On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:24:59 -0800, Carol Spears <carol@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:35:51PM +0530, Laxminarayan Kamath wrote: > > > > On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears <carol@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote: > > > > > > > > In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the > > > > past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there > > > > a way to get the histogram for just the selection? > > > > > > > it is easy enough to make a new layer of the selection and work the > > > histogram bearing tools on this. > > > > Unless u r working on a huuuuuge image.... like me and many of my freinds do. > > at the point that you actually start to work on huge images, you might > notice that a new layer is always always easier than working on a > selection. > > so many of the selection tricks were added to gimp so that the > photoshopusers wouldnt notice the change over and because gimp can do > them, however, anyone who has actually stressed their computer out with > huuuuuge images will certainly be able to tell you that working on > selections is the least efficient way to handle an image with gimp. > carol Yeah. i was saying from my frenz' point o view.. They aree photoshop addicts :( -- Laxminarayan Kamath Ammembal MithraKoota, Bhoja Rao Lane, Mangalore 575003 (+91) 9845 061385 kamathln@xxxxxxxxx kamathln@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx kamathln@xxxxxxxxx www.geocities.com/kamathln
