On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 09:39:57PM -0400, Joey Marshall wrote:
> I don't know if this would be better going to a different list... so
> sorry if this is going to the wrong place!
eh, the list isn't being used as often as it used to be and this is more
like the gimp-user list of the old days that i used to enjoy so much.
out of appreciation, for the sweetness of this letter and for the memory
of how wonderful it used to be, i am actually glad to respond.
> And the "Gimp vrs photoshop" means that I will be comparing two of the
> features of the two... not to argue one better than the other.
the success of gimp has been to not compete with Photoshop. when we
fail is probably when there is a lot of people pasting things they read
or making everyone feel bad because software(TM) doesn't work as well as
software(GPL). if you look at how business is run, GIMP doesn't have
any to run. on the otherhand, there is a group of people whose life and
happiness depend on selling software. that business has actually in the
time i have been involved with GIMP congealed into one big group
macromedia, adobe and a few others are now all the same. poor gimp has
gotten an aqua theme from this merger. dunno how i feel about that.
sometimes, i clear my mind of the noise by considering that it is out of
politeness that gimp waits for photoshop to get safely into first place
again. like, how big is there web design group and what is the smallest
computer they use? when you answer questions like this and consider the
people who make gimp, you kinda have to laugh.
so sure, photoshop does a lot that GIMP doesn't. some of those things
might actually be useful....
> Anyway, I have been a gimp user for quite a while, And I have learned
> how to harness a lot of the power underneath it's features.
i suggest that you would be able to work with any pixel manipulating
application and probably end up chuckling at the different words they
use or some of the "we think you are probably retarded" gui decisions
they make. after working with me and linux and then upgrading to
windows XP, my friend saw that the windows machine that made that thing
were comparing her to a teletubbie with that default desktop image.
i remember when i compared gimp-1.2 to photoshop5, i was extremely
disappointed with how much photoshop really could not do compared to
gimp. the availability of the canned effects only made me chuckle.
> BUT, that takes a lot of time! And I'm sure there are a lot of things
> I don't know how to do (as far as effects go).
> I was reading on a forum where this guy was posting that his son is an
> all out photoshop user, and would often challenge him to do something
> in gimp that he did in photoshop. He said that he was always able to
> do it. I know I can't... as well as a lot of other people (especially
> those just learning it).
personally, i haven't had a human being challenge me, but i have managed
to do any tutorial i found. there might be one exception to this -- i
cannot remember it specifically. i got bored with a magazine i
purchased to try to make the tutorials with.
> I had tried out photoshop to see what it was like. And was able to get
> the hang of it within a few hours because of it's similarities to the
> gimp (Note: I use Gimp for web development... which is what I was
> messing around with photoshop with. I did not explore the photo
> editing of photoshop).
some of their photo effects work but look silly. i saw one where the
time of day was changed by a lighting plug-in. occasionally, when i see
this used on television, i chuckle.
> There are two main differences that stood out to me.
> The first is the amount of affects and tools available. Photoshop had
> far more than the gimp. It's menus are allot longer. I don't like
> that. Gimp's tools are more flexible. Like I can make a glow by using
> a white scriptfu shadow with a 0 offset (this concerns my idea for the
the developers are trying to keep the menus shorter. i realized when i
tried to do something with them a while back that i am too much of a
menu nester. logic does not always make the best gui this way.
> The second is the way the filters are applied. I like how photoshop
> does it better. Instead of applying to the image itself... it acts
> more like a filter. You apply it to the layer.
> So say you put a shadow on it. When you edit the layer, the shadow
> updates as well.
> They only had this for the simpler effects it seems though (ones that
> didn't take a lot of time to apply). I found that very nice for
> designing web designs.
> Photoshops snapping was also pretty cool... but not cool enough to
> want in the gimp.
layer effects. i have heard and heard about these. since photoshop was
not written well enough to run on linux without a helper library i am
too much of a linux snob to use, i have not tried or seen this yet.
it was explained to me much like you explained it here.
i have seen discussions of guessing how they do this and how they make
i am going to try to explain gegl. i might fail in accurately
explaining it. it should be like a new canvas layer which will work the
way that photoshop is doing their magic. it is really difficult for me
sometimes to understand this layer or the need for it or that it really
exists. i see gimp working on pixels. to me, this is all that happens.
photoshop has managed to hide the layers from the users view. to me,
when it is explained to me, it is like a very intelligent preview.
heck, for what i understand, it is probably almost the same thing as
GIMP's jpeg preview now, only it does more. all the developers will say
about that is that it sucks. when they say that, i would like to think
they mean it is written poorly. they might actually be steering
interested peoples attention from it. or the preview that you get with
any of the transformation tools might be a better example. or levels.
the levels preview right on the image is really impressive and i think
not unlike what is described from the layers effects.
> Now I guess those two things are just my opinion. So you may disagree
> with me on that.
my experience with the snapping is that if photoshop users do not snap
their work when they are finished, they might have a near sighted linux
friend who will see this.
i had to expand the view to 400% and circle it to show her. i am not
perfect, but it is too easy to make pixels be perfect.
what i saw was that if photoshop had gimp guides, an extra step that is
sometimes forgotten will not be taken. looks cool is only that.
the gimp guides work much more reliably to accomplish the same thing.
> Now for my suggestion on the website. I think it would be very helpful
> for have a section that would be like a cross between an FAQ and a
> help desk.
when they attempted to collect a FAQ, everyone was so excited that the
rules of the mailing were violated almost from the beginning and i
actually cannot remember how that turned out.
probably tempers flared. gimp has a way of attracting 1)passionate
users and 2)"usability experts"
> Basically, people could post their questions on how to get a desired
> effect on an image. Then other people who know how could answer these
> questions in the form of an example. Then all the questions and
> answers would be indexed (maybe according to rating) in an FAQ format.
> That way, if someone who was new to gimp wanted to know how to put a
> white glow around their image, they could look their. If no one has
> asked that question, they could. And then it would be answered once
> and for all, for all people!
gimptalk and the gimp user group attempted this:
to me, it takes a lot of strength and other things to filter for
quality. i thought for a little while about how to do this and started
to work on my own website instead. where i am the only person who needs
to be filtered and checked for quality. that in itself can be such a
handful of problems.
i said no to one single tutorial one time. i still am sorry for doing
that and having to do that.
and, i am trying to be in charge of the web sites on wilber, the gimp
computer. perhaps i should step down. on the otherhand, the same thing
has happened to me and the site i was instrumental in making that
happened to the web site that adrian and jtl made:
upgrade and change will not necessarily make things better.
i have scheduled a tutorial review. okay, using the word scheduled is
probably misleading in that i have no idea of a date it is scheduled
for. i am sort of a team person. there has been a definate lack of
team players for a while with the people i am/havebeen/intendto keep
my fallback will always be that novell and adobe need catch up time in
order to stay commercially viable. sad that they needed to hire gimp
and gtk+ people. my faith lies in the fact that [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (and others) will not screw up gimp too much while
they are working for the "enemy". obviously, the corporation was in
need of great help and support that they had to hire people from this
development environment to help them.
pathetic if you think it through with a business sense. and sad.
> Anyone else think this would be a good idea? I think it would be quite
at the end, the collection would be helpful. getting it though, that
seems really ugly. the web is very anonymous. people take advantage of
things like this to paste crap that was written years and years ago just
to make trouble or be a pain. just to feel like a ripple or something.
> BTW, does anyone know how to make an 'inner glow' on a shape?
tigert can do this. also, he no longer works for the enemy so you can
probably trust the images he makes.
a thought about inner glow tho'
are all joe created equally?
Gimp-user mailing list