Hey, I'm making something for myself. And I did okay until I had a problem with selecting.

See my friend gets this while Selecting the whole thing:

http://i37.tinypic.com/2z69hya.jpg

I get this

http://i37.tinypic.com/jt408l.jpg

See it picks up the Shadows I have over the Triangles. And when it does this it distorts the size when I want to change it. Like if I wanted it to be 200x200, it'd make it 183.456 or something instead. Is there like a setting to be changed or something?

Thanks in Advance, Gabe.

Welcome Gabe!
Well, I see in your friend's, there are 25 objects in the selecton, while in yours there are 49. Without having the SVG to examine, I can't really be sure what's there. Are you and your friend selecting in the same way? Like for example, if you did Edit menu > Select All, but your friend clicked with the Select tool, your friend might have missed something. Or if your friend did a so-called rubberband (or drag) selection, he or she might have missed those blurred objects.

As for making it a certain size....I guess I'd just do some simple calculations. Like for example, blurred size minus size b4 blurring plus 200. It wouldn't be technically mathematically accurately scaled, but close enough for appearances. However if it's to be a technical drawing or something, where it has to be accurate, someone else will have to offer a solution.

You could attach an SVG file, if you still can't figure out the selection problem. Then some of us can examine it and tell you exactly what's happening.

Thanksfor the Welcome. I have to say I love InkScape!
In reguards to this problem:
We later found out he is using a different version than me. I'm using the updated one. He said his is .46. We both selected with Ctrl+A. Which is Select All.
Also, when he selects it and scales it it scales it correctly. But when I do it. As I said it messes it up.
Here is the file:

Well, I still have no way of knowing what's happening with your friend's selection image. And I don't know if the difference in versions could account for the difference in how the image is selected or scaled. (Because I don't keep up with difference among versions -- I just take the improvements with each new version, and move on, lol.)

As for the file you've shared, I found that underneath appears to be an identical image (although I haven't taken apart tbe entire thing). That accounts for the difference in number of objects -- I'm guessing. Any reason why your friend's file should have half the number of objects yours does?

I see that you've used filters to achieve the shading. Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with filters, so I'll hand this off to someone else, although I'll certainly keep following the thread. When I first looked at it, I assumed you had used the Clip feature, which is why my tests didn't match your results. And I also see that you've used a mask in some places, which again, I haven't used much.

When you say the scale messes your image up, how does it get messed up? Is it just that you don't achieve the right size? Or are there other issues as well?

Ok, and with that final question, I'll bow out, wait for someone else to reply who knows what might be happening, and hope to learn yet more about Inkscape Sorry I couldn't help, but hang in there, and someone else will be along soon

In the Image. It's the Shadow of the Triangles First. Then comes the Triangle. Then comes the Drop Shadow I made for them. Then The Circle. See I had no idea what I used. I just used what worked best for me. xD

For the Scaling of the Image:
Let's say I wanted to make it 150x150.
I'd press Ctrl+A. To select it all.
Then on the Toolbar, I'd change the WxL to 150.
But instead it changes it to 141.007x141.007. (Even if I lock it still the same results.)
Then I keep changing it to 150. I get these results. 141.007, 150.275, 149.992, 150.000. Then It finally goes to 150.
But see I want the logo to be 150. Not the actual selection of everything.
http://i33.tinypic.com/34isgpc.png
(I tried Grouping them. But it doesn't select the real Object afterward.)
http://i38.tinypic.com/oqc41y.png

Thanks for the help so far. I appreciate it a lot.

Blank wrote:See my friend gets this while Selecting the whole thing:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2z69hya.jpg
I get this
http://i37.tinypic.com/jt408l.jpg

The difference is that you use the default selection bounding box mode ('Visual'), whereas your friend uses the 'Geometric' bounding box mode. 'Visual' includes the stroke widths and filter effects regions of the selected objects, whereas the 'Geometric' bounding box uses the geometric information of the selected objects (-> nodes, which are on the centerline of the visible stroke) and does not include the filter effects region.

You can change between 'Visual' and 'Geometric' bbox mode in 'File > Inkscape Preferences > Tools > Bounding box to use'

Blank wrote:Let's say I wanted to make it 150x150.
I'd press Ctrl+A. To select it all.
Then on the Toolbar, I'd change the WxL to 150.
But instead it changes it to 141.007x141.007. (Even if I lock it still the same results.)
Then I keep changing it to 150. I get these results. 141.007, 150.275, 149.992, 150.000. Then It finally goes to 150.

Known issue - workaround: scale the selection with the mouse and use snapping (bbox corners or nodes/handles to grid/guides/page - depending on your bbox mode and selection).

Note: your file indeed contained duplicates of all objects, maybe you hit 'Ctrl+D' at some point without noticing?

The difference is that you use the default selection bounding box mode ('Visual'), whereas your friend uses the 'Geometric' bounding box mode.

~suv, how can you be sure what the friend's settings are? Is it just a process of elimination?

So it's the filters that cause the bounding boxes to be larger than the object? I don't understand why. Because if you use Clip to remove the part of a blur that extends outside an object, it looks just the same as if you used a filter, except that the bounding box returns to the original size before the object was blurred. Why doesn't the application of a filter result in a bounding box the same size as the object (like it does with a clip)?

It makes me wonder if using a filter to quickly apply blurs or shadows to relatively simple situations is ill-advised, in certain situations? Because if you're going to have to clip it anyway, why not just do it with a clip in the first place, and forget the filter (again, I'm speaking of relatively simple filters)?

brynn wrote:So it's the filters that cause the bounding boxes to be larger than the object?

Yes.

brynn wrote:I don't understand why. Because if you use Clip to remove the part of a blur that extends outside an object, it looks just the same as if you used a filter, except that the bounding box returns to the original size before the object was blurred. Why doesn't the application of a filter result in a bounding box the same size as the object (like it does with a clip)?

If you blur a rectangle and then clip it with a rectangle of the same size, the clipped objects shows

1. the inner part of the blurred stroke if stroked, but unfilled
2. no blur at all fading edges if filled but not stroked (but why then even use blur?).
3. (…)

-> Many (preset) filters however have/need an effects region that extends beyond the original object dimensions:

Think of the 'Drop Shadow' effect - clipping it to the dimensions of the unfiltered object would clip the drop shadow away. Reducing the filter effects region and/or the selection bounding box size e.g. would cut off the shadow when exporting the selection to bitmap, or when the resizing the page to selection.

Inkscape can't dynamically resize the filter effects region (yet), but you can manually edit it for each applied filter, in the 'Filter General Settings' tab of the 'Filter Effects' dialog.

brynn wrote:It makes me wonder if using a filter to quickly apply blurs or shadows to relatively simple situations is ill-advised, in certain situations? Because if you're going to have to clip it anyway, why not just do it with a clip in the first place, and forget the filter (again, I'm speaking of relatively simple filters)?

I don't understand. How do you blur without using a filter effect? Clipping by itself can't blur.

I don't understand. How do you blur without using a filter effect? Clipping by itself can't blur.

Nevermind about that part. Now that I understand the answer to my first question, the 2nd one doesn't make sense.

Thanks for taking the time to explain