other artists so it doesn't matter
On Sunday 07 October 2007 00:26:54 Johan Vromans wrote:
> gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday 05 October 2007 00:44:14 Johan Vromans wrote:
> > This is not stictly "on topic" for this list
>
> To make it even more off-topic: it doesn't work
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 20:49:24 carol irvin wrote:
> in both photoshop and GIMP you do not need to do these functions as a layer
> adjustment
> (i.e. work on layers). You can use the Image menu in photoshop and make
> these adjustments
> without layers or in Gimp you can go to the Tools menu a
28 matches
Mail list logo
