Im having real problems hear cutting the background out. Round his suite I cant split it from the background and round his head the background is showing in the hair (please see photo attached)

Cant seam to find any paid for art work forums out there, so I guess can someone recommend what tool would do this?
Thanks

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)
   

Is there a way to grow a line/segment (one with curves) exponentially? Thus, sharp/pointed at one end and fat at the other?

I'm running Gimp 2.10 on Linux (Ubuntu 20.04 LTS).  Without using the mouse, is it possible to select a layer and make it visible, and hide all other layers?  E.g., a sequence of keyboard entries that can accomplish the same thing as using the mouse to Shift+Left-Mouse-Click on the eye-icon area to the left of each layer in the applicable toolbox tab?

I'm using Gimp 2.10 on Linux (Ubuntu 20.04 LTS).  I import a multi-page PDF with searchable text into Gimp as layers.  I add a signature JPG file to one or more of the pages and then Export as a FILE.PDF.  The resulting PDF is not text searchable; e.g., I cannot select a sentence in the exported PDF with the mouse and then copy it to the clipboard.  Is it possible to Export to PDF and have the resulting PDF searchable with text?

Hi all.

Does anyone know of a way for Gimp's File Open window to show larger icons?
   

The icons on the left are too small to be of much use. The preview on the right is a nice size, so it would be nice to have those previews (or something a little smaller) in the main file list. It could have something like Windows' options to to show icons in varying sizes. The fact that the files do all show icons suggests that Gimp already generates some sort of thumbail data, so hopefully it won't be a major thing to increase the display size.

I've looked through the settings but not seen anything about the file browser. I've also had a look at version 2.99 but I don't see any additional settings for this.

I often use IrfanView or just Windows itself to browse files, but neither of them can read .xcf files. I've also tried using XnView but that only seems capable of reading the top layer. And it would be nice to keep more things within just one program.

An alternative would be for the existing preview data being saved in such a way as to make other browsers think they're dealing with .jpg data.

If there's an existing solution for my issue, please let me know. Or if there's a better place to ask for the above as a new feature, please let me know of that instead.

Thanks for reading!

Hi

I am having an issue adding UI stuff to my script.    I am unable to use two UI of the same type.   I think I'm missing something in my formatting.  For example:

   (PF_OPTION, "useRare", "Select N to Ignore Rare Percents. ", 0,
             (
                 ["N", "Y"]
              )

         )

That works fine.   I am able to get the Y/N info passed into my useRare parameter.  I am able to to pass it to scripts, no issue.  The problem is I want to add another PF_OPTION.  So I added

   (PF_OPTION, "useColor", "Select Y to use color ", 0,
             (
                 ["N", "Y"]
              )

         )

And that breaks my script.   I can add a PF_RADIO, or a PF_TOGGLE and they work fine too, but I cant add a duplicate for either of those.  Can anyone explain to me how I can enter into duplicate PF types to the UI?
Thank you

Hello Everyone, 

Using GIMP 210.22, I've recently encountered a problem trying to update G'MIC, as I now receive this error message "the update could not be achieved because of the following errors could not read https://gmic.eu/update294.gmic" has anyone experienced a similar issue? 

Thanks 

Roy

I  to a photo of a foot print made with graphite powder. then in gimp i cropped it to just the foot print. Then I used select color to copy the pixs to layers. I have spent hours hand drawing to remove the pixls grainyness for each layer, making depth map of the foot.  Now when I merge the layers my image outcome is blank.  What am I missing?? have not found help on this in youtube. just want to git this inage through to the 3d process but stuck. 

Have been using GIMP for long enough to remember when it just couldn't handle metadata.  Have been pleased to see that change such that metadata is included.  The documentation (i.e., User guide) on this subject has also been a work in progress and seems to lack reliability.  For example, the User Guide includes text at the beginning of the main section which says "Note: ... PNG, JPEG, TIFF and WebP preserve existing metadata. ...".  Then when reaching down into the more detailed explanations, for Exif data, there is text which says "It is not supported in JPEG 2000 or PNG.".  Pretty much adds up to a direct contradiction.

When working with photographs, which is the basis for this post, the idea of simply preserving the metadata produced by the camera is desirable.  In the case of Exif data there is a standard which is thought to apply to cameras (i.e., files produced by cameras).  This means that post processing software like GIMP and lots of others ought NOT be changing it.  Must admit it took a while to notice but that is NOT the case.

It seems that GIMP recognizes different types of metadata to include Exif, XMP, & IPTC.  There is also something called Makernotes which is produced by cameras where the term "maker" is believed to mean that it is specific to a particular camera (i.e., proprietary rather than a universal standard).  It appears as though post processing software, to include GIMP, treat this as though it is Exif data.  For example, GIMP includes it when Exif inclusion is specified for image files to be created and excludes it otherwise.

The new finding is that the Exif metadata included in image files created by GIMP closely resembles what the camera produced.  However, one discrepancy involves GIMP adding tags to describe the dimensions of the new image file along with bit depth which is flat out wrong (i.e., Bits per sample: 8 8 8 in the case of an image file with 16 bit precision).  It has been noticed the cameras are prone to making this same mistake but that might could be reconciled by saying it applies to the preview image whereas in the example mentioned there is no thumbnail or preview image.

When it comes to Makernotes such minor discrepancies are no longer the case.  The differences are major.  For example, as much as 30% of tags are simply omitted.  Given that Makernotes are particular to the camera it would be expected that GIMP ought NOT be changing anything.  What scenario would call for GIMP making such alterations to be desirable?  Thinking here is that it would be better for GIMP to omit the Makernotes rather than make changes.  What reason might there be for doing this.

Afraid these new discoveries suggest that, at least for Exif data, GIMP's support is more destructive than productive.