Okay, this is a bit of a weird one so bear with me.

I decided that I would take an image that I received from an artist and convert it to a vector image. Now, Inkscape (and just about anything else I can find) will only work with up to 256 scans (colors) in one trace. With that in mind, I grabbed each color channel from the original image (red, green, and blue) and converted each of those to vectors. That worked (I didn't lose gradients because each color channel had less than 256 shades). I've run into a problem now. I cannot figure out how to merge these images back into the original. When I can get something working in GIMP, it's always too dark. I figured I'd try importing these SVG files in Inkscape and try merging them with the multiply or lighten mode. Problem is, every time I open a new file, it comes up in a new window. For what I want to try, I need to open each file as a layer. Is there any way I can do this or am I pretty much SOL? Also, on the off chance that I can get these images to open as layers, would it be possible for me to merge these layers back into the original image? Whatever help I can get is appreciated.

Thanks,
bakonfreek.

Sidenote: I would upload the image, but the artist I received this image from says it's personal and that she does not wish for this image to make its way around the internet. Respecting her wishes, I'm keeping the files to myself. I could separate the colors from another image and give those for someone to mess about with if that could work.

I managed to get multiple SVG images to open in one file, but since my computer is terrible (Core2 Duo P8700 and 8 GB of RAM, it's all I could afford), it's not happening.

Hi.

It's hard to give you good avices on that.
First, inkscape is based on svg specs, and the supported blending modes may not be satisfactory themselves.
Then, filters are raster based. Meaning, when you save your work as a pdf, they will get rasterised.
So you would end up with an embedded raster image in your file at least, from one raster image of the same size, even if possible in theory.

Question is, how you want to improve the work when it's being a vector format?
By auto-tracing you can only lose details.
You can clean up a graphic with clean edges, mostly by manual editing.

But it won't improve the quality automagically, nor make it able for scaling up times larger.

I probably can't be much help. But I am curious why you're doing this. What do you want to accomplish?

Edit
Simultaneously posted with Lazur's msg

I don't understand what it is that you are doing but maybe you could copy the content in each file and copy it into it's own layer in the 'main' file? Group and align to page for every layer...

Hello

It's true what other users says, the conversion from raster to svg using just tracing, won't be (Never) truly accurate or with 100% fidelity.

The method that you follows it's interesting, but I'm afraid it's wrong, because I think you don't have clear the concepts of what a vector format or a raster format are.

At least for Inkscape. I don't know how other software manage that conversion.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and something can be done with your method. If you can't post the work of the artist, at least post a sample work, the original raster image, the svg files or file.

There are a lot of things to be considered when vector-tracing a raster image:
- The resolution and/ or size of the raster image
- The method of tracing: if traced by light, by one one color, by more colors, etc.
- The wanted effect or style of the resulting vector image: realistic, comic style, cartoon style, burned photo,etc?
- The fidelity to the colors of the image.

However, a hand tracing or editing work after tracing an image is required... always.

More information here:
http://tavmjong.free.fr/INKSCAPE/MANUAL/html/Trace.html

Again, It will be good if you post some sample files: an original raster image, the converted svg or svgs, even those gimp intermediate files...

greetings