Hi!

How to disable the command line "DOS" window which pops up every time I launch gimp 2.9.6. I know I did it back in the days of the previous years-old beta but I seem to have lost my notes on gimp and normal internet lookup doesn't boing any clear answers either. Any ideas? I've looked into gimp startup command line parameters. Either I'm blind or there is no solution for me there. I only see the option to enable the console. This should matter really but just in case - I'm currently on Windows 7 64-bit.

I'm messing around with images and audio and data (databending sorta) and I've encountered an image file that has an aspect ratio of a very small width and a very large height, and is in the .data 'format' (aka no format).

If the size goes above 1883 x 693, even with the preview at the largest size the window will go, there are parts of the image i can't see. I don't know what original height the image had, and in the (nonplanar) RGB mode it doesn't affect the parts of the image that I can see. 

Is there a way to zoom out in this preview? It's an oddly specific question, but for that reason I can't figure it out.

(I'm on windows 10 using version 2.8.22 if that matters)

anyone know if there's a way to use this without limiting the rendering to 1000x1000? i'd like to make one around at least 4000x4000

thanks <3

Good Day!
 
I am a newbie learner to “” and I am trying to accomplish a series of steps, but things just don’t seem to work out for me.
 
I have 2 problems, well more but I wont go into everything J
 
-         Basically   I am trying to import a picture of varing sizes, and then resize them to fit a specific size.
 
For example,  I am importing an image  that is 5” x 3”,   and wanting to print it on a label, 
So I need to be able to copy it out of GIMP, and past it into a Avery Shipping Label template in Word.
 
I have been a little successful, but I am having issues with the sizes changing.
 
Steps I am completing.
 
1-     Open Image.
2-     Click menu “Image”  and then click Scale image
3-     I assign the Size height as  1.30 inches  (because of the linked reference, width defaults to  2.0 inches ISH  
4-     Resolution seems to imply its  76 x 76
5-     And it seems like it works, though when I COPY and paste into Word and print.  The size is a little off.
 
However, I went on to the next picture, which ultimately was a desktop  image ,  I completed the following
 
1-     Open Image.
2-     Click menu “Image”  and then click Scale image
3-     I assign the Size height as  1.30 inches  (because of the linked reference, width defaults to  2.0 inches ISH  
4-     Resolution seems to imply its  560 x 560  (don’t have the real numbers handy)
5-     Then I copy it , and then Paste into Word.
6-     When I look at the image in my template  the image height should be 1.3, but its about 2.3.  and the width is also messed up.
 
I am confused. If I tell them image to be 1.3  why is it not listening?   I understand there is a setting called Print size somewhere, but I am trying to make the image  Size X, but something else is getting in the way.
 
 
I am hoping someone can give me an answer,  or maybe point me to a Youtube video that goes over it.   I have watched about 6-8 tutorials, but I cant find anything that  goes into that whole aspect of

I want to try Gimp 2.9 and i have just downloaded 'Gimp-2.9.6-std-64bit-portable' from Partha.

Can i use this portable version without any problems on Win7 64bit and still keep my current Gimp 2.8.18 ?

Another update and a new filter.

This one is in Filters -> Blurs -> Median blur. Often used for noise reduction since it tends to preserve edges.

   

..and..since it is a GEGL operation you do get an on-canvas preview.

I've been a Gimp user since 2000.  I've been a PS user during the same time (and currently am a subscriber to CC).  Before that, I used Micrographix Picture Publisher, a very capable photo editor not at all dissimilar to GIMP/PS (whatever happened to them?).

I recently installed Gimp 2.9.7 on my system, and I am thrilled with the steps forward in that version (runs solid on my Ubuntu 17.10 system).
That Gimp version also was packaged with Darktable as a RAW image plugin.  I had previously toyed with Darktable, but, since it was packaged with Gimp, decided to spend some time with it.  My first attempts were not unlike previous sessions toying with the application, no real direction on how to proceed.  After watching a couple of tutorials, the workflow became clear, and now, I am an enthusiastic user of that application as well.

I guess it shouldn't matter to me what the general consensus is on editing applications, but, I confess, it matters to me.

