How do you select an entire image without grabbing the whole canvas. I have a small picture that's sitting on a larger canvas. Everything I have the layer selected and try to "select all"...it frames it, but it also includes the canvas as well. Fuzzy select won't work, since I want the entire image there's no negative space.
I am running Gimp 2.10 using a Debian Linux and today it suddenly refused to start. There is no error message issued when I start the program in command line. I tried purging gimp and re-install without any help.
After clicking on gimp or starting it through command line I could actually see a process of gimp. However, I cannot see the user interface being turned on. Does anyone have any suggestion how to solve this?
Hello everyone!
I recently bought a 49 inch tv that I want to rotate images on. Suggested pixel size is 1024x768. However, when I use this size, my pictures don't take up the entire screen and big black bars are on the side. If I do increase the pixels (1200x768) it takes up the entire tv but the image quality diminished substantially.
I would like my images to take up the entire width of the tv. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thank you!!!
How do you set up an eraser so that whatever the cursor pixels touch is completely removed in one click? I'm constantly having to feather things out to alpha with several clicks...like reverse anti-aliasing.
Is there a way to print layer(s) settings in 2.10? I've got some layers with different opacity settings for either the layer or brush, and if I switch to another layer/create a new layer when I return to a prior layer, the settings aren't recalled. That, or is there a way to make sure GIMP can recall the settings I had set up for the layer?
I think the "Color>Color Temperature" control (menu selection) is a new tool in GIMP 2.10. The term "Color Temperature" arises in other image processing software in the context of "White Balance" which as best I can tell is something that needs to be taken into account in order to develop the RAW image data available from some cameras. I believe it is the way to advise the software about the light conditions of the scene when the image was shot. While this provides a way to develop the RAW data in a manner that provides a more faithful/realistic reproduction of the original scene the software also allows for adjustments to be made that can alter an image to suite the artist intent of the photographer.
Insofar as GIMP does not develop RAW data it would seem that the later is what GIMP could do. Other image processing software commonly use the term "White Balance" for a control from which "Color Temperature" can be adjusted. This tool in GIMP 2.10 is the only one where I've noticed 2 rather than 1 adjustment. In my mind, it's always been thought of as a way to increase or decrease the temperature from what it is to start with. From experimentation it appears as though the same results can be achieved by either lowering what GIMP calls the "Original Temperature" or increasing what GIMP calls the "Intended Temperature" or visa versa. In that, the only thing that matters is the difference between the 2 settings. There is no need for 2 values (i.e., Original and Intended) to do this.
What am I missing? Is there some reason for supplying 2 values verses 1 (which would simply be the amount to increase or decrease)?
Hi all. I've been using Gimp (2.8.18/Win8.1, 64-bit) to mark off completed stitches when doing some complex needlework. I set the grid size to match the chart, and use snap to grid to easily fill in with a square brush. This has worked quite well, though if I'm careless, I can pull the brush off course.
I'm beginning a new project, and the brush meanders all over the place, though there are small jaggedy ridges, leading me to believe it's following some other guide I can't find. I've double-checked the settings from the old project to the new, and so far as I see they're the same.
I imported the new chart as a layer into an old page, and the brush works normally over the old image, but fails miserably over the new one. I've attached a screencap.
The blue section is the completed old work (original chart layer not visible), the white is the new chart, and the colors are on a separate multiply layer. The green lines were put in using the same amt of care (so even when new image is superimposed over it, the old image has some setting the new image lacks). (Layers, top to bottom: Multiply>colors, normal>new chart, normal>old chart.)
