El dom, 13-12-2009 a las 17:47 -0400, bulia byak escribió:
2009/12/13 Guillermo Espertino <gespertino@...155...>:
I fail to understand why are you using inkscape and don't do that directly in GIMP, which is the proper tool for photoretouching. Using vectors for something that should be pixels is too problematic (mostly for printing).
It's not, because usually you export a bitmap for printing anyway.
And that was my point. If you'll use bitmaps for printing, why using vectors for retouching something that was a bitmap in the first place? I fought with Adobe's transparency flattener for years.
Vectors have no resolution. This does not mean they look perfect at any resolution, of course. If you zoom in close enough, there's always a point where it starts to look too vector-y and therefore unattractive. But if you take care to make sure this cut-off point is beyond the resolution you intend to display your image in, you don't have to worry about pixels and resolution anymore.
Of course vectors have no resolution. I was talking about bitmaps. Usually you send bitmap images for print at 300 dpi for a good detail and filesize balance. As far as I know, type and vector art are usually rasterized in more resolution than photos because vector edges look jagged at 300 dpi if they aren't antialiased, and look a little bit fuzzy if they are). Adobe Illustrator (which I don't use anymore but my printer does) rasterizes in 300 dpi every vector shape covered by the transparent area of a bitmap with alpha channel (so you have to put type in front of bitmaps and never behind). That is only one of the problems you can have when you mix vectors and bitmaps for printing, and the best solution seems to be avoiding tricky mixes if you can. So, if you're working with photos... Why don't do it directly at the right resolution in a photo retouching package instead of a vector illustration one?
As for advantages of using Inkscape for photos, they are the same as the general advantages of using vector editors: most importantly, everything is an object, selectable and modifiable on its own.
Yes, I understand the advantages. But the thing you're retouching isn't a vector object, is a raster image. Of course is nice to have resolution independent objects to patch and tweak photos (and that's why there was a SoC project for vector layers for GIMP), but once you are done with the retouching, keeping vectors for the output sounds. So, In my honest oppinion, this request sounds more appropriate for GIMP, which is a bitmap editor.