On Friday 28 September 2007 06:20:05 gimp_user wrote:
> On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
> > > --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user
> > > > transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is
> > > > ready for adoption by high quality image makers.
> > >
> > > FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your
> > > statement is false. You can't speak for me and I don't agree with you
> > > so... If you can provide hard data that backs this up with numbers
> > > well that might be a different story but it would have to be global
> > > figures.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and
> > thereby portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple
> > strands. The difficulty that idividuals face in switiching from one
> > software interface to another naturally varies from individual to
> > individual. But that is no way intended to be interpreted as the core of
> > my contribution.
> > My original posting was intended to draw attention to multiple layers of
> > reality that contribute to professional decision about software choices
> > that go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based upon
> > assessment of levels of experience and known skills. Someone who says
> > "Well I know Gimp but I am sure I could adapt to photoshop" is going to
> > face an uphill struggle convincing an agency that he has all the right
> > skills. His statement would be taken as evidence of not understanding the
> > role of an individual contributor in a complex supply chain.
> > While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin
> > similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability of multiple
> > individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple
> > organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not
> > currently in a position to seriously challenge PS.
> > By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which was
> > never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it does
> > not apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also
> > suggest to me that you have not carefully read and understood the theme.
> > What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply chain,
> > on at least equal terms with PS and that cannot happen overnight. It
> > would be foolish to suggest that that could be achieved by simply having
> > a GUI that makes for an easy transition. PS has to be considered not just
> > as a tool for for high quality image manipulation but also as an attempt
> > to provide an integrated solution to the requirements of a complete
> > supply chain.
> > The real world is far more complex than the needs and abilities of
> > individuals and my contribution was only intend to open a crack in the
> > door of examining the impliaction of those wider complexities. Gimp has
> > the potential to be developed to at least equal photoshop but because it
> > can interface with the rich world of open source solutions it could do
> > even better. Whether it will or will not do so is a choice available to
> > the community.
> > I am not saying Gimp "should" choose to set out to do so. I am saying
> > that while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs of
> > many individuals, such as yourself. It is also my opinion that it has
> > the potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative
> > industry of high quality image makers. To do that, in my opinion, it will
> > need to make many changes if it is to satisfy the needs of a supply chain
> > accustomed to share resources and skills (including common toolsets). It
> > means providing tools for non-destructive editing to enable more than one
> > individual and organisation to contribute to the creation, manipulation,
> > selection, cataloguing, distribution and promotion of images.
> > These requirement present a serious challenge and no easy one for an open
> > source project to fulfill.
> In response to this
> On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
OOPS it was actually Patrick Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who wrote:
> > Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have
> > at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non-
> > distructive editing". The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps
> > you can take the time to explain your meaning?
> Yes I do object to selective discussion because it means no one else is
> able to follow the whole thread when bits get cut out so the thread gets
> chopped into fragmnