On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote: > > 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.
On Friday 28 September 2007 09:14:50 gimp_user wrote: > 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. > > You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to > challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works. > Actually if you had not had not cut out the part of my contribution that is relevant to this point you will see I actually said: " > > > 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. " > GIMP has different goals than Photoshop and instead of concentrating on > being as similar to Photoshop as possible, our feature set and user > interface will in the future diverge even further from Photoshop. IT would be interesting to see what those goals are. This discussion started because users who are making a considerable investment in time to learn gimp are also interested in knowing how they can use it in the future. This discussion is therefore at least as relevant to users as it is to developers. Wether or no GIMP is planning to develop in ways that will provide non-destructive editing and full support for raw and 16+ bit is something that is really relevant and the views of users need to be sought. > Simply > because we have a different vision for what GIMP should become and > because we believe that this vision is a lot more interesting than > trying to compete with a commercial product. OK but how do users contribute to the vision creation process? > > As soon as GIMP 2.4 is released, we will start to integrate GEGL to the > GIMP core and our plans for an image manipulation program based on GEGL > go way beyond what Photoshop offers. We are all ears. > > > > > > 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. > > > > Feel free to continue your discussion here. But seriously, I don't > understand who you are trying to address here. This is the GIMP user > mailing-list. If you really wanted a constructive discussion about the > future of GIMP, then you would introduce yourself on the gimp-developer > list. IMHO This issue that needs to be discussed in collaboration with users _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
