http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/photoshop-style-layering-tp3692542p3692548.html
For a poster I would recommand Scribus over Inkscape. It is a program
> 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/146897>
> Here are some of the screenshots:
>
http://jo.irisson.free.fr/dropbox/inkscape/poster_inkscape_style2.png>
http://jo.irisson.free.fr/dropbox/inkscape/poster_inkscape_outline.png>
> The 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
>>>>
>>
>