5 réponses à ce sujet

[PJ156]

I've just updated to 4.05 and I have to say it is very good indeed.

 

With a decent plug in pack there is very little I cannot do that I need to from what I can see so far.

 

I find it more intuitive than Gimp but then I may just have got myself used to it.

 

PJ

[rjshae]

Yes, Gimp does have a few drawbacks and annoyances. For example, sometimes the mouse interface stops working with certain dialog buttons, requiring me to use control keys.

 

I used to use a tool called Paint Shop Pro that was very nice; much better than Gimp. But it's pretty old now and lacks certain functionality that I need.

[Tchos]

Glad to know Paint.net is still around and being developed.  I'll continue including it as an option (alongside things like Gimp) in my recommendations to people who need a free image editor.  I tested both some time ago to see if I should consider replacing my very aged edition of Photoshop.

[4760]

I concur: except for normal maps, I always use Paint.net when I need to do some work on textures.

[PJ156]

Paint.net has a normal map plugin which I find adequate but the gimp one is better with its 3D preview pop up. I think it has a better specular map tool as well now.

 

None the less Paint.net is doing everything I need from it. 

 

I thought about downloading Genetica but there's no free version. Lots of free textures on the site though

 

http://www.spiralgra...ex.htm?2#anchor

 

PJ

[PJ156]

I've also just discovered it does dynamic selection and, a holy grail for me, brush weight and feathering.

 

You can select using the wand tool the adjust the tolerance and watch how the section is impacted. That's going to save a lot of trial and error. 

 

PJ

 

My first effort with all the cool new toys

 

 

Suggestions welcomed to improve on this.