Ignoramus27711 wrote:
> On 2008-05-31, John DuBois <spcecdt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article <YJCdnb2xOe0Ft93VnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Ignoramus23731 <ignoramus23731@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>I use XV for image editing, since 90% of time all I need to do is
>>>quick crop and resize. XV has nice keyboard shortcuts.
>>>...
>>>So I can edit a picture in approximately one or two seconds by
>>>pressing, for instance: ",,, <select rectangle with mouse> c Ctrl-S
>>>ENTER ENTER ENTER". That's it.
>>>
>>>It is very useful when I have to process a lot of pictures at once,
>>>for example pictures of stuff to be sold on ebay.
>>
>> Having used xv for 15 years now, I had about the same feeling about
>> simple image editing in xv vs. the gimp. After I started using the
>> gimp, for some time I continued to do my cropping in xv and then
>> used the gimp only for those images that required more sophisticated
>> processing. I've gradually been won over by the nicer feel of the
>> gimp's crop selection, and the convenience of doing it all with one
>> tool, particularly after finding its cropping shortcuts.
>
> There are a few things in gimp that I find ***bersome, quite probably
> due to my lack of knowledge (I plan on asking a few questions
> today). However, due to increase in computer speed, gimp is no longer
> as slow as it used to be compared to xv.
>
>> The last im****tant xv characteristic that I haven't yet found a way
>> to emulate is the behavior of only opening one
>> command-line-specified file at a time, and easily (from the
>> keyboard) going on to the next image when I'm done with the current
>> one. Is there a way of making the gimp behave this way? That is -
>> I want to specify the files to operate on on the command line, and I
>> do *not* want them all opened initially; I may be perusing, and
>> selectively editing, several hundred images in one round (all
>> selected according to some criteria on the command line). In xv,
>> it's a matter of "hit space to open the next image in place of the
>> current one"; the closer to that I can get, the better...
>
> You just need a simple shell script
>
> for i in *.jpg; do
> gimp $i
> done
>
> the little overhead here is in starting a new instance of gimp every
> time.
>
Sorry if I'm wrong about this but I'm not a very good programmer !! Just
BASIC !1 Seems to me that if you changed this 'gimp $i' to 'gimp-remote
$i' you would save a lot of overhead ?? This leaves just one instance of
Gimp running but opens up each image in its' own window...
Correct me if I'm wrong.


|
15 Posts in Topic:
|
Ignoramus23731 <ignora |
2008-05-30 11:26:00 |
|
Joost Diepenmaat <joos |
2008-05-30 19:06:57 |
|
Michael Soibelman <in- |
2008-05-30 10:21:52 |
|
Ignoramus23731 <ignora |
2008-05-30 12:33:59 |
|
Ignoramus23731 <ignora |
2008-05-30 12:29:45 |
|
Michael Soibelman <in- |
2008-05-30 10:34:28 |
|
spcecdt@[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
2008-05-31 18:37:05 |
|
Ignoramus27711 <ignora |
2008-06-02 08:16:34 |
|
Michael Soibelman <in- |
2008-06-02 08:54:36 |
|
spcecdt@[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
2008-06-02 17:32:26 |
|
Ignoramus27711 <ignora |
2008-06-02 18:21:14 |
|
spcecdt@[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
2008-06-03 22:37:35 |
|
David Hodson <hodsond@ |
2008-06-03 14:27:19 |
|
floyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
2008-05-31 20:00:47 |
|
spcecdt@[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
2008-06-02 16:59:18 |
|