On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:07:56 gimp_user wrote: > On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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. > > As this was a diversion from an original topic in a separate thread, and > because your question is such a good one, I have decided to recast my > original reply as a seperate topic and provide a little more detail. > > This is not the first time a lack of understanding about the > term "non-destructive editing" has come up and you are not the only one > who has the mistaken belief that it is OK to falsely accuse others on this > list of something equivalent to having > > >"falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing" > > when you do not even understand the term under discussion. > > I believe gimp is a "good enough" tool not to need inappropriate defensive > reactions or ill-informed responses when its limitations are discussed. The > discussion of limitations leads to enhancement and there his ample history > of enhancement in Gimp's progress. Gimp is a substantial tool that, in > common with all other tool sets has limitations and weaknesses. In > non-destructive editing Gimp's weaknesses are substantial, however once > support for 16 bit per channel AND native raw file handling has been > developed the path will be open for solving the problem. > > 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. Its support for > non-destructive editing is now quite substantial. It is getting there by a > process of incremental improvement (whilst gimp cannot approach it) and > each > version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I have just > upgraded to CS3 which, among other things, 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 and also to ask you to withdraw your rather unkind and > inappropriate accusation of falsity. > One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an image for your own use and can revisit the original then the absense of non-destrucitve editing features may not be a handicap. The point is to know what you can and cannot do with each and every toolset and when a tool is appropriate to your needs and when it is not.
_______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
