![]() It is not the tool that you would advise every user to use for their casual photo editing.” “That is pretty much in-line with our product vision,” writes GIMP developer Sven Neumann, “GIMP is a high-end application for professionals. The reaction from within the GIMP community is one of approval. An additional benefit here is that this decision frees up quite a lot of space on the single-CD Ubuntu always aims to ship on. To make matters worse, because the GIMP is a complicated and advanced application, its interface reflects that.Īs a result, it seems to make little sense to include the GIMP in the default installation of Ubuntu. This makes it unsuitable for quick image editing, because thanks to all its plug-ins, the GIMP’s loading time is long. The application is geared towards a different audience than Ubuntu itself it’s for technical and skilled high-end graphic editors. The reasoning behind removing the GIMP from the default Ubuntu install is solid. This actually touches upon somethin I’ve been wanting to talk about, a problem that plagues both Linux and Mac OS X: Paint.NET is Windows-only. At the Ubuntu Developer Summit, which took place last week, it was announced that the next release of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, version 10.04, will no longer carry the GIMP in its default installation. (I'll hopefully get some example shots soon though as I know I'm not doing real well with text on this. Though I agree with larger range your effect would work fine and much more quickly with being able to do this on a single layer only. Again, this is merely with the idea of pushing distortion or modification to the base effect Drop Shadow can create. If the original image is still on that layer, it will bleed into the shadow and create issues, especially if in high contrasting color to the shadow being used. A good for instance is using something like zoom and point blur combinations to create some striation in the shadow. Regarding the use of multiple layers and not keeping the original: If she was going to use further distortion on the layer underneath, the potential to have the edge of the image extend outward and creating a density issue was why that was recommended. Once opacity was turned down (at least in my fast help) I lost enough outer density to show the same form of shadow effect as the other tool was creating. Short version on density is that even set to 1 it was creating a distinct outline that would have to be compensated for with the opacity setting. to try and give a complete answer on the main question here.Īlso trying to ensure I can demonstrate the difference in the corner aspect of the other shadow/outline effects and the density issue with the widening radius. just trying to figure out how to create examples to see how much scope would be needed for both large canvas work etc. ![]() I realize this is more of a yes or no question. (Partial reply as I've been struggling to get some images together to help illustrate my point, but do not wish to seem rude by letting this drag on.) If that's true, I could increase the ranges in the next version. a blur radius of 100 pixels), I'm thinking you'd get your result faster with such a blur range in my effect and "keep original image" on, than having to do these multiple steps with duplicating the layer and separate blur. If I understand your needs correctly (i.e. But if you turn it off, the effect becomes significantly slower. The "keep original image" checkbox is present, precisely to allow this kind of scenario. But of course, the blur only blurs the shadow, not the original image. And you can think of the widening as being (more or less) the same as an object outline. You can think of the widening happening before the blur. ![]() As long as widening radius is less than blur radius, you will not get "unblurred" full opacity pixels in your shadow. In the interest of improving my effect for future versions: do I understand that the problem here is that you'd want (need) the set the blur radius to something between 75 and 100?Īlso, if you want the shadow to be darker, one way to get that is to use widening with bluring. then duplicate that layer and adjust the opacity to your liking if it is not dark enough to get the same effect. Or run Kris' drop shadow on a duplicate under the top layer with widening zero, blur 24 then run gausian blur at about 50-75 with keep original image un-checked. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |