"The Gimp" and its plugins?

Richard Polhill wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

RolandRB wrote:

Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which
plugins do you recommend?



I used a couple years ago under both Windows and Linux.

The main complaint I have is while doing USM that you have to set the
parameter, let it run, examine the result, undo, change parameters,
run it... eg: the pre-viewing while adjusting is not very good. They
may have improved it in the meantime.

My other complaint is that it ran in 8-bit image mode. There was a
separate version of it that did images in 16 bit, however it missed a
lot of the other upgrades to the main Gimp edition.

In short, the user interface is not as natural to use as PS, and the
16 bit image mode is not (was not, anyway) in the main release.

It's worth a try (as it costs nothing but time), but keep your
expectations in check.

Cheers,
Alan


Progressed a lot since then. You may be impressed with the current version.

Does it answer the questions above? If not, then no thanks.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

Does it answer the questions above? If not, then no thanks.

Hmm - exactly - from my usage I'd rank 16/48 bit image handling, levels,
curves, layers with masks, blur and unsharp masking as the most important
features. I probally could get away with nothing else.
Krita for KDE looks interesting - handles 16 bit and floating point images I
think, early days though - levels is not on the version I have on this
machine.

Pete
--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

RolandRB wrote:
On 31 Jan, 13:12, "RolandRB" wrote:
On 31 Jan, 12:51, Lassi Hippeläinen
wrote:





RolandRB wrote:
On 31 Jan, 12:05, Lassi Hippeläinen
wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
On 30 Jan, 19:50, Lassi Hippeläinen
wrote:
...
Haven't tested them all (too many). If you don't find anything that suits
your tastes, you can always write your own with Python.
Do you mean as a plugin or separate. If a plugin then I get the
impression that maybe the Gimp has come to the end of the line with
its current architecture. I don't know how difficult it would be to
change a plugin to work with a new architecture when it come along.
You can write your own plugin using Python. I wouldn't call it the end
of the architecture - quite the opposite: the architecture is very
flexible, since you can hang your own dongles on it using a well
documented API.http://www.gimp.org/docs/python/index.html
-- Lassi
Can I do this on a Windows XP PC?
It's a Gimp feature. Should work with any OS.
Then I might look into it.- Hide quoted text -

I've got python as part of Cygwin on my PC. Can I use that or does it
have to be another one?

Don't know, really. I'm running pure Linux...

-- Lassi

On Feb 1, 7:34 am, Peter Chant wrote:
Noons wrote:
yeah, definitely. but it *STILL* doesn't do 16 bit... :-(
there is a plug-in that's supposed to let it use 16-bit files,
but it crashed my Windoze box when I tried it. Haven't tried
that one in Linux, though.

Question is, does 2.3.* do it? There is no Slackware package so I will need
to compile from source. However, it has a fair few dependencies to be
compiled first si it will take a little while.


don't know. the last one I compiled was for Suse
and was 2.1. been using the windows version
since.

there is a gimp newsgroup, might be worth a post there?
comp.graphics.apps.gimp

What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment
format of this group?
Take it somewhere someone cares.

"Lassi Hippeläinen" wrote in message
...
RolandRB wrote:
On 31 Jan, 13:12, "RolandRB" wrote:
On 31 Jan, 12:51, Lassi Hippeläinen
wrote:





RolandRB wrote:
On 31 Jan, 12:05, Lassi Hippeläinen
wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
On 30 Jan, 19:50, Lassi Hippeläinen
wrote:
...
Haven't tested them all (too many). If you don't find anything that
suits
your tastes, you can always write your own with Python.
Do you mean as a plugin or separate. If a plugin then I get the
impression that maybe the Gimp has come to the end of the line with
its current architecture. I don't know how difficult it would be to
change a plugin to work with a new architecture when it come along.
You can write your own plugin using Python. I wouldn't call it the
end
of the architecture - quite the opposite: the architecture is very
flexible, since you can hang your own dongles on it using a well
documented API.http://www.gimp.org/docs/python/index.html
-- Lassi
Can I do this on a Windows XP PC?
It's a Gimp feature. Should work with any OS.
Then I might look into it.- Hide quoted text -

I've got python as part of Cygwin on my PC. Can I use that or does it
have to be another one?

Don't know, really. I'm running pure Linux...

-- Lassi

"Randy Stewart" wrote:

What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment
format of this group?

Gimp might be usable for scanning. Unlike spelling, it's at least
potentially relevent.

Take it somewhere someone cares.

If they had some useful information, I'd care.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Feb 1, 12:06 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:


Progressed a lot since then. You may be impressed with the current version.

Does it answer the questions above? If not, then no thanks.

Actually, it does answer:

The main complaint I have is while doing USM that you have to set the
parameter, let it run, examine the result, undo, change parameters,
run it... eg: the pre-viewing while adjusting is not very good. They
may have improved it in the meantime.

The USM preview window is now resizeable and easily
moveable across the original image, with a thumbnail as a guide.
The same applies to just about every other effect filter.

My other complaint is that it ran in 8-bit image mode. There was a
separate version of it that did images in 16 bit, however it missed a
lot of the other upgrades to the main Gimp edition.

Still the case, as I said. There is a plug-in that lets
it do 16-bit, but the Windows version of it didn't work
at all and the guy who wrote it couldn't care less about
that environment so that one is really only a go for linux users.

In short, the user interface is not as natural to use as PS, and the
16 bit image mode is not (was not, anyway) in the main release.

"natural to use as PS"? I've heard a lot about PS, but "natural"
to use is news to me... :-)
Anyways: the UI in GIMP 2 is completely different. You can
even set it to have a "Windows" look, or a "Linux" or "Unix" look,
depending on your taste. Natural to use? I don't know: to me it's
obvious and easy to figure out, to the point where I rarely have
needed the manual. As for 16bits, read above.

HTH

On 2 Feb, 06:17, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Randy Stewart" wrote:
What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment
format of this group?

Gimp might be usable for scanning. Unlike spelling, it's at least
potentially relevent.

Take it somewhere someone cares.

If they had some useful information, I'd care.

Exactly. If medium format film gets used then it will mostly be in a
scanned form and the scanning itself makes extra problems. Then there
is the graininess of film which is becoming out of fashion so some
"processing" might be required. Then there is the cost of Adobe
Photoshop to consider. Then there is the limitations of it and its
plugins so that medium format photography gets merged in with all
this.

In article .com,
"RolandRB" wrote:

On 2 Feb, 06:17, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Randy Stewart" wrote:
What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment
format of this group?

Gimp might be usable for scanning. Unlike spelling, it's at least
potentially relevent.

Take it somewhere someone cares.

If they had some useful information, I'd care.

Exactly. If medium format film gets used then it will mostly be in a
scanned form and the scanning itself makes extra problems. Then there
is the graininess of film which is becoming out of fashion so some
"processing" might be required. Then there is the cost of Adobe
Photoshop to consider. Then there is the limitations of it and its
plugins so that medium format photography gets merged in with all
this.

If you want useful information about Gimp, there's a Gimp website and a
Gimp group, and a Gimp irc channel, and stuff.

B. Grain isn't the issue in medium format that it is in 35 mm.

C. This used to be a more active group in terms of actually talking
about medium format cameras but being Usenet, it's now full of people
who probably don't own a medium format camera probably trolling.
Photo.net has got better medium format information. I've learned more
about what sort of film holders to buy to replace the Epson holders I
have than I've ever read any particularly useful information about
scanning here.

Randy Stewart wrote:
What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment
format of this group?
Take it somewhere someone cares.

I only answered a question that was put to me.

But the fact is that digital publishing is changing the whole landscape
of photography. Therefore software, scanners, printers, and anything
connected with personal computers (including the OS) is becoming an
equipment issue. Even in MF.

If you aren't interested in the Gimp, skip the threads that mention it
in the header. That's why the header is there.

-- Lassi, owner of three MF cameras and a Diana