Posted by
Jonathan Hilmer on
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/photoshop-style-layering-tp3692542p3692547.html
Gimp will work, but for figures (or posters), a vector graphics
package is the far better solution. I prefer Inkscape, due to the
simplicity and cost (free).
The final post in the following discussion has a good overview with
screenshots showing how Inkscape can be used to make posters, but
there's no real difference when making figures.
http://inkscape-forum.andreas-s.net/topic/146897Here are some of the screenshots:
http://jo.irisson.free.fr/dropbox/inkscape/poster_inkscape_style2.pnghttp://jo.irisson.free.fr/dropbox/inkscape/poster_inkscape_outline.pngThe best part of using Inkscape is that it's totally
resolution-independent, so you can export graphics for publication at
whatever resolution or format is required. Of course any bitmap
images you have embedded within Inkscape will just be resampled, so
it's best to start out with good resolution images.
There are only two disadvantages to Inkscape that I have found so far.
First, the PDF export option works fine but treats text as shapes, so
the resulting files are huge if there is substantial amounts of text:
~500MB for a poster with about 50% text. Second, it doesn't embed
images within the saved files the way Powerpoint does: it just saves
links in the manner of OpenOffice. I rather prefer that behavior, but
you have to be prepared for it if you're moving files around.
Jonathan
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Glen MacDonald
<
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Adobe Elements is a fraction of the price for Photoshop and provides the
> important components for scientific use, like layers and adjusting the
> levels.
>
> Glen
> Glen MacDonald
> Core for Communication Research
> Virginia Merrill Bloedel Hearing Research Center
> Box 357923
> University of Washington
> Seattle, WA 98195-7923 USA
> (206) 616-4156
>
[hidden email]
>
> ******************************************************************************
> The box said "Requires WindowsXP or better", so I bought a Macintosh.
> ******************************************************************************
>
>
> On May 13, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Justin McGrath wrote:
>
>> Since ImageJ is an image analysis program and not an image editing
>> program,
>> I don't think it works well for creating figures. If you want something
>> roughly along the lines of Photoshop without the hefty price tag, The GIMP
>> is suitable.
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Johannes Schindelin <
>>
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009, John Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm making a figure and I realize that I use imageJ for everything
>>>> except for assembling the final figure layout. That's because imageJ
>>>> does not have an easy layer style approach to moving objects around on
>>>> an image.
>>>>
>>>> For example, in photoshop, I can paste an image down, and position it.
>>>> I can then paste a second image down and position it. It is easy to
>>>> switch between the first and second images, and adjust their positions
>>>> accordingly. This goes on and on - and ultimately I have a PSD file
>>>> with dozens of layers that I can easily move around.
>>>>
>>>> In imageJ, once I paste something, I can move it around, but, when I'm
>>>> done it's position is set in stone.
>>>>
>>>> I realize that imageJ does have the components to act like photoshop -
>>>> in essence, a multi-layer tiff as the layers and a z-projection as the
>>>> final image. What would be needed is a "layer view" and a "z-projection
>>>> view" in parallel. with an easy way to "add layer" and to move layers
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> does anyone know of a simple way of accomplishing this in imageJ? I'd
>>>> really prefer to use it for all my needs.
>>>
>>> You can (ab)use TrakEM2 for that...
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>> Dscho
>>>
>