Over the years, I have perused many an article comparing the relative merits of one editing application over another, and, it seems, whenever Gimp is mentioned, there is a chorus of comments about how steep is the learning curve.  Why is this?  Just yesterday, I came across an article listing 25 free editing applications for those who don't want to "pay a subscription fee".  Obviously, the article could not deal with any of these applications in depth and still cover all 25 of them, but there were decent comments about all 25 except for Gimp which was described as being full of features, but not as user friendly as most.  I wanted to add mine to the list of comments following the article, and registered to do just that only to find that the comment section was closed for the article (written in 2015). 

I am left still wondering why the reviewer could not find anything better than that to report on the GIMP.  I do pay a subscription, as I am curious and like to see what's happening on the PS side of things.  I took the time to become reasonably proficient with LR, and, for me, that learning curve was not a downhill coast, nor was figuring out Darktable.  The learning curve for GIMP is not a bit more steep than that of Photoshop.  Both programs function in a very similar manner.  Instead of changing your brush size through the tiny (and I do mean tiny) interface at the top left of the PS screen, GIMP's interface appears (on my machine) as a reasonably sized pane at lower left.  There is a keyboard shortcut for PS Levels or you can use drop down menus two deep as I recall to invoke it with mouse gestures.  In GIMP, you click "Colors" then "Levels" (if there is a shortcut key, I have never found it).  It goes on and on.  Levels in PS work essentially the same as they do in GIMP.  The basics of selecting brushes and adjusting their size works the same in both programs.  There is no major difference in the use of the clone tool (I do like that PS gives you a preview of the clone before you use the tool - useful in aligning elements such as trouser seams, etc. that you may want to clone).

OK, the tools are found in different locations, but it takes all of 5-minutes to discover these tools, then one is off and running.  I keep asking myself why all the noise about how hard GIMP is to learn.  I learned to use GIMP and Photoshop back in 2000, and I really do not see a big difference in the effort to learn either.  GIMP wasn't exactly easy, but neither was Photoshop.  I am still learning new tidbits about both to this day, and, IMHO, it is GIMP that has come the longest way in terms of development.

The other anthems that critics of GIMP love to sing are (make that WERE) it's lack of CMYK and 16-bit support.  I doubt I will ever need CMYK, but I have GIMP 2.9.7 up and running and loaded with a Darktable gnerated 32 bit floating point file as I type this. 

GIMP was the first with "content aware" fill, and all of these features are presented to me, the user, free of charge.

GIMP is an astounding editing application, and while we users have had to be patient as its development occurred, that development has been relentless and continues to this day.

I appreciate the GIMP development team for providing me with such a powerful application.

Sorry to rant (sort of).

Respectfully,

Caruso

Is there an open source  organizer/catalogue similar to Lightroom?

Until now I thought jpg was the best file format with respect to compatibility.  However, recently produced images are turning out NOT to be compatible with much of anything I can find which is not a computer.  This includes electronic picture frames (several) and smart TVs (several).

I do notice that there are "Advanced Options" which can be specified when exporting to jpg format.  However, I'm lacking knowledge of these factors.  Is it possible that I'm inadvertently electing to create files with compatibility issues?

I should point out that these incompatible devices are a few years old.  Likely between 8 and 12 years old.  However, my principal use for GIMP is to try and preserve old pictures by converting them to digital format.  In that, scan printed photos, slides and negatives into GIMP for editing with the idea of producing files that might be useful for future generations.  As such, compatibility of the resulting files is the most important factor.  Future devices are more important than past (older) ones but this experience is not very comforting when it comes to having the ability to create something that will last for a long time (i.e., at least, outlast me).  Rather this experience makes a pretty good case for the inability of digital technology as an aid to preservation.

Does our technology decay faster than paper?  Maybe I need to go back to printing.

Download from OCAL, either as vector or png in three sizes.
They are all blurry/build from gradients, so good for bumpmapping !

Some of the png's are not seamless, but the svg is.
Just download the svg, open in Inkscape and scale with the selection tool. Its a patternfill and will always fill the square.

https://openclipart.org/detail/290633/pattern-pack