On 1/11/07, jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.

Not at all.  And I have been involved in creating my own "volunteer"
coding projects in the past, so I know exactly what it is of which I
speak.  Coding is much like conceiving and raising a child.  We even
like to say that our projects are our babies.  What does every parent
want for their children?  They want them to succeed, and to do so as
tremendously as possible.

I've worked most of my life in corporate programming environments, and
there was nothing more disheartening than having a project cancelled
when you knew the code was great, when you'd poured every damn ounce
of your fiber into it, when it was what made you jump out of bed every
morning.  It was not uncommon for team members to fall into a
depression which would usually impact the next project's timeline.
Please don't talk to me again about bouncing reality checks - I know
what creating a project of some scale means to the human psyche,
whether you get a paycheck or not.

Now if what you are trying to articulate is that the Gimp developers
just don't care about their user base and are only interested in
incorporating their latest pet ideas, let me know now.  This type of
rudderless approach, in a project of this size, is a recipe for doom.
Been there, done that, burnt the stinkin' T-shirt.

> > 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.

It does have a ways to go, but it is making incredible progress.
Again, were it me I would want to make my tool as successful as
humanly possible, which would mean finding out those things that my
user base really needed.  Ideally I'd allow these users to help create
a priority list, and this would define my development focus, volunteer
project or no.  In visiting the Gimp/Gimp Developer sites, I saw no
mention of there being a roadmap that I could have a look at.  If I've
overlooked the obvious, please take me to task.

> > 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.

GEGL is something that we've been hearing about for a very long time.
Admittedly, it seems to finally be making some strides.  But I have no
notion of timeframe, other than sometime after 2.4.  If 'someday' is
the best answer anyone can apply, it is as good as meaningless.

> > 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.
> okay
> > 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.

Wrong answer.  Again, if I did not have to duplicate entire images
over and over to simulate adjustment layers, file size would not be
the unruly monster that it is.  This is all about the tool, and not
about whether someone is doing 'serious digital photo processing'.

> >
> > 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.

Is anyone looking into this?  Could some sort of adapter code be
written to make this happen?  These are things I'd be very interested
to find out, and it seems that this is the place in which to get an

Both projects are open source.  Again, if this was my baby (which it
is in a way, as I feel quite passionate about the Gimp) I'd beg,
borrow, and steal whatever I could from other developers.  I would be
focused like a laser on finding or developing common ground in order
to please my user base if they were telling me it was of high priority
to them.

> 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).

This is exactly what I mean to say.  If I can manage my photos and
make alterations where I need (and BTW, I was amazed to see this
weekend that digiKam already has some very useful things that it
allows one to do without launching Krita/Gimp) and I can seamlessly
invoke a full bore image editing tool where necessary, this is going
to be a much more compelling solution than having the image editing
tool alone.  Word is that neither the digiKam or Krita folks are
thinking along these lines as yet (they don't have the time), but it
seems, IMHO, a natural direction for both to take.

> 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.

Thanks for the reference, I will have a look at this.

Please don't misunderstand my position.  If I didn't care about the
Gimp I wouldn't be writing to this list.  The fact of the matter is
that the more I use the tool, the greater the investment that I have
made into it, and the higher my anxiety about its future.  I would
love for the Gimp to be better than the rest of the competition, and I
know that if it were my development project, this would be my
motivation.  But there doesn't appear to be a roadmap, and the general
attitude I've been picking up is 'we'll get to that if we ever feel
like it'.  Look, adding cute tools like foreground selection is all
very nice (even if it doesn't usually help speed up the selection
process), but things like adjustment layers have a much greater payoff
and would have done a lot to deflate the perceived Photoshop -vs- Gimp
imbalance.  You may be 'volunteers', but it is hard for me to believe
this to mean that you don't have the desire to see your tool be as
successful as it can.

Best regards,


Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to