Main menu
User login
Syndicate
You are here
Script doesn't work in Gimp 2.8...
Hi.
I'm using a pretty useful script for years (actually it's my most used script) and it doesn't work anymore since I've upgradet from 2.6 to 2.8.
Unfortunately I have not the slightest clue about scripting or programming at all and the creator of the script is not responding to any requests.
Here's the script I'm talking about:
http://registry.gimp.org/node/17151 (the "new" version)
When I try to apply this to an image Gimp responds with this error message (translated badly from german into english):
"Error in executing script-fu-max-loc-contrast:
Error: ( : 24646061) Procedure execution of gimp-selection-combine failed on invalid input arguments: Objekt »Value« (7) cannot be used because it wasn't added to an image "
Anyone here has a clue what to change about the script to work with 2.8?
Many thanks in advance!
just in case you don't get a
just in case you don't get a quick reply
we often solved similar problems on http://www.gimpchat.com/viewforum.php?f=9
(no not a spam message but the link for a gimp help forum )
There are some unbound variables
and a few bad parameters such as 2 lines in the script that read
(gimp-rect-select theImage 0 0 smwidth smheight
CHANNEL-OP-INTERSECT FALSE 0 )
should have a 1 instead of FALSE as they ask for a INT32 number for parameter value (0=TRUE-1=FALSE)
The script will have to be looked over for deprecations by the author.
Have you tried contacting them?
The two errors i get running the script through console.
*********************************************************************************
Error: ( : -1196300978) eval: unbound variable: roys-max-local-contrast,
script-fu-max-loc-contrastError: ( : -1196428708) eval: unbound variable: imp-progress-init
***********************************************************************************
imp-progress-init should read gimp-progress-init i believe. :)
However it does indeed have gimp-progress-init there so maybe a indentation error?
I installed the old one and it works fine. :)
-Rod
@PhotoComiX: Thanks for the
@PhotoComiX: Thanks for the link. I think I won't need it though.
@wacmaster: Thank you for the
@wacmaster: Thank you for the analysis. And you're right - the old one seems to work. *facepalm*