Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
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: > 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 e
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
* gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09-28-07 07:20]: [...] > 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. 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? -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535@ http://counter.li.org ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
-- Forwarded message -- From: carol irvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sep 28, 2007 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI To: gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This makes total sense to me. If you work for ad agencies, for example, everyone will want to be using the same set of tools and not converting anything. I am not with an ad agency so it doesn't affect me. I use both Photoshop and Gimp for my own projects which no one else works on. My motivation in learning Gimp is totally financial. I am switching myself to open source programs whenever I can to save money. It is no more complex than that. I've got just about everything else covered via open source but for the image editing. I'm glad someone brought up this floating selection dilemma. I will relate my experience with it in a separate email. carol (new member) On 9/28/07, gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > _
Re: [Gimp-user] remember last location for "save as", "save a copy", "save", "open"
Hi, On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 21:57 +0200, firepol wrote: > I open an image stored > in /media/usb-external/graphics/work/animals/cat/mycat/christmas/cat.jpg > > Now, if I cut a part of the image and I paste it into a new image, > then I click "save as" I get as default my home directory (in my > case /home/paul/) which is very annoying since I'd like to save the > modified image in the same folder (last location) I've just opened a > few seconds before. I need to re-navigate the whole tree to select the > directory, loosing a bunch of time. Sometimes you want to save the image there, and sometimes you don't. Since there's no relation between the image you opened and the one you are saving, it would be somewhat odd to open the save file-chooser in the loaction where you last opened a different image. It's not easy to find a good solution that fits for all cases. For GIMP 2.4 we have changed the behavior of the Open and Save dialogs so that they open in the last used directory if you are using them from the same image. For all other needs, I suggest that you use the Bookmarks feature of the file-chooser dialog to avoid having to renavigate the filesystem. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
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
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
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. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] remember last location for "save as", "save a copy", "save", "open"
Hi there, I open an image stored in /media/usb-external/graphics/work/animals/cat/mycat/christmas/cat.jpg Now, if I cut a part of the image and I paste it into a new image, then I click "save as" I get as default my home directory (in my case /home/paul/) which is very annoying since I'd like to save the modified image in the same folder (last location) I've just opened a few seconds before. I need to re-navigate the whole tree to select the directory, loosing a bunch of time. The usability improvement I'm suggesting is to always remember the last location where the user opened or saved a file. E.g. I open a file from /media/usb-external/graphics, then I manipulate it and create a new image fom it, The "save as" should be already open the /media/usb-external/graphics. If I create a folder "temp" and save the file there, then click "open" I'd like to be aleady in /media/usb-external/graphics/temp (last location)... see what I mean? If you don't like this behavior, at least copy the behavior of Adobe Photoshop: it's not smart as the one I'm suggesting but at least it remembers the last saved folder, even if you close photoshop. Personally I think that it would be nice to change the behavior as I'm suggesting (I think it can save a lot of time to regular users), don't you think it's smarter to remember the last used location instead of navigating the directories tree each time you want to save a new image? Please consider this improvement... see also my initial request http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481002 Best regards, --firepol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
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. You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works. 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. 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. 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. 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. And you would do this by first telling us who you are and what contributions you have to offer. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] remember last location for "save as", "save a copy", "save", "open"
El dv 28 de 09 del 2007 a les 19:34 +0200, en/na Sven Neumann va escriure: > It's not easy to find a good solution that fits for all cases. For GIMP > 2.4 we have changed the behavior of the Open and Save dialogs so that > they open in the last used directory if you are using them from the same > image. For all other needs, I suggest that you use the Bookmarks feature > of the file-chooser dialog to avoid having to renavigate the filesystem. Just a couple of ideas. May be Gimp can auto add/remove Bookmarks? I guess this can give more problems than adressed. Or may be after modifying file-chooser, there will be a place for app-bookmarks in plus of user-bookmarks? Yours Pere ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
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 cann
