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). According to my experience, I'd reccomend you to only use vectors if you need them, and do all the photo stuff with pixels, at the right resolution. Vector graphics are great for type and things that need to be enlarged, but they can give you some problems when it comes to interaction with bitmap images and printing. I'm not saying you can't use them, but keep that in mind. Mostly if you're using Linux, where you don't have reliable export filters for mixed vectors and bitmaps: PDF export in Inkscape isn't ready for production, SVG import in Scribus has lots of limitations (that you'll find in Adobe products too), PDFs from Scribus aren't interpreted correctly by Adobe software, and (you already found it out) GIMP doesn't have a good vectors support.
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.
According to my experience, I'd reccomend you to
only use vectors if you need them, and do all the photo stuff with pixels, at the right resolution.
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.
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.
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.
On Sunday 13 December 2009 23:47:07 bulia byak wrote:
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.
I couldn't agree more. I wish the lines between bitmap and vector (and 3D) would just blur already: 1. Draw in vectors - render to bitmaps (shadows, textures, etc.) 2. Natural painting tools - watercolour, charcoal, oil, markers -- all vectors, all node-editable, all scaleable, all groupable and joinable. All the time! 3. 1 and 2 on any face of a 3D object!
Go code now. You have your orders! :D
\d
I couldn't agree more. I wish the lines between bitmap and vector (and 3D) would just blur already:
- Draw in vectors - render to bitmaps (shadows, textures, etc.)
- Natural painting tools - watercolour, charcoal, oil, markers -- all
vectors, all node-editable, all scaleable, all groupable and joinable. All the time! 3. 1 and 2 on any face of a 3D object!
Go code now. You have your orders! :D
Have you ever tried Xara http://www.xaraxtreme.org/about.html to see how it integrates vector/raster editing?
-Rob A>
On Tuesday 15 December 2009 02:47:11 Rob Antonishen wrote:
Have you ever tried Xara http://www.xaraxtreme.org/about.html to see how it integrates vector/raster editing?
I had a stab at xara a couple of years ago, but since the whole 'closed kernel' controversy and many developers leaving ship, I gave up on it. I far prefer fropen source apps.
What did xara sport? What did you experience with it?
Personally, I mix bitmaps and Inkscape quite often. I often wish that Gimp could embed inside Inkscape and vice-versa. I wish the two could also embed into Blender. To tell the truth, I wish all three could be co-opted by external code so that amateur hackers (like me) could write dream apps that combine them all freely in interesting ways. Right now they are all islands of complex code written in toolkits and languages that keep oceans between them. The import and export functions are like badly beaten-up rafts that ferry between the three and often collapse and sink!
\d
Have you ever used the smart objects function found in the Adobe Suite since CS2? It practice it sucked on my slow machine but the idea was really good.You were able to embed a psd into a vector file and then when you edited the psd it would update it live in the vector file. To a degree Inkscape already has this when you embed a jpg - it only references the file, so when you edit it it is update in Inkscape - but it's not as elegant.
I think the closest we'll ever got to each of the programs working together is through file export, rather than the sharing of code. The most flexible file format I've seen so far is SVG. It can be embedded in GIMP, Blender, Scribus and lots of other programs. However, as you noted, the import/export features aren't always up to scratch!
Ant
2009/12/15 Donn <donn.ingle@...155...>:
On Tuesday 15 December 2009 02:47:11 Rob Antonishen wrote:
Have you ever tried Xara http://www.xaraxtreme.org/about.html to see how it integrates vector/raster editing?
I had a stab at xara a couple of years ago, but since the whole 'closed kernel' controversy and many developers leaving ship, I gave up on it. I far prefer fropen source apps.
What did xara sport? What did you experience with it?
Personally, I mix bitmaps and Inkscape quite often. I often wish that Gimp could embed inside Inkscape and vice-versa. I wish the two could also embed into Blender. To tell the truth, I wish all three could be co-opted by external code so that amateur hackers (like me) could write dream apps that combine them all freely in interesting ways. Right now they are all islands of complex code written in toolkits and languages that keep oceans between them. The import and export functions are like badly beaten-up rafts that ferry between the three and often collapse and sink!
\d
//ave: donn.ingle@...2691... home: http://otherwise.relics.co.za/ 2D vector animation : https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/things/ Font manager : https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/fontypython/
Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
I use gimp/inkscape as a workflow, often using inkscape to create elements or to do text on path labeling easier.
So I made this set of scripts for gimp (that all end up under the Layer menus) to implement file linked layers:
http://ffaat.pointclark.net/incoming/scripts/file_linked_layers.scm
You can... Load a new File Linked Layer (loads up an image as a layer and sets the layer name to "@FL@<full file path>".) Reload All File Linked Layers (looks though all the layers for ones where the name starts with the "@FL@" flag and reloads them.) Reload File Linked Layer (reloads the active layer if it has the @FL@ flag.)
So when I update things in inkscape and export a png (full page) then to the "reload" script, the layer gets replaced.
Right now it doesn't transfer layer masks, blend modes, or opacity to the newly loaded layers, but that could be added if necessary.
Not super integrated, but easier than manually reloading layers. (It was developed in answer to this request: http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2009-June/022567.html )
-Rob A>
Donn wrote:
On Tuesday 15 December 2009 02:47:11 Rob Antonishen wrote:
Have you ever tried Xara http://www.xaraxtreme.org/about.html to see how it integrates vector/raster editing?
I had a stab at xara a couple of years ago, but since the whole 'closed kernel' controversy and many developers leaving ship, I gave up on it. I far prefer fropen source apps.
What did xara sport? What did you experience with it?
I tried the free Xara version on Ubuntu, but although it has a few features Inkscape doesn't have, I absolutely prefer Inkscape. The handling of the splines alone is so amazing.
Personally, I mix bitmaps and Inkscape quite often. I often wish that Gimp could embed inside Inkscape and vice-versa. I wish the two could also embed into Blender.
I would love to see that happen as well.
Claus
participants (6)
-
Antonio Roberts -
bulia byak -
Claus Cyrny -
Donn -
Guillermo Espertino -
Rob Antonishen