On Friday 28 September 2007 06:20:05 gimp_user wrote: > On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote: > > On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote: > > > --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user > > > > transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is > > > > ready for adoption by high quality image makers. > > > > > > FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your > > > statement is false. You can't speak for me and I don't agree with you > > > so... If you can provide hard data that backs this up with numbers > > > well that might be a different story but it would have to be global > > > figures. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and > > thereby portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple > > strands. The difficulty that idividuals face in switiching from one > > software interface to another naturally varies from individual to > > individual. But that is no way intended to be interpreted as the core of > > my contribution. > > > > My original posting was intended to draw attention to multiple layers of > > reality that contribute to professional decision about software choices > > that go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based upon > > assessment of levels of experience and known skills. Someone who says > > "Well I know Gimp but I am sure I could adapt to photoshop" is going to > > face an uphill struggle convincing an agency that he has all the right > > skills. His statement would be taken as evidence of not understanding the > > role of an individual contributor in a complex supply chain. > > > > While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin > > similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability of multiple > > individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple > > organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not > > currently in a position to seriously challenge PS. > > > > By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which was > > never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it does > > not apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also > > suggest to me that you have not carefully read and understood the theme. > > > > What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply chain, > > on at least equal terms with PS and that cannot happen overnight. It > > would be foolish to suggest that that could be achieved by simply having > > a GUI that makes for an easy transition. PS has to be considered not just > > as a tool for for high quality image manipulation but also as an attempt > > to provide an integrated solution to the requirements of a complete > > supply chain. > > > > The real world is far more complex than the needs and abilities of > > individuals and my contribution was only intend to open a crack in the > > door of examining the impliaction of those wider complexities. Gimp has > > the potential to be developed to at least equal photoshop but because it > > can interface with the rich world of open source solutions it could do > > even better. Whether it will or will not do so is a choice available to > > the community. > > > > I am not saying Gimp "should" choose to set out to do so. I am saying > > that while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs of > > many individuals, such as yourself. It is also my opinion that it has > > the potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative > > industry of high quality image makers. To do that, in my opinion, it will > > need to make many changes if it is to satisfy the needs of a supply chain > > accustomed to share resources and skills (including common toolsets). It > > means providing tools for non-destructive editing to enable more than one > > individual and organisation to contribute to the creation, manipulation, > > selection, cataloguing, distribution and promotion of images. > > > > These requirement present a serious challenge and no easy one for an open > > source project to fulfill. > > In response to this > > On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote: OOPS it was actually Patrick Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who wrote: > > Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have > > at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- > > distructive editing". The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps > > you can take the time to explain your meaning? > > Yes I do object to selective discussion because it means no one else is > able to follow the whole thread when bits get cut out so the thread gets > chopped into fragmnents - each one then gets followed selectively. Readers > then find they have to flip backwards and forwards to follow the > discussion. > > Your question is a good one and I hope I will be able to explain why > non-destructive editing is not ia contradiction. > > Before amplifying I do not want to you to have any mistaken impressions > about photoshop because one of my irritations with PS is that it does not > yet fully achieve fully non-destructive editing. However it is getting > there and each version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I > have just upgraded to CS3 which now has exposure adjustments available as a > non-destructive layer whereas in CS2 exposure was not accomplished > non-destructively.) > > By this I mean that one starts with loading the original image and that > original can remain in the bottom of the stack. In the case of professional > digital images that means raw files are sourced and loaded as 16bit images. > > Non-destructive editing can, for example, be accomplished by having each > edit take place as a layer which can, at any later point, be revisited, > either by by the original image manipulator or anyone further down the > chain. That layer can therefore be tweaked later in the process. There are > some processes in PS that cannot be accomplished non-destructively but as > Gimp does not even start with the ability to load a raw image or even an > image at 16 bit we cannot begin the process. > > With non-destructive editing every individual edit can be selectively > applied to the output (to screen, printer etc). Each edit is not applied to > the original which remains intact. For example it means I could apply two > alternative exposure corrections. At a very much later stage, and after > much subsequent editing, either I or someone on some other machine, could > print 4 copies namely the original without either correction, with the > first correction only, the second correction, or the sum of both > corrections. > > Non-destructive editing also implies the ability to transfer files between > people and organization in a form that they can amend the edits applied by > previous manipulators. > > This is not a complete answer because there is more to it but I hope I have > geven enough information to help explain why non-destructive editing is not > a contradiction. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gimp-user mailing list > Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
_______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
