On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:14:15AM +0200, Steve Crane wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:52:52AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Steve, please don't be so ignorant.
> This seems a bit rude and uncalled for.
well, gimp developers are not known for being polite in all situations.
pointing out when he is rude is sort of a compliment in some situations.
maybe not this one, however.

> > Carol has a point here. If unsharp
> > mask is slow, it makes sense to look for alternatives.
> Of course it does.
it is interesting that the autosharp plug-in is running slower than the
photoshop equivelent of the same thing.  there is a good chance that one
or the other of us is doing the wrong thing or that the gimp code is
old, simply ported along and not rewritten.

that would probably best sent in a more terse format to the
gimp-developer list.  even then, someone needs to be interested in it.
mentioning your "workflow" is not the best way to approach people who
are trying to think about writing software or people who are
volunteering to write software.

> > There's no
> > point in sticking to your workflow if it turns out that the same
> > result can be better achieved differently.
> I don't intend to, nor did I say I planned to.
we were wondering if value levels (a tool and not a plug-in) worked
better than what you are using.

we do not assume that you are using photoshop properly or not.  i simply
would have accomplished what you described using the levels tool on the
image values.  

the situation you described sounded like this tool would work better.
this list is generally the sort where images are shown that demonstrate
the problem.  can you show us a photo? original, unsharp maskified and
also with the levels tweaking i suggested?  there is a very good chance
that i am incorrect here.

> > So, are you certain that
> > unsharp mask is better than using levels?
> No.
> The point I was trying to make in my reply to Carol, and maybe I didn't
> put it across clearly, was the following.  In general GIMP (in Linux)
> performs roughly the same as Photoshop (in Windows) on my machine.  So
> when I found this one filter that is so much slower with the same
> settings I became curious, wondering if it is to be expected, due to the
> way GIMP handles USM.  That is all.  I was not saying I will blindly use
> the function because the workflow uses it.  I was not saying that I
> won't look for alternatives.  I was not saying that GIMP sucks or has a
> bug, merely asking for an opinion from those more knowledgeable than
> myself in the workings of the USM filter.
most of the gimp developers use linux.  photoshop does not run on linux.
half the time we do not know what they are doing!  usually when they do
have something new, it is just a trick of the modes or something not so
clever as you might think.

yes, photoshop and gimp share many of the same stuff.  that is because
it is all computers.  graphic images on computers.  i always thought
gimp was more like paint shop pro, personally.  are you certain it
resembles photoshop that much?

yes, please do not blindly use any gimp functions.  i am also assuming
that you did not use unsharp mask blindly.  if you could show us some
examples it would make the chat about your work and your workflow more

it is way too late in the game to say gimp sucks or that photoshop
sucks.  no one even thought this.

> I do appreciate Carol's pointing out an alternative.  I sometimes feel
> though, that on mailing lists in general, a lot of friction could be
> avoided if we only answer what is asked, not what we think is being
> asked by trying to read between the lines.
ah, you are worried about your workflow.  i am also.  and about your
work as well.  please do not read between the lines of what i ask as
well.  a simple "did you try this" might actually improve your work at
the same time it improves your work flow.  this list has not ever been
about peoples work flow, it has been about the best way to handle images
with the gimp.

> In response to Alan Horkan, it is the plug-in version that I'm using.
examples and actual version numbers are helpful to everyone.

cheers back,

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to