On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Carol Spears wrote:

> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:03:30 -0800
> From: Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Jakub Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>      GIMPUser <Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Trouble with layers from psd
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:40:13AM +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:13 -0800, Carol Spears wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 01:26:49PM +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In many cases people just want to convert their old work. They don't use
> > > > proprietary formats by ignorance, but simply because of a lack of option
> > > > and lock-in of their software.

> > > define "lock-in" please.
> >
> > Lock-in as in "f*ck I'm screwed now i have to use Adobe products to have
> > access to all my work".

> everyone has their own things that lock them into something and out of
> other things.

> while i have no idea what the developers are doing, either as a group or
> individually (it is always just a guess about everything and anything,
> not just gimp stuff), i always thought that they kept the ability to
> read psd to a minimum to force people away from stealing and using
> photoshop.  it would make sense if you look at it like a war.

If anything being able read PSD files makes it easier to move files away
from Adobe Photoshop and into the GIMP.

I think the ability to write good PSD files would do more to keep users
from working with both the GIMP and Adobe Photoshop but I never believe
the developers would deliberately keep functionality to a minimum.  I
would have thought that developers rather choose to work on the many other
challenges that interested them more instead and because the lack of
specifications from Adobe made the job a lot more difficult.

> people who save their work in psd must be 1) secure that their place of
> employment will always use photoshop and computers that run it or

PSD files are understood by Paint Shop Pro and most most other graphics
software because Adobe did provide some specifications for a while and
even if they do not provide the same kind of information for the latest
versions of PSD they are dominant enough that others have made an effort
to provide some compatibility.  If you want to share files with users of
other graphics software (besides the gimp) without flattening the image
then PSD is the most obvious choice for sharing Layered images (MNG isn't
widely supported yet and if there are other good choices they are not as
obvious as PSD).

> 2) fairly certain they will always be able to afford it or steal it.
> photoshop has done its part in the world to continually demand that
> everyone purchase bigger and better computers with each new release;
> everyone counts on things that i have found to be not dependable.

Adobe Photoshop Elements is not as extortionately priced as the full
commercial version of Adobe Photoshop, apparantly the older verison is
even bundled with some digital cameras.  Cheap versions of Photoshop can
be legally obtained, I expect I could pick up a second hand copy of
Photoshop 6 quite cheaply (the university I attend has some copies of PS6
on special machines).  For the ordinary users that doesn't understand
or care about Free Software that isn't such a bad deal.
But my point is that with PS Elements and cheap older versions there are
probably more legitamate Photoshop users than ever.

> i get upset with the independent groups.  i cannot remember the graphic
> but someone appeared on #gimp with a psd for an event that was sponsored
> by a group that was supposed to be all for freedom (it was anti-music or
> anti-copyright, iirc).

I'm surprised they didn't flatten the image to a PNG file but there really
isn't that much choice if you want to preserve layers in a format that a
wide range of applications will be able to understand.

> THEN i spent a week following things on #gimp some.  there was lots of
> talk and exchange of facts about the gimp raw plug-in.  i haven't seen
> anything here about the raw plug-in, but i did see that Adobe has
> released an updated raw thing themselves.
> all this stuff, and i just got to sit back and ask myself, whatsup?

- Alan H.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to