Hello!

I have been writing some plugins for Gimp. I plan to share them soon since I believe they will be useful. But I have a problem where I wish you can help me.

I explain the general situation first before making my question.

Python allows imports. I have the plugins in two Python files. (One file registrates one Gimp plugin and the other registrates two.) The files contain large common parts. The common parts are currently embedded in both files, but it would be much better if the common parts could be in separate files instead and the two plugin files would just import them.

Now you perhaps think that I might just combine everything in one big file containing three registrations. But I don't want to do that. For future development I would want to have the common parts each in its own file, and I don't like the idea of having to combine everything in one big file every time I make a new version of some part. Besides, it is likely that those common parts will find usage in some future plugins.

Now I pose my question (sorry about the lengthy explanations). Please note that I know very little about computers.

Can the following be realized somehow? Suppose we have a file A.py implementing a plugin. Another file B.py contains material that we want to be imported in A.py, for instance some object called NameDefinedInB. In file A.py we have written

# File A.py
# ---------
from gimpfu import *
import B as imported_B
...
NameInA = imported_B.NameDefinedInB
# Then NameInA is applied in A.py in some way
...


In Gimp's plug-ins folder we put A.py and B.py in the same subfolder A as follows:

plug-ins
   |
   +---A  (subfolder)
   |   |
   |   +----A.py  (file, the plugin)
   |   +----B.py  (file, to be imported in A.py)
   |
   +---some other plugin
   |
   +---some other plugin
   |
  ...
   

This is how I would like to arrange things, hoping that the stuff in B.py will be imported in A.py.

I made a little test plugin about this. I have tried it with the following three installations of Gimp (on Windows 10 64 bits):

1: Gimp 2.10.18 from gimp.org
2: Gimp 2.10.18 portable from Samj
3: Gimp 2.10.18 portable from Partha

and got the following results:

1: The test plugin does not appear in Gimp's menu.
2: The test plugin does not appear in Gimp's menu.
3: Works OK! (And a .pyc file is created.)

The test plugin is in the attached zip file in case you wish to try it. Put the whole folder import_test as a subfolder in Gimp's plug-ins folder and restart Gimp. The plugin should be found as Filters/ImportTest/Import test. If it is, click it and see if anything happens in the error console.

Any ideas? Is this supposed to work at all? Since I want to share the plugins, I need a solution that works for everybody as such. Thanks in advance!

Attached Files

  import_test.zip (Size: 795 bytes / Downloads: 439)

My canvas is sized 1920x1080. The picture I'm working with is 1920x1279 and I'm trying to crop one part of it so I get 1920x1080. When I press Shift+C and enter size I want to crop it to, the cropping outline is much smaller than the size I'm entering. I know this for a fact because as I've said my canvas is 1920x1080 but when I put crop size into the same resolution (1920x1080), the crop outline is smaller than the canvas.

How do I solve this? I can't formulate the question good enough to find a solution via google, hence I'm asking here.

Example: gyazo screenshot

I have the same issue than described here by ringo.r81

Is that possible that there is no option to save a single line path fom a one pixel wide selection in gimp?

I hope to be able to explain my doubt.

The situation is this:
Situation 01.
• I have two layers:
•• The bottom one with any color image;
•• The top layer with an opaque image
The visual result of this overlay is the one shown in the image below, where it is seen that there is no visibility through the top image.
   
Situation 02.
• By modifying the top layer mode, I am able to obtain certain transparency, and the visual result shows that it is now possible to see part of the bottom image, as shown in the image below.
   
Attempt 01.
So I close the visibility of the bottom layer and make new from visible for the top layer.
The result I saved as a .png file

Unwanted Result.
The problem is that the image saved as .png does not maintain the conditions that were seen while under the effect of the applied layer modes. Part of the image transparency (not the background) is opaque (matte) again.
   
If I open this image and put it on top of another, there is no more transparency obtained in Situation 02.
   

There is some way to do this correctly and preserve the image as it is seen before it is saved (as it is visible while under the effect of layer mode).?

Thanks in advance.

Hi I do content creating for my business and have started using GIMP to create some content.

I was wondering if someone can help me achieve the effect I am trying to create.

I am creating black text and I want to create the black text with a kind of glowing white outline around it.



So far I have just been creating one layer of black text, duplicating the layer and then on the lower layer making the text white and slightly bigger than the other text on the upper layer.

This kind of gives the effect of a glowing white outline around it but it is not perfect becasue the text does not always line up and it doesnt look totally neat.

Can someone please give me a quick tutorial on the correct way to create this effect?

Please see example attached. here is the link if its not working:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/giSDZTPoD73ZzxQm6

Can you help me with applying smooth texture to a logo as in Microsoft Fluent design ? When I use gradient in Inkscape, it is working to some extent, but not that close. Wondering if it is different with GIMP.

Hi

Is there a video or step by step on how to change text form one language to other language  on an image

Say it show Monday, I want to change it to Maandag, how do I do it.

Hi All,

I've just joined the forum and had a quick search but couldn't find the answer to my question.

I am using the select by color tool to map light intensities from different photos. I can select regions of different brightness and can adjust the threshold level to widen or narrow the selection, all this I'm fine with. 

When I make a selection, the luminance is plotted on a histogram which shows the range of values the current selection is in. My question is; is there a way of setting the luminance values to drive the selection? I want to copy the selected regions and compare them so I want to ensure I have the same luminance values for the photos I'm comparing. 

[edit]: I am using 2.10.14

Thanks in advance

Mark

More industrial   
Pulled out my old linux  Autopano (was an alternative to Hugin) & stitched 3 photographs for the top image. Otherwise touched up with Gimp 2.10.14 Bottom pair ? Just nice curves.

   

Want to see it working?  (not my video)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeww1dq_PTg

I run into images like this over and over and just curious if I'm overlooking a better solution to repairing them. I'm only dealing with anime images, so a heavy handed approach with filters can sometimes work without completely ruining the image, but I was hopping there might be a better combination of filters or techniques.

These images do not have the distinct moire dots that are able to be descreened with some measure of success. My guess is the original sources were scaled down before descreening and this was the result? In any case, has anyone else run into images like this, and how did you deal with it?

   

This is my quick and dirty heavy-handed approach. I'm not sure that any approach would be able to preserve the finer details, but keeping that to a minimum while smoothing out the hard specks is certainly the dream.

G'MIC:
smooth [diffusion]
smooth [bilateral]
smooth[guided]
sharpen [inverse diffusion]

   

These images are usually from very old anime, and there just aren't better sources out there. I'm doing my best to make some of these images somewhat presentable for media centers, as new artwork will never become available again. (and I certainly do not have the talent to draw something that could pass for the original) 

Any input is most welcome!