Re: [Gimp-user] Time to stick a fork in the GIMP?
Hi, John R. Culleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There has been a history of Gimp leadership downplaying the needs of the DTP world. In particular the CMYK color model has been avoided. Now there is (slow) movement in that direction, but CMS profiles are needed as well. There has been what? I have been pushing the introduction of color management using ICC profiles for quite a while. The need for other color models and high color depths has been acknowledged years ago when we decided that we need to redesign the GIMP core to be able to handle all this. I have been supporting anyone who has expressed his/her interest to work on the GIMP code. Sorry, but we haven't been downplaying. We are simply only a handful of developers who happen to have a full-time job, a real life and only a limited amount of time that we cannot put into improving GIMP. I would love to be able to work on more drastic changes, but currently my time is pretty much eaten by maintaining the current code, dealing with bug reports, applying patches, helping occasional contributors and sometimes even writing some code that will hopefully bring us closer to the long-awaited 2.4 release. If we want to improve GIMP, we need to stop beating each other over each others heads and instead start to work together, attract more developers and do the changes that we all know are very much needed. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Time to stick a fork in the GIMP?
On Sunday 12 March 2006 09:44, Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, John R. Culleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There has been a history of Gimp leadership downplaying the needs of the DTP world. In particular the CMYK color model has been avoided. Now there is (slow) movement in that direction, but CMS profiles are needed as well. There has been what? I have been pushing the introduction of color management using ICC profiles for quite a while. The need for other color models and high color depths has been acknowledged years ago when we decided that we need to redesign the GIMP core to be able to handle all this. I have been supporting anyone who has expressed his/her interest to work on the GIMP code. I apparently misinterpeted what I had read earlier. So I look forward to more facilities in support of DTP including CMYK output and CMYK visibility onscreen, even if the actual work is done in RGB. In this context PostScript and evenually PDF output is part of the puzzle too. I use TeX and pdftex won't take a TIFF file as input. Apparently there are too many variants. In the meantime I will try to locate the PostScript output code (again) and try to clean it up a bit, as we discussed many moons ago. Thanks for your continued efforts. -- John Culleton Books with answers to marketing and publishing questions: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/shortlist.pdf Book coaches, consultants and packagers: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/packagers.pdf ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Time to stick a fork in the GIMP?
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/03/07/1813207 Saw the above article on Newsforge. Wayne ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Time to stick a fork in the GIMP?
wayne wrote: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/03/07/1813207 Saw the above article on Newsforge. Well, it shows that the author doesn't read the OpenUsability forum. Of course, this makes it a suitable article for NewsForged, but without proof for the authors claims it is worthless. I'd highly recommend and appreciate it if anyone who wants to participate in the discussion that will take place in this thread reads the relevant sources (OpenUsability forum, GIMP mailing list archives, news group and Bugzilla for threads concerning GIMPShop) himself and in whole. Thank you. Michael -- The GIMP http://www.gimp.org | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp Wiki http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de Plug-ins http://registry.gimp.org | ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Time to stick a fork in the GIMP?
Michael Schumacher wrote: Well, it shows that the author doesn't read the OpenUsability forum. Of course, this makes it a suitable article for NewsForged, but without proof for the authors claims it is worthless. I don't dispute this, but I think a more fundamental issue has been raised in the article, which comes up time and time again on Gimp lists and in other Gimp criticism. That issue is: Gimp does not look or behave like PhotoShop. As a result, people think it's doomed to fail simply because it's not PhotoShop. If folks want to use Pixel, which emulates PhotoShop, by all means let them. What I didn't like about the article is the author equates PhotoShop look/feel with usability. Many Gimp users find Gimp *very* usable and functional given what it can do. Gimp's functionality is separate from its UI and I think it's wrong to judge Gimp's functionality based on its UI (which doesn't necessarily mean the UI is horrible even though many think it is). I mentioned before I once got into a Gimp UI debate with someone who slammed Gimp's UI but also felt PhotoShop's UI was just as bad. I think those who claim Gimp has a bad UI yet suggest adopting a PhotoShop UI are still missing the target. If the idea is to come up with a good UI for Gimp, that is where the focus should be instead of swapping one arguably bad UI with another arguably bad UI simply because it's well known. Thanks to wayne for posting the link. :) Peace... Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Time to stick a fork in the GIMP?
On Saturday 11 March 2006 18:39, John R. Culleton wrote: On Saturday 11 March 2006 17:00, Michael Schumacher wrote: wayne wrote: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/03/07/1813207 Saw the above article on Newsforge. Well, it shows that the author doesn't read the OpenUsability forum. Of course, this makes it a suitable article for NewsForged, but without proof for the authors claims it is worthless. I'd highly recommend and appreciate it if anyone who wants to participate in the discussion that will take place in this thread reads the relevant sources (OpenUsability forum, GIMP mailing list archives, news group and Bugzilla for threads concerning GIMPShop) himself and in whole. Thank you. Michael There has been a history of Gimp leadership downplaying the needs of the DTP world. In particular the CMYK color model has been avoided. Now there is (slow) movement in that direction, but CMS profiles are needed as well. Meanwhile other products are coming to the fore that have CMYK and CMS capabalities from the start. Among products usable today there is Inkscape the drawing program and Scribus, which is more of a Quark replacement. But a more direct alternative in terms of replacing Gimp functionality is Krita, part of the Koffice site but not normally distributed with it. Krita is buggier than a summer picnic and crashes are frequent. But development is proceeding rapidly and the feature set is already impressive. It calls itself a painting and image editing program, which is Gimp territory to be sure. And one of the principal developers asked me what plug ins I especially liked in Gimp, to give him some rainy day projects. And it already has CMYK and CMS profiles. By no means am I ready to jump ship. But I keep my eyes on these other alternatives. Gimp either meets the DTP challenge or will have to face a Photoshop port or clone someday. And keep an eye on Krita. Totally agree with this post. When Krita matures, Gimp is going to have some insane competition. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
