On 9/27/07, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
> I would disagree
Greg 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.
>>
>
> I would disagree with this. I use bot
On 9/27/07, Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to
> > incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken
> > nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Greg 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.
>
> I would disagree
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to
> incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken
> nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be only temporary --
> the ultimate necessity to have a se
2007/9/26, Leon Brooks GIMP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 02:34:13 Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
> > Do I still have the old version?
> [...]
> > Do I have both versions so I need to make GIMP use the new
> > one rather than the old one?
>
> Maybe. Try "ldd $(which gimp)" & see
On Thursday 27 September 2007 03:49:25 Sven Neumann wrote:
> Do you even know what you are talking about? I don't think so.
Oh. Someone seems to have put Sven into Happy Mode. (-:
I must say that as a programming novitiate, sorta, I do find
the open to- & fro-ing on lists like GIMP's very informa
On 9/25/07, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Wikipedia article certainly was over my head.
>
> From what I read on the Gimp bug page lanczos scaling is not yet
> perfect. (But then what is?)
>
> I have to upscale images from 16M to 48M and it seems the client takes
> them apart and looks at
--- 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.
I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I
--- Leon Brooks GIMP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, yes, & PS requires Windows
Isn't there still a Mac version?
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 05:07 -0700, gimp_user wrote:
> It only received scorn because the GIMP development team ignored the basic
> requirement of development - using MVC in the early days - so the code
> structure does facilitate view customization (or skin development). IMHO
> Gimp has
Quoting gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ... An MVC architecture and user view customisation tools
> would be much more attractive route because it would lay the groundwork for
> emulating other tool sets including any future tools competitve to PS. The
> challenge for gimp is how
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 02:22:14 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 19:13:48 David at ATF4 wrote:
> > They all need to facilitate collaboration using a common
> > software interface, so that all users in the supply chain
> > can be mutually supportive and produce compat
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:27:06 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote:
> > Even with it's bit depth shortcoming, I'd still take GIMP's
> > mature tool set over anything OTHER than PS CS2/3 (at a
> > mere $649US)
>
> Approximating the $USD-$AUD con
Hi,
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 18:34 +0200, Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
> The problem is that it seems like I still have the old version. The
> images still can't be loaded, for the same reason as before. So right
> now I don't know what went wrong. Do I still have the old version? Do
> I have the new ver
15 matches
Mail list logo