Re: [Gimp-user] Next gotcha(off topic)
On Mon 25 Jul 2016 at 15:09:07 (-0500), limpia wrote:
> On 2016-07-25 11:43, David Wright wrote:
> >On Mon 25 Jul 2016 at 10:34:11 (-0500), limpia wrote:
> >> I have been following this thread, it seems to be drifting
> >>into another topic, but any way, I just wanted to comment,
> >> I never did like either Gimp or Inkscape, and have tried all
> >>sorts of other "graphics programs", but none come close to the
> >>versatility, and user friendliness that ImageMagick has, with
> >>ImageMagick I can do whatever I need to do quickly and easily.
> >
> >I've used ImageMagick for resizing/cropping/annotating
> >pictures in which the annotations are in a fixed position
> >(eg placing names on a mugshot gallery), where the CLI
> >approach works well, and with a bash for loop to automate it.
> >
> >But has ImageMagick changed to include an interactive
> >interface since I last did that? How would I place an
> >arrow and text onto a photograph where the position of
> >the annotations is determined by looking at the layout
> >of the subjects in the picture itself?
> To be honest I don't know, and I am not sure exactly what you mean,
> but there is a lot of good documentation on using Image Magick,
> And yes , Image Magick does have a "interactive interface", of
> sorts,now,..
Well, I guess if that's versatile and friendly, you've got a good
tool there. It would not be much use to me because, though I can
draw something that looks a bit like an arrow, I can't place it
as it's not an object as far as IM is concerned. It just seems
to be a collection of modified pixels. And you appear only to
be able to undo things in the strict order they were done, so
you can't correct anything without jeopardizing everything you've
done since. Once you save it, it's set in stone; the workflow
is write-only.
So it's great for a bit of tinkering (which is what I've used
it for non-interactively), but I don't think it bears comparison
with Gimp or Inkscape or xfig when taken out of its comfort zone
where it excels, and which many people probably undervalue.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: