Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

iconoclast

Members
  • Posts

    1,670
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by iconoclast

  1. Hi MPD! "Power Duplicate" is the magic key word: You have your ornamentic part. Place it somewhere at the top in the middle of the document. Select it by clicking it. Go to the context bar of the Move Tool and activate Enable Transform Origin (a small crosshairs symbol). It will appear on your document. Drag it to the exact center of the document. The enabled Snapping feature should help you doing this. Press Ctrl+J to duplicate it. Then grab the handle of your selected ornament object and rotate it as far as needed. Attention: this transformation is recorded to the clipboard, don't interrupt the process by clicking somewhere now. Just press Ctrl+J again and again until the circle is completed. You should of course make a plan for exact measures before you start this, because otherwise the ornament will not fit in the end and will overlap with the first part.
  2. I made a little screen recording of my version. Hope it helps. I also deleted that white spot, that seemed to be useless, and replaced the Reg. Trademarks sign by a character from the Glyphs panel. HowTo.mp4
  3. Ah, now I understand. You need to select the Child Layer(s) of Layer 1. Layer 1 is only like a group, or like a folder, in this case. So click on the small arrow on the left on this Layer 1 to open it. There are Child Layers nested to Layer 1. They contain the curves you want to add to each other. I suppose you are working on step 4. So select the top Child Layer, hold Shift and click on the Child Layer at the bottom of the stack to select all the Child Layers. Then click on Add. Edit: One annotation: There is also this Registered Trademark sign under Layer 1, that makes it a little more complicated. You could simply choose such a sign from the Glyphs Studio panel. Most fonts should contain one. And it would be easier to add it to the rest of the curves - similar to the other text.
  4. Activate the Move Tool (the arrow on top of the tool bar). Then it should show up.
  5. Warum nicht? Mir leuchtet schon die Notwendigkeit der Unterscheidung zwischen der "o"-Punze und der "e"-Punze nicht ganz ein (obwohl ich das Wort "Auge" in dem Zusammenhang auch im Deutschen schon gehört habe und die Punze im "e" natürlich grob Augenform hat. Aber wozu die Unterscheidung? Und wie ist das z.B. beim kleinen "a" oder dem "g", das ja, je nach Font, auch schonmal zwei verschiedene Punzen hat? Gibt es dafür besondere Namen oder sind das alles "counter" und "eyes"? Beim "a" würde ich auf "Eye" tippen, beim "g" vielleicht auf beides? Ich kenne dieses "Du oide Punzen" auch nur aus dem Fernsehen. Wo genau ich das da gehört habe weiß ich aber nicht mehr. Meinem Typo-Lehrer schien das Schimpfwort aber geläufig zu sein. Ursprünglich stammt das Wort, soweit ich weiß, aus der Metallbearbeitung und bedeutet eigentlich schlicht soviel wie "Loch". Über die Neubenennung von "Schusterjunge" und "Hurenkind" habe ich vor längerer Zeit mal was gelesen, weiß aber nicht mehr wo. Kann sein, dass es in der Wikipedia war. Vielleicht auch in einem meiner Fachbücher. Keine Ahnung. Ich habe die Begriffe in den letzten Jahren nicht unbedingt gebraucht, daher sind mir auch die Alternativen nicht geläufig. "Zwiebelfisch" ist aber, meines Wissens, gleich geblieben.
  6. Ah, interessant! Und wie ist das bei Großbuchstaben? Gibt es da wiederum separate Benennungen? Ich habe übrigens mal meinen Typo-Lehrer ziemlich in Verlegenheit gebracht, der Bayer war, als ich ihn fragte was denn dieses bayrische Wort bedeute, wie z.B. in "Du oide Punzen!". Ich hatte natürlich ein bis zwei Vermutungen, wusste es aber wirklich nicht. Daraufhin hat er nur pikiert geschwiegen und das Thema gewechselt. Die Deutschen sind in diesen Dingen vielleicht traditionell ein bisschen grobschlächtiger veranlagt als die Engländer. Da gäbe es ja z.B. auch noch das "Hurenkind", das aber, glaube ich, auch in Deutschland mittlerweile weitgehend der political correctness zum Opfer gefallen ist. Vielleicht ist auch das ein Grund für die differenzierteren englischen Fachbegriffe.
  7. Ah, I found a solution for this text-problem. If this happens after you added some letters to each other, you converted to curves before, simply go to the menu Layers > Fill Mode > Alternate (Even/Odd). This opens the holes in the letters. So, as it seems, it is not a bug. But I still don't know why it only happens to converted text.
  8. I assumed that it is a well known issue, as I found this compound-solution for it on the forum. But maybe I should investigate if it really is and if there already is a bug report. Possibly it will work better in Publisher, because it is a text-related issue only. Will have an eye on it.
  9. Yes, it's a really interesting feature. But after checking it a little out, I'm not sure if it is really a solution for the special problem I was talking about in all cases. However, I think it should also work without it. But there seems to exist a really annoying bug, that should be fixed soon, I think. Surprisingly this problem only seems to happen to text that was converted to curves. It doesn't happen to normal curves or shapes, as far as I see. I didn't know that there is a difference between curves, that formerly were text, and usual curves.
  10. Yes, I recently stumbled upon a problem that possibly TCT will stumble upon too: If you have a font with squiggly letters that overlap each other in your text, and you convert it to curves and Add them to become one curve, the holes in some characters (is "hallmarks" the right word for it? In Germany we call it "Punzen") get filled. I really suffered about it, but I found a simple solution on this forum. You only need to hold the Alt-key while you click "Add" and the "Punzen" will stay open. By the way, "Punzen" is also a very dirty word in German, especially in Bavaria.
