On Friday 28 September 2007 14:12:30 David Southwell wrote: > 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.
David Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> interjected at this point: "Thank you for saying eloquently what I would have stated rudely :-)" To which my response is: Those who have something valuable to say do not need to be rude. Sven's response was both pertinent and helpful. I had previously said there was no suggestion on my part that Gimp "should" move in any specific direction. However IMHO users need to understand the imp[lications of varying opportunities so they can influence the direction of development. I therefore look forward tot Sven helping users understand the implications of his vision. > > 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 _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
