On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Michael Natterer <mi...@gimp.org> wrote:

>> There will be no privacy reasons and it will normally not be necessary
>> to read the log files. They are only there for solving possible
>> disputes about the amount of editing.
> So for your so-called "superiors" to spy on the lower planes
> of employed graphics designers? Or am I totally misunderstanding
> the weird between-the-lines tone in your sentences?

Complete misunderstanding. They want to be able to prove what has been
done to the image in the processing. As in: "Is this scratch really on
the object and has been revealed from the raw photo with a contrast
enhancement or has it been inserted with the clone tool?". Usually
these disputes don't come up and so the logs don't have to be reader
friendly. Some crypto signature would be even nicer. No checking of
job performance or such nasty stuff.

There are some guys who want to get GIMP instead of PS used in their
organisation. They have a lot of opposition (the usual crowd: Fanboys,
marketing, "No Price - No Quality" and "I don't want to learn new
stuff")   and are looking for stuff that would be a technical
advantage over PS. PS can log, but you can switch the logging off
without trace during editing while you clone in something.

There is a lot of internal politics at stake and so I can't be more
specific about the people behind this. Nothing to do with me
personally or my job as a teacher, they contacted me as the host of
"Meet the GIMP" and wrongly assumed I would know such stuff.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to