Steve Thompson wrote:

> Adjustment layers have to be in a future implementation of Gimp if we
> expect the tool to remain in any way competitive.
Okay, Steve.  Your reality check just bounced.  Maybe you're unclear on
the word "volunteer" and how most FOSS works.  It's generally just a
bunch of people (or sometimes just one or two) that find a problem
interesting to solve; either as a solution or because they have an
abstract interest in solving that class of problems, and they think they
can do it "better" in some way than existing solutions.

Telling them their work isn't competitive is probably not a way to
involve them in your request.

> Both Krita and
> Pixel, which have not been around for as long as the Gimp, support
> this feature already!
I haven't played with pixel.  Krita has some interesting concepts, but
as of 1.5.2, it's got a long ways to go before I'd be willing to swap
out GIMP for it.

> 1) When I pull the 10 mp images from my camera and try to make a
> composition, having several faux adjustment layers means consuming
> ginormous amounts of memory.
Welcome to the world of digital photo processing.  My 6x7 and 4x5 scans
are an order of magnitude bigger yet.  There is light at the end of this
tunnel, but it depends on the people I alluded to above. see GEGL.  As
it happens, I was using cine-gimp for the 16 bit color channels, but the
large scan sizes kept blowing it up.
> 2) After altering a specific layer, I cannot go back and see/alter
> what I've done.  My only recourse is to either delete the layer and
> add another or to hope that I can undo back to the point that I need.
> 3) Hand in hand with #1, my Gimp files become painfully large.  I do
> not own a computer for the sole purpose of supporting the Gimp!
Well, when you're doing serious digital photo processing, yes you do.
The demands on display, cpu, memory and storage are probably only
exceeded by CG animation artists (actually, movie frames are not that
high rez).  Take a look at what the suggested requirements for PS CS2 are.
> Is there no way that the Gimp can leverage some of the work already
> done by the Krita folks?
One of the devo's would have to answer this, but I'd suspect mostly no.

I'm afraid that if Krita/digiKam was to
> become integrated in the future, much of the need for the Gimp would
> simply go away.
The purpose of digiKam, Adobe Bridge, Aperture (as I understand it),
F-Spot and their ilk is to organize collections of photos and perform
basic alterations.  GIMP has never tried to be that.  From a work flow
perspective, it probably makes more sense to go the other way (browser
to editor).  If you're working with a large volume of images like your
typical wedding shooter, you blast the whole collection with your
standard tweaks (exposure comp, WB, unsharp mask and noise suppression),
then go back and cull/fine tune with an image editor the keepers that
need it.  You might be interested in blueMarine.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to