Ex-technologist, now an artist. My art: (https://pixelfed.social/EugeniaLoli)

  • 1 Post
  • 267 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle






  • I don’t think so, it’s just $33 to buy it outright (no subscription). You can’t buy a good scanner or a printer for $33. It’s a good value for money, especially since the guy has to buy (and most importantly) test all that hardware for each release. It’s a lot of engineering time. But as I said, he probably forgot to add watermarking to the scanning stitching feature, so no purchase was necessary for me. The demo version is good enough for it!



  • I use gimp to edit (clean up) my scanned watercolor paintings. Yes, gimp is good enough now for what I used to do with photoshop: adjustment layers, more sane ui. Only thing that was missing is a very obscure feature that photoshop has, to merge multiple scanned pages of a very large photo. I now use vuescan for that (the free version does not add a watermark when using that particular feature, unlike its scans!). And then I edit in gimp, or RapidRAW (a new, lightroom-like app, that’s easier to use than darktable). So I’m set.

    This is how I do it:

    • Scan with the official EpsonScan2 app form flatpak as TIFF (unfortunately their .deb file coredumps on Linux Mint). The XSane app unfortunately is too buggy.
    • Then I merge the various scans to a single scan (if my painting was too large and needed several passes), with the free version of VueScan. There is one other foss app that can do that, but it’s so convoluted that it’s not even funny. Vuescan does it with a single click and it doesn’t add a watermark, curiously enough!
    • Then I edit either in Gimp to fix the wrong scanned colors (this epson scanner moves oranges to red a bit), or fix mistakes (that’s common now even for traditional illustrators). If it’s only colors I need to fix and not change actual parts of the painting, I might just use RapidRAW.
    • Then I export at 1024px high for web usage, as a jpg 90% quality. I then archive the TIFFs and XCF files.



  • Mint is less than 2 years old, that’s NOT old enough to say “I won’t support it”. If Microsoft was doing the same with Windows, they would never succeed. Compatibility is a big, big thing, and as I said, it’s users who use Mint that require his Appimage, not an Arch seasoned user. He misses the point. Just let him bundle more dependencies. It’s already 1.25 GB the package, what if it was 1.3 GB? Not a big difference.