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than I expected...and that's a good thing. I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable loss if image quality from my 12-bit images? Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original bit-depth or as 8-bit? Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658 ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
Greg wrote: > I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable > loss if image quality from my 12-bit images? Loss? Yes. Noticeable? Maybe, maybe not. > Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original > bit-depth or as 8-bit? Everything in Gimp (currently) is 8 bits per channel. -- David Hodson -- this night wounds time ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
Greg wrote: > I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than > I expected...and that's a good thing. > > I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable > loss if image quality from my 12-bit images? > >From prints? no. On your monitor? maybe. You will notice it when you try and correct for under or over exposure or gamma, and you'll notice it more in the underexposed areas where sensor noise will be more visible. Much of this would be done in the UFRAW converter which DOES use all the bits, so you can argue it's less of an impact. > Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original > bit-depth or as 8-bit? > Once the image is pulled into GIMP, it's 8/24 bit for processing and display. Here's a reasonably quick experiment. Gather a few images that represent your typical shooting Download UFRAW and the GIMP (maybe not so quick depending on your download speeds). Pull your 12/36bit image into UFRAW and make whatever exposure/balance tweaks needed and then have it hand it off to GIMP. Have both images up at the same time. What do your eyes tell you? I've posted this before, and in case you missed it, you really need to do a bit of digital "darkroom" 101. Go to www.normankoren.com and read through his site. Really. I'm not trying to be pedantic or condescending, but when you finish going through his tutorial, you'll be asking questions that will get you more targeted answers. You might drop him a little paypal gelt when you're done because people charge $500 for one day seminars to present similar material. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
On Friday 28 September 2007, 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. > > You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to > challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works. > > 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. 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. --snip- Thank you for saying eloquently what I would have stated rudely :-) -- dh signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
On Saturday 29 September 2007 01:51:59 carol irvin wrote: > I am switching myself to open source programs whenever I > can to save money. It is no more complex than that. Hi Carol! Um, I convert people to OpenOffice who basically don't give a hoot about the $$$. They adopt it because: * They don't need to get permission to spend $$$ (OK, so that's partially $$$ oriented); & * OOo can often recover broken or virussed MSO documents (-: the delight registering on faces as "the impossible" transpires & a couple of days or weeks of work is instantly recovered is immeasurable :-); & * It spits out PDFs without any extra software; & * It runs on anything (so someone can use a Mac at home vs WinXP at work & still face the same software -- oh, & ($$$) not have to pay for it twice); & * Some users much prefer OOo's stylesheets, or template management, or whatever even down to one lad who prefers the view-nonprinting-characters mode; & * One clear-cut preferral for the better HTML editing facilities; & * They can successfully read & write old MSO (& OOo) docs; & * It's better at importing Plain Text, CSVs or InsertRandomFormat documents; & * Variety of features down to Insert Special Character working better, or simply having Insert Formatting Mark, or sundry other added features; & * so on. In short, you may be doing yourself out of the better parts of the deal by simply sticking to financial reasons, essentially ignoring the others. It's a bit like reading scripture for doctrinal reasons only: you miss out on the really juicy bits. (-: I have Linux users who use the penguin because: * It's free (yay, & most of them don't know or care); & * They can read email, browse the web, & word process; & * There are no viruses (well, there actually are a few, but zero of my users have ever tripped over one, & it's kind of heart- warming to have your users tell of other systems blitzing into the ground in spiralling clouds of greasy smoke while they continue their work unabated); & * Things don't change by themselves (well... the machines are set to auto-update, so things do eventually change, but what they're talking about is the random config changes & transient insanity so typical of MS-Windows machines); & * The tools to fix (or alter) almost anything are immediately to hand. In short: cost-sorta/functionality/safety/reliability/flexibility. Cost is one factor of 5, & in Real Life(tm) is often irrelevant. GIMP is not *quite* the same, in that compatibility with another app (not always PS) is more often a concern, but in general terms the cases are "close enough." Cheers; Leon ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
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
[Gimp-user] Selection Across Layers
Hi, I've begun using Gimp again after a long time. IIRC, one (more?) tool of Gimp had an option of making a selection that went through all the layers right to the bottom layer. And, IIRC, having made that type of selection in one of the top layers and performing an operation on it would carry out the operation on the combined output of all of the bottom layers. May be I am wrong here but I do vaguely recall such an option after reading on this list about non-destructive editing features of a commercial photo-retouching applications. Any help/hints? -- Best regards, Asif ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