  11. To be honest, I'm afraid we bogged down to details in this topic. Why not simply do the following: 1. Open the Layer 1 group. 2. delete the white oval curve layer that is not needed and remove the fill of the two circle curves that are disturbing, or delete them if they are not needed too. 3. Then select all layers in the Layer 1 group, go to the Layers menu and click on Expand Strokes. This will turn the curves, that are only contours at the moment, into vector shapes. That means that the contours of the strokes will become the vector curves (the edges of the shapes) and the strokes will become the fill of the shapes. 4. After that, go to the Geometry options (Boolean) on top right of the GUI and click on Add ( the left button with the +-Symbol). Now all curves inside the Layer 1 group should become one layer/shape. 5. Now select this layer and the text layers too (possibly the Registered Trademark Sign must be added too) and repeat the last step to add the text to that layer. Be aware that the text will be converted into curves and will no longer be editable. But that must not be a problem if you keep a backup of your source file. Now the whole relevant content of your document should be one vector shape. The only thing left is to fill the shape with the Rainbow Gradient and to change the background colour. 6a. For the Rainbow Gradient, there are two options: Simply drag the layer with the gradient to the bottom right of the shape layer to nest it into the shape. 6b. The alternative is to fill the shape with the Fill Tool. In this case you will have to create a new gradient. 7. Fill the rectangle at the bottom of the layer stack with the colour you like. If there are layers that are not needed (I don't think so), they can be deleted now. The advantage of this workflow should be that the result is a pure, clean vector graphic with nothing that needs to be rasterized (at least if I didn't forget something or made a mistake somewhere).
  12. May be a matter of taste. There are indeed some things missing in GIMP that are important for professional image editing for DTP (e.g. CMYK-support), but it is an excellent tinker tool for many creative concerns. I use it e.g. to create brushes, canvases, overlays, textures and many other things for all of my graphic apps, because it is so easy to handle and has so many really cool filters and functions (e.g. fractal filters). I also use it to create LUTs with G'MIC at the moment, because Photo's LUT-export still has some bugs. And there is a huge amount of options to customize the GUI of GIMP to your individual needs. I really love it.
  13. As I said and as you can see, the first mode uses the edge of the shape as the middle axis for the brush stroke. The second mode puts the stroke to outside the edge. The third one is definitely not what you are looking for.
  14. As I said, the first two modes are magnetic, so that the brush strokes are locked to the edge you are tracing. You can see that if you take a look at the circle that represents the cursor. As long as it stays inside the stencil, it will follow its edge. The third mode is only something like a predefined mask. Not magnetic.
  15. Is it something like this you are looking for? There are three modes: one uses the edge of the shape as middle axis for the brush stroke, on uses the edge as a guide and cut edge to the stroke, and one is simply like a mask. Only the first two ones are magnetic. Stencil-.mp4
  16. OK, but what I was talking about would mean, that you first draw the vector curve, then choose a brush and let Photo trace the curve with this brush. You wouldn't have much influence on the changing brush-thickness by pressure. What you pointed out in your post before sounds like the vector as a sort of flexible magnetic guideline you are tracing manually. The only app I know that has something similar is ArtRage, where you can create stencils of the shape you need and use them as a magnetic guide. It is a very nice feature, but not exactly what I depicted above.
  17. There may be technical reasons why this option doesn't exist yet, but it is not easy to understand for the average user. Even because most vector brushes in Designer aren't really vector brushes, but only pixel textures aligned to vectors. I think this should also be possible for Photo. And it would be desirable, I think, even because the brushes in Designer are much more limited than the ones in Photo.
  18. OK, I checked it and it seems that you are right. Nice option, even I'm not sure at the moment if I will ever need it. Possibly some kind of hint, a symbol or so, near the button, that it is only Designer-Brush-related, could prevent a lot of confusion about it. Anyway, if the tracing option, I was talking about, really is what mac. suggests, I support his suggestion. Otherwise I would like to suggest it.
  19. OK, thanks for that hint, I will check it out. But the obvious difference is that you have completely different brushes in Photo, with much more opportunities. I often miss the opportunity to trace shapes or pixel selections or very fine modelled curves with the very nice Photo Brushes, like I can easily do it in GIMP. In that case with GIMP Brushes, of course.
  20. I think mac. asks for a feature in Photo, that makes brush strokes trace vector curves, like there is e.g. in GIMP and as far as I remember in Photoshop too. As far as I see, there should be this option in Photo too, because there is this brush symbol in the stroke panel, that doesn't seem to have any effect. So I suppose this option already exists and it is simply a bug that it doesn't work.
  21. You could also give GIMP a try. It supports indexed colours, and you can create and use your own palettes with as many colours as you want. But maximum 256 colours.
  22. Yes, I think that is also my point of view. In the past, I had a passion for very saturated, luminous colours and the paintings I created were accordingly very colourful. Today I prefer reduced colour palettes and monochromatic images, maybe similar to the late Rembrandt. And I also love old black & white movies like especially the Film Noir with their sometimes satin, sometimes somehow oily geryscales. That's amazing.
  23. I have the impression that I may be the reason for your anger. It's an overreaction, if you ask me. I simply saw this thread and that it didn't seemed to be solved at that moment. I only skimmed the posts and then answered to it - a bit in a hurry, I confess. A little after that, I saw your solution and made my annotation that my solution was redundant. I'm sorry for that, but such things happen in open forums. I experienced much worse things in other forums, believe me. You shouldn't take it too serious.
  24. That's what I was afraid of. But I think it doesn't matter in this case, because the strokes are rasterized anyway. But in other cases it could be important. If there are true vector strokes below the Adustment Layer(s), they will be rasterized too. Or would the vectors on top be rasterized too?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.