 |
Thanks for posting!
Posted 15 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Wow, this looks awesome. Thanks!
Posted 15 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Very cool. I'm definitely going to have to try this.
Posted 15 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@Shelly a Roy
your tutorial good as the result
I' m a mod on www.gimptalk.com/forum/ i will like see your Tut here www.gimptalk.com/forum/forum/Users-Submitted-GIMP-Tips-am....
Originally posted 15 months ago.
(
permalink
)
PhotoComiX (a group admin) edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
 |
To anybody who tries it: give me some feedback on whether the instructions were confusing or steered you wrong at any point. And show off your creations, of course!
Posted 15 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
great tut, I am so far behind in so many things........
Posted 15 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I don't think it steers us wrong, I think the only problem is that it has by its very nature to be a bit vague at times because the settings have to be different for different original photos.
Perhaps if you did a step by step pictorial we could see exactly what you mean by comments such as, "Look for contours and textures to appear, and also for the general mood created."
Anyway, I will carry on experimenting and trying to make my photos look like cartoons instead of colourised b&w.
Cheers.
Phil.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
jancyclops wrote I
Perhaps if you did a step by step pictorial we could see exactly what you mean by comments such as, "Look for contours and textures to appear, and also for the general mood created."
Anyway, I will carry on experimenting and trying to make my photos look like cartoons instead of colourised b&w.
.
I don't think "Look for contours and textures to appear, " is vague that just depend from the image, while is possible give a almpost exact formla ,as example, to correct light balance of photo taken in certain condition,to get correct outlines and detail or "make appear textures" a exact formula will not work well
Let clear the idea of correct outlines and details : as example in a face...that is something that a filter can't detect well in automatism
A filter may spot lines of a certain thickness, or darkness, more advanced may spot outlines where there are sudden jump in contrast.
But the meaningful lines of the face are for the eyes, the lips the lower part of the nose..doesn't matter how much light there is or from there came, darken details may become blanc, but even if half of face is brightened by a light source both a minimum of detail of both eyes should be preserved..or will look wrong
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Then also cartoon is a vague concept...cartoon as Enrique Breccia or as Philippe Druillet? Caza or Frank Miller?
Something as "Spawn" or something as Gordon Flash?
I think i can emulate quite well the style of Guido Crepax
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Crepax,and maybe i may try to explain explain how to do step by step.
here a more clear example (not me that is just a page of a Guido Crepax Comix book
But then emulate other comics styles as example that from Jim Lee Imagine Comics will require a completelly different approach
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
PhotoComiX (a group admin) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
 |
Could you cross-post this on the Technique group? We need more GIMP-geared tutorials there (the place is full of fans of the other product).
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
PhotoComiX wrote: I don't think "Look for contours and textures to appear, " is vague
It is really because the finished article depends a lot on just how much you let them appear. However, when you include the bit about the mood, that is vague. Don't forget, the finished picture isn't going to show exactly what you were looking at with only some of the layers visible because of the blurring at the end, quite apart from the use of varying opacity and all the layers interacting with one another.
I would like to know how Shelley and Roy went about, for instance, the bottom right example, because it is always easier to see exactly what someone means if they show you than if you just get the text.
BTW, of the four examples at the top of the thread I think the most successful were the two on the right. The guitarist bottom left doesn't seem to work very well with this technique, but that is just my opinion.
Phil.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@jancyclops: I'd like to be more specific, but I can't. There's a lot of individual judgment involved in deciding what looks right for whatever image you're working on. Slide the slider back and forth and consider what it looks like at each point. You want unimportant things to disappear into shadow, but you want to stop before you obscure important details. Usually, you'll get one edge of a face or figure in sharp relief.
The blurring at the end is just to soften the pixel edges. It doesn't change anything in the larger view, so what you see in the layers should be pretty representative of what you end up with.
If you have an image you'd like to see transformed this way, I'll see if I can make a step-by-step progression of what I do with it.
@PhotoComiX: You're right about there being a lot of styles of comics, and with this technique, the photo does most of the deciding about what the style will be.
Some images work really easily, and some I have to go back and try a few times to figure out what will look best. But the nice thing is that it only takes a few minutes to try a new combination of shadows and lines.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thank you Shelly and Roy.
I think you are developing a great FAQ for your tutorial (or additional comments / tips).
At some point - screen shots would be an awesome addition.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
just traced the link for my very first first tutorial.from color photo to illustration or comics style)
First part may even be of some interest but i really would like a opinion on part 2
This because technique described at beginning of part 2, in my opinion is not only good for create a "illustration effect" but for any kind of conversion from color to BW
Here
www.gimptalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9707
Part 3 was lost in a HD crash sorry ...i may even rewrite if of someone is interested
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
PhotoComiX (a group admin) edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
PS the script fu i quoted in the tutorial is now in FX Foundry pack
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Shelly and Roy:
What I was getting at is not for you to say what amounts the settings should be but for you to show what the image looked like when you decided you had got it right for, say, the Lines layer when you are saying about going only so far and then coming back one click.
I think I got the idea and as I said before I don't think there is any way that the text instructions can ever be anything but vague. Anyway, here is my effort.
In addition to your instructions, I had to add an extra layer, mask off the shirt, fill it with light blue and change the opacity method to colour because the Sat layer in your guide turned the shirt pink.
Phil.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That looks pretty good, Phil. The balance of shadow and lines looks well-suited to the image.
I haven't seen the sort of color shift you're describing with the shirt. Is the original image in your photostream? The Color layer should keep the color in the right family, and the Sat layer (on top) should control how "loud" it gets. Things that are much lighter in the comic than in the original will usually show a good deal more color, but they don't (in my experience) go from one distinct color to another, more from dark neutral to random bright color.
Update: If the white levels of the ink layer haven't been adjusted down to 240, the Color layer won't work, and you'll get erratic coloring. So that's something to check.
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Shelly and Roy edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
I have no idea how I got the colour shift because I have tried it again and can't replicate the problem. I can only assume it was something I did when I was adjusting layers to get the look I wanted, but I don't have any idea what it was that turned the shirt pink. I don't remember doing anything which should have changed the colour (e.g. mucking about with the hue). I did reduce the white level of the ink layer to 240 so it wasn't that.
The original of this photo isn't on Flickr but there is a small version from the same original on the Enfield Town FC web site in the "Sponsors" page.
Phil.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I'm actually glad to hear that jancyclops had the color shift, since this happened to me, and I couldn't figure out what I did wrong. I think maybe in the prep part where I was trying to get the photo ready for this process, I may have decomposed the color shot to tone down the redness in my niece's face (not the one I have in the picture with the rose), and I thought maybe I had jacked it up by doing this. I also had a big shift to pink, which is why I thought this might be related to the decomposing - red is the layer that I worked with on shifting the tone for the b&w image before I merged it with the original layer.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Your color and saturation layers are just copies of your original, so you can always turn them to Normal mode to make sure nothing wacky has happened to them.
Red is Hue 0, and so if you have a saturation applied to an area with no color, it's going to go red (pink). My best guess is that one of the layers ended up with white somehow.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Okay, I tried it on another photo, again it turned pink. It was an outdoor shot of my white dog, so not quite sure what happened here. So I moved on and found an indoor shot, so the lighting may also play a role. Here's my final result, which isn't outstanding, but gave me a pretty good start:
And this is the original, so you can judge where/how I could have done some adjusting.
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
mollyjolly edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
Thanks for the additional "watch for pink" step. I think maybe I was changing the wrong value - the one for input levels instead of output levels.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@mollyjolly: I took the liberty of doing a few rounds on your image. Flat-lit images like this are challenging, because you don't get a lot of helpful shadows.
The top image is a basic 1-shadow, lines, color+sat. Compared to your choices, I accepted a lot more speckling in the lines, and I let the shadows almost completely obscure the eye color. I really wanted to get those forehead lines represented somehow.
In the middle image, I've added a highlight shadow, covering all but the very lightest bits. It brings out some of the colors a little more, but overall wasn't very effective. I've had luck with it in other images, though.
In the last image, I added a medium shadow, which brings out the wood tones better and defines the eyes, hairline, and face. You had a similar shadow; compared to yours, I covered a bit more of the image, affecting the hair color more, but cutting the glare on the wood. I also lightened the lines layer in this one a bit (set the black output level to 80 on the layer), to make the speckling a bit less stark.
I did these to illustrate some trade-offs to look for when moving sliders and deciding whether and what kinds of shadows to add, not to suggest that you did anything wrong. Thanks for posting your example; I think it will be helpful to others.
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Shelly and Roy edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
I have now used this technique to produce a "splash screen" image for the Enfield Town FC web site.
Here is the image I produced. I have put in this link because there are several of these and they get called up at random (so you might not see this one just by going to the club web site).
The original photo is on Flickr:–
This took quite a bit of doing because the grass came out too garish (even more so than in the finished article) so I mucked about with the yellow and green saturation and lightness slightly.
Looking at this and my previous effort, I can't help feeling this is the ideal technique to use to convert photos to colour illustrations if you ever have to illustrate a "Boy's Own" type book!
Phil.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Fantastic explanation! I found it easy and straightforward to follow. I had a few attempts with my own pics but couldn't get any really good results. So I found a CC image to use.
The only thing I would say is that I'd appreciate some hints about the sort of photo that works well with this technique...
Advice / creative criticism is welcome (encouraged please!). I like the result but can't help thinking it could be better.
Original image by Sukanto Debnath. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
stephendl edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
@jancyclops: When the colors won't behave, it's usually because the original is much darker than what it's getting mapped to in the comic. The grass is pretty dark, as is a lot of the rest of the photo. That's a situation that calls for a secondary shadow.
I've uploaded my image to the pool for illustration:
I brightened up the image a bit before I worked on it, so my values won't be quite the same as yours, but I thresholded the secondary shadow at about the 128 level, which gave the shadows you can see on the central player's face and knee, as well as throughout the grass and the red in the clothes and elsewhere. You'll note that the uniform colors are much less exciting, too, which may be an undesirable side-effect.
So much of the image is in that midrange of brightness that I didn't have to reduce the color or saturation at all.
I agree with your last comment: many of these come out looking like illustrations from books for small children.
Roy
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Shelly and Roy edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
@stephendl: I wish I knew how to tell whether an image would work well. Clean lines are obviously very helpful, and non-subtle lighting. If subtle lighting is important to the image, it won't carry over into a comic, where there's no gradual shading (although you might be able to get that effect by introducing noise).
Background textures (like leafy trees) tend to become a distracting mess in line-detection, so it's important that backgrounds be very simple or very blurred.
Your image came out great. The only thing I'd like to see different in it would be the medium shadow be darker.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Shelly and Roy: I can see what you mean about the extra shading. Oddly enough, with this one the "Boy's Own" type illustration which I came up with is nearer what I was looking for. At other times it clearly isn't, so then I would need to do more adjustment of the shadows.
BTW, "Boy's Own" doesn't mean children's books per se. It is a particular style which was used a lot in the UK from the Victorian era up to World War 2 and gets its name from a jingoistic English publication, the "Boy's Own Paper" because the stories illustrated using this method could mostly have come straight from the BOP. If you have ever seen the Michael Palin/Terry Jones TV programme called "Ripping Yarns" it is the illustration style used on the book cover in the opening credits.
Edward Whymper, who was one of the illustrators for "Boy's Own Paper", is immortalised in a stained glass pub window in London because he was a member of the first successful team to climb the Matterhorn.
Those sorts of publications died a death after 1945 because the number of foreign allied troops over here during the war meant we had to admit that we hadn't done things all on our own. The help from the Prussians at Waterloo, for example, could be glossed over because the public at large never saw them in England and the returning heroes were all British.
Anyway, the colour illustrations, used mainly for covers, tended to be very brightly coloured and the lines tended not to be the unbroken solid lines we associate with comics today, because the artists were trying to be more realistic. For that reason your technique is extremely good at aping what was being done by hand 60 to about 120 years ago.
Phil.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Dammit I had horrible results.
I did venture in without my tomtom though, so I'll give it another go over the weekend :) Thanks for keeping up with the thread,
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Shelly and Roy: thanks, I appreciate the example of various options. It does help to see where you can use some variations on the tutorial. Here's an outdoor shot that turned out much better:
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
mollyjolly edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
Ok then, hella cool :)
Thank you for posting this tut !\
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Okay, I'm loving it more and more. Here's my latest attempt. And thanks to your awesome tutorial, it took me only about 10-15 minutes to complete this one.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Starting:
And screwed up finish. Followed step by step, and can't figure out how to fix it...
And without finishing, no shadow fixing etc. but also NO COLOR!
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Redsonja84 edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
@Redsonja84: You've got a challenging image, there. There really isn't a lot of color in the main area of interest, and the light balance features the center of the shirt, leaving the face in the shadows.
I took a shot at it. I started by brightening the region around her face and dimming the rest. Then I went through the process to see how my choices compared with yours.
In general, I recommend going bolder: don't divide the black shadow, just let it be black; and threshold your lines higher, so you get more definition of the hair, eyes, and hand.
Apart from that, I went with two levels of (non-black) shadows: one around middle-brightness that framed the face, and one that defined the contours of the eyes.
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thank you for this excellent tutorial. It worked wonderfully on my photos!
Posted 14 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
This is one of mine:
It was my second attempt at something like this. My first is my avatar :)
Originally posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Guillermo Power edited this topic 13 months ago.
|
 |
here's my attempt:
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@ viridari:
I LOVE IT!
-R
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I have only recently downloaded Gimp and I can't wait to try this!
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Randy - Thanks ... I've actually been working on my own workflow for making comic book art from photos. I had a photoshoot this afternoon and came up with this:
Originally posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
viridari edited this topic 13 months ago.
|
|
@viridari:
Sweet shot! The graininess in the background really adds to the effect.
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
great works!
but..there is a tutorial? how to do?
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
A quick test: Dublicate your picture. Make the new layer grayscale with Desaturate. Posterize it with 3-5 levels. Set the layer Mode to Value. Adjust the saturation of the original.
Satisfied? Probably not! This is a very crude method. You have no control of the amounts and shades of gray. But you get a feeling for if your picture is suitable for a comic-book transformation, and what you have to do to achieve a good result.
If it looks promising, delete it and start all over again with Shelly and Roys full tutorial.
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I finally did it! I will definitely be trying this again!
Thanks Shelly and Roy!
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
This is really cool!
I'll "steal" it for my video podcast at meetthegimp.org
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@r_stein - just make sure to give credit to those you steal from.
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That's okay, like viridari said, just give the proper credit. The photo was taken by my boyfriend Brent Gilbert, and I (Brooke Gross) did the editing.
Originally posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
fight.build.destroy edited this topic 13 months ago.
|
|
The video will be online from July 1, 17:00 GMT at Meet the GIMP!
Originally posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
r_stein edited this topic 13 months ago.
|
|
And here is the video: meetthegimp.org/episode-050-comics/
I did some things different as described in the tutorial. And I am not completely happy with the result I got. It should have been less photography and more comic. I'll try again, not necessarily on video. ;-)
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I tried it on this photo
and got this
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thank you very much for the tutorial and the posting. This is a great way to learn about layers. For the last few days I tried to get familiar with the technique. It really depends on ones experience with Gimp and the different color tools how easy it is to understand the tutorial. For example I missed an explanation regarding the output level and the affect it has on the outcome.
However, I love the technique and I just need to practice and experiment to figure out how thinks work best. Here is an example of an picture of my daughters I converted. This is the second try and between the first and this one I worked on a bunch of other pictures.
Originally posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Andreas Guther edited this topic 13 months ago.
|
 |
Cool technique!
Posted 13 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Not sure I fully understand. There is one step that says to create a floating layer then move the float down the layer stack and merge down. In GIMP 2.4.6, you cannot move layers up/down if there is a float nor can you "merge down" a float, you have to anchor it. Anyhow, here's my attempt. I'm not terribly happy with it so any suggestions for improvement would be appreciated.
Posted 12 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
If you have a floating layer, and you double-click on the place where it says "floating layer", you can give it a new name, and it becomes its own layer. Your normal process of turning a floating layer into a regular layer might be somewhat different.
Anchoring puts the layer into an existing one, which is not what you want to do most of the time.
Is this the original you worked from?
You might be happier if you dropped the upper level down from 240, or added another layer of shadows to cover more of his muzzle. The white outlining effect you got is pretty neat.
Posted 12 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I didn't upload the original for this but it is very similar to this one:
I also like the outline. What ruins it for me is all the fur detail in the muzzle. I could try more shadow on it but as you can see, he does have a light colored muzzle.
Posted 12 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
If it is the edge-detection (Lines layer) that's introducing too-harsh details, you can try doing it twice, with different thresholding values, so one has more detail than the other. Then reduce the opacity of the more-detaile one, so it doesn't stand out quite so much.
Or you might be just as happy having a single Lines layer, thresholded a bit lower, and/or with the opacity reduced.
Posted 12 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Your post helped me figure out a process for The Standards.
Here is a peek:
My eternal gratitude is yours.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
PS. If you add a layer of Desaturated Neon it adds that 3-Dish effect you see in the above photo..
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
this is such a great technique, and an awesomely detailed tut... Thanks
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thanks very much!
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Hi folks,
I'm trying to turn a photo into a cartoon. I followed the nice tutorial, but I'm being mad, cause always appears the damned pink/red when I active the saturation mode of the sat layer... :-(
Can anybody help me? :-)
Congratulations Bud's Rubber Room! it's awesome!!!
Xavier
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@xbelanch: I had the same problem the first time or two I tried to use this. My problem was that I was not lowering the right number to 240. One is input, the other is output. Can't remember which is the right one to adjust, but I was adjusting the opposite one. Hope this helps.
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thanks for the great tutorial! The level of detail is perfect. We're going to keep practicing, but here are our first attempts.
 
Originally posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
jc5083 edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
 |
thanks for the tutorial. gave me the results i was looking for for a long time...
here's what i made:
 
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thanks for the tutorial. Great!!!
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Here's my shot at it.
What do you think?
Posted 9 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Finally, I'm getting a feel for this technique.
Thanks again for posting this how-to.
Originally posted 9 months ago.
(
permalink
)
earlycj5 edited this topic 9 months ago.
|
|
This is slightly different, but I thought some of you may like to see it anyways.
Posted 9 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
"Kewl' stuuf here
Posted 9 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I had the Pink problem too. Set the color level max to 240 also. Then I changed the Saturation layer's mode back to normal with 50% opacity and that seemed to fix it. Don't know why though.
before
after
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Nice job there. I haven't ever given this another try, maybe I should. It's hard with people, because I had trouble getting the faces to look right.
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Okay, I was making cartoons using the script in Gimp but they don't look anything like yours.
I think I will scrap mine and start all over and use your technique!!!
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I have found that this technique can cause problems if the original photo is of someone with dark skin. It can make black or Asian people look white. Especially when adjusting the photo so other bits look the way you want.
I am currently working on a new "splash screen" for a football club web site. I need to muck about a bit more to get the thing to look exactly the way I want it to but I found I had to add the following steps.
1. In the Sat layer I selected an area which was supposed to be brown but was far too pink using the "Select by colour" tool [Ctrl+O].
2. I created a new transparent layer and filled the selection with brown. This makes too much of the picture go brown but not to worry.
3. I created a layer mask (white full opacity).
4. I then used the free select tool with "add to the current selection" selected and drew around all the bits I wanted to remain brown. You don't have to be too accurate here except where something you want to remain brown and something you don't are very close together.
5. I then inverted the mask [Ctrl+I] and filled the whole selection with black.
Phil.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Thank you so much for this tutorial! This is easily the best of its kind on the web. Here is my attempt at it:
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
First time I've been successful on an indoor shot.
Posted 4 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Cool tut. Ive done a few pictures now, heres my fav so far:
.
Heres all of em:
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
nice art, tnx
Posted 3 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Hey guys what version of GIMP was this written for? I'm using version 2.6 and it fails with the Lines step. (1) Guassian-edge detection gives me two radii, and Invert and Normalize. Setting Radius 1 to 30 even as far as 1000 does NOTHING. I get a blank screen no matter what I do. (2) When I merge down the three layers, I get ONE layer. So for the COLOR step are we supposed to reload the original photo?
Posted 2 days ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
If you're having problems, check this link:
www.flickr.com/groups/gimpusers/discuss/72157616672297563/
Posted 2 days ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
From that thread: (Due to a bug in Gimp 2.6: right-click on the Lines layer and Remove Alpha Channel, or Difference of Gaussians will not work)
Posted 2 days ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Shelly and Roy@ - you guys are geniuses. Been playing around with this technique using simple edge detection and the results have been blowing me away.
Now that I know Gaussian-edge detection has a bug in 2.6, will make sure to try it using the workaround. It was driving me insane.
Thanks again
Posted 31 hours ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I'm sorry to report that after removing the alpha channel, gaussian-edge detection gave me back a BLACK screen no matter how I changed the parameters. AND the simple Laplace detection stopped working. Sigh...
Oh well gonna search the web to see if this annoying bug has been fixed
Posted 28 hours ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
GIMP users /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to GIMP users discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
