Hi,

cedric writes:

1. Copy Visible does not copie visible, but the visible of layer aspect. Explanation : just deactivate a channel (R for exemple) the copy visible picture is the same as if they were all activated. Is there any way to overpass that ?

Well, you could try to improve the "Copy Visible" script. But perhaps it should simply be renamed since "Copy Visible" is not exactly what it does.

2. It seems that is is not possible to delete a primary channel (contextual menuitem is always grayed). What about if I want to do a 2-channel picture, particularly for 'professional' print ?

GIMP images are either gray or RGB. If you want to do duotone, the GUM explains how to do that with GIMP.

4. I've used Decompose to CMYK to get a black channel and increase contrast on a document. But i've been surprise, because after doing the same in Adobe Photoshop, the black channels were different ? Is that normal ? What have I bas done, if any ?

There are an infinite amount of results for decomposing an RGB image into CMYK. The conversion depends on the amount of black pullout as well as on the properties of the printer, the inks and the paper that is being used. The decompose plug-in takes a rather naive approach so it is not surprising that you don't get the same result.

Sven

hello, this was an interesting list. On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 01:02:28PM +0200, cedric wrote:

May be someone has another feeling, but i've found today strange behaviors.

1. Copy Visible does not copie visible, but the visible of layer aspect. Explanation : just deactivate a channel (R for exemple) the copy visible picture is the same as if they were all activated. Is there any way to overpass that ?

the most reliable "Copy Visible" for me has always been and will continue to be this:
-->Image -->Merge Visible Layers (think about those options that you are presented, depending on what you need from this special layer each of them are useful) -->Edit -->Copy
-->Edit -->Undo
this gives you just as much as the original Copy Visible script did.

the original script was written in perl. perhaps installing perl will also fix your problems with the current script. i havent investigated this yet. what you find confusing is a script-fu that some guy took about 2 minutes to write one evening on #gimp. he said it was two lines.

this one suffers because the people who use gimp a lot and work on the core dont use it. i dont know if anyone should even say they are sorry for your confusion or not even.

As I always do, some special congratulations to David for his Batch Processor that should really be included in GIMP, and to Damien Genet for the Rollover Perl script (unhappily it is not updated for 2.x).

i have yet to try davids batch processor. and i am sorry about this. however, this rollover script is something that the linux people probably wouldnt use -- although it would be sort of interesting to write. this script was not included in the gimp tarball nor in the gimp-perl tarball. also, have you tried to use css for this instead of javascript? or, does this use css?

carol

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

the most reliable "Copy Visible" for me has always been and will continue to be this:
-->Image -->Merge Visible Layers (think about those options that you are presented, depending on what you need from this special layer each of them are useful) -->Edit -->Copy
-->Edit -->Undo
this gives you just as much as the original Copy Visible script did.

This is basically what the Copy Visible script is doing. Well, more precisely what it does is:

1. Duplicate the image 2. Merge Visible Layers
3. Copy
4. Delete the duplicate

the original script was written in perl. perhaps installing perl will also fix your problems with the current script. i havent investigated this yet. what you find confusing is a script-fu that some guy took about 2 minutes to write one evening on #gimp. he said it was two lines.

I don't even remember a perl version of this script. Are you certain that one exists?

Sven

happy birthday, Sven, btw. are you old enough to drink alcohol in the united states legally yet?

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:48:26AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Carol Spears writes:

the most reliable "Copy Visible" for me has always been and will continue to be this:
-->Image -->Merge Visible Layers (think about those options that you are presented, depending on what you need from this special layer each of them are useful) -->Edit -->Copy
-->Edit -->Undo
this gives you just as much as the original Copy Visible script did.

This is basically what the Copy Visible script is doing. Well, more precisely what it does is:

1. Duplicate the image 2. Merge Visible Layers
3. Copy
4. Delete the duplicate

Merge Visible is a script-fu or a C plug-in? I only know that it is only a plug-in and not a tool. just because it is more fun to guess than it is to look it up, i guess that merge visible was a script-fu that got written to help with jtl's logos?

the original script was written in perl. perhaps installing perl will also fix your problems with the current script. i havent investigated this yet. what you find confusing is a script-fu that some guy took about 2 minutes to write one evening on #gimp. he said it was two lines.

I don't even remember a perl version of this script. Are you certain that one exists?

funny. this is not an argument or even an incorrect statement but it is so deceptive in its ability to state the truth and almost sidetrack from things. i do get to play with the giants of bull, dont i?

i must ask you, did you ever install gimp-perl, much less use it? i don't remember this ever occuring. maybe some solemn vows and promises to never use it but at no time can i recall you ever installing gimp-perl and using it.

i agree, you would not remember that which you never used.

when was the current one written? i think at the beginning of the last third of gimp-1.3 development.

i didnt really like this one.

carol

On Monday 13 September 2004 19:48, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

the most reliable "Copy Visible" for me has always been and will continue to be this:
-->Image -->Merge Visible Layers (think about those options that you are presented, depending on what you need from this special layer each of them are useful) -->Edit -->Copy
-->Edit -->Undo
this gives you just as much as the original Copy Visible script did.

This is basically what the Copy Visible script is doing. Well, more precisely what it does is:

1. Duplicate the image 2. Merge Visible Layers
3. Copy
4. Delete the duplicate

the original script was written in perl. perhaps installing perl will also fix your problems with the current script. i havent investigated this yet. what you find confusing is a script-fu that some guy took about 2 minutes to write one evening on #gimp. he said it was two lines.

I don't even remember a perl version of this script. Are you certain that one exists?

HAH... I could do it in Python and it would take me two minutes and two lines....

Just kidding... Most likely It'd take me about half an hour at least..I have to write this stuff browsing every detail on the PDB browsers, and it is time consuming. And of course, it takes at least as many lines as actions (4 + undo/redo/register overhead) , unless someone is really wanting some obfuscated python.

However, I am writing it because if cedric really wants it... (Cedric, you there)? I could do it in python with an extra call to the curves tool to make the copy respect the visible channels.

Regards...

JS ->

Sven

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

i must ask you, did you ever install gimp-perl, much less use it? i don't remember this ever occuring. maybe some solemn vows and promises to never use it but at no time can i recall you ever installing gimp-perl and using it.

I don't really get what you are up to, but yes, I have used gimp-perl.

when was the current one written? i think at the beginning of the last third of gimp-1.3 development.

The "Copy Visible" Script-Fu that comes with GIMP has been added to the CVS tree October 22th 1997 by Adrian Likins.

Carol, you should try to research your arguments better. Or, better yet, stop arguing about everything.

Sven

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:06:20PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Carol Spears writes:

i must ask you, did you ever install gimp-perl, much less use it? i don't remember this ever occuring. maybe some solemn vows and promises to never use it but at no time can i recall you ever installing gimp-perl and using it.

I don't really get what you are up to, but yes, I have used gimp-perl.

liar.

when was the current one written? i think at the beginning of the last third of gimp-1.3 development.

The "Copy Visible" Script-Fu that comes with GIMP has been added to the CVS tree October 22th 1997 by Adrian Likins.

that is merge visible.

Carol, you should try to research your arguments better. Or, better yet, stop arguing about everything.

you cannot believe everything that you read. i have been using gimp way too much. i dont believe cvs logs, do you?

carol

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

liar.

Carol, I am not going to let you call me a liar on the GIMP mailing-lists. I hereby ask you to apologize for this. Otherwise I will have to ask for your gimp.org mail address to be revoked and you being excluded from this list. I don't think your behaviour here is any longer tolerable. Apologize or leave.

Sven

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 12:33:26PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Carol Spears writes:

liar.

Carol, I am not going to let you call me a liar on the GIMP mailing-lists. I hereby ask you to apologize for this. Otherwise I will have to ask for your gimp.org mail address to be revoked and you being excluded from this list. I don't think your behaviour here is any longer tolerable. Apologize or leave.

apologize for what?

you are confusing Copy Visible with Merge Visible

it is such a fine point that i dont even care that you are mistaking this.

how the hell do you think you are going to revoke my addy anyways?

you never used perl. maybe you installed it. you had the freaking ANTI PERL web site before wilber ate it. remember?

carol

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

apologize for what?

I think I have been pretty clear here. I want your public apologies for calling me a liar. It's simple: you state that you have been wrong and apologize for it.

you are confusing Copy Visible with Merge Visible

No I am not. You are confusing the two. I have read the script and I am pretty sure that what I said is correct. However that is not at all the point here.

how the hell do you think you are going to revoke my addy anyways?

You aren't going to try to test me on this, are you?

you never used perl. maybe you installed it. you had the freaking ANTI PERL web site before wilber ate it. remember?

Carol, I am seriously concerned about your state of mind. Now you are starting to make up your own version of the past? You need help.

Sven

On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 11:14:54PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Carol Spears writes:

apologize for what?

I think I have been pretty clear here. I want your public apologies for calling me a liar. It's simple: you state that you have been wrong and apologize for it.

you are confusing Copy Visible with Merge Visible

No I am not. You are confusing the two. I have read the script and I am pretty sure that what I said is correct. However that is not at all the point here.

at this point a real german would back this up with documentation. i am the stupid american, you are the well-documented german. i do not have time to go to that archives site to show everyone your rebel anti-perl website .... stupid frames site.

how the hell do you think you are going to revoke my addy anyways?

You aren't going to try to test me on this, are you?

maybe. got some documentation on that?

you never used perl. maybe you installed it. you had the freaking ANTI PERL web site before wilber ate it. remember?

Carol, I am seriously concerned about your state of mind. Now you are starting to make up your own version of the past? You need help.

what would trust? too drunk and high Sven to get up from the keyboard. or a really dull developers list?

i do need help, i drink a gallon of sodium pentothal a week in order to keep up with you guys.

anyone want to search log files for evidence of Sven Neumann ever once using a perl plug-in?

carol

Sven

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

No I am not. You are confusing the two. I have read the script and I am pretty sure that what I said is correct. However that is not at all the point here.

at this point a real german would back this up with documentation. i am the stupid american, you are the well-documented german.

Read the source. The script is extraordinarily simple. Bascially what it does is to create a duplicate of the image, merge visible layers in the duplicate, copy the result to the clipboard and delete the duplicate. It is thus not surprising that what ends up in the clipboard is identical to the result of merging the visible layers on the original image.

i do not have time to go to that archives site to show everyone your rebel anti-perl website .... stupid frames site.

So the Script-Fu megaperls site that I created back in 1997 was a rebel anti-perl website? If I remember correctly all it did was advertizing a couple of scripts that I wrote. I might be wrong but I also think that at that point in time there wasn't even a GIMP Perl binding available that I could have rebelled against.

Carol, I am not going to argue with you any longer. It should be evident to whoever is still wasting his/her time with this thread that your argumentation is flawed. Now, please accept that your behaviour was wrong, apologize for it and let's forget about it. And please, try to be less aggressive on this mailing-list. If you want to, you can continue your pointless rants elsewhere but please let this list be a friendly place where GIMP users and developers can exchange their ideas and experiences and help each others.

Sven

And please, try
to be less aggressive on this mailing-list. If you want to, you can continue your pointless rants elsewhere but please let this list be a friendly place where GIMP users and developers can exchange their ideas and experiences and help each others.

a-fucking-greed (i.e., 'agreed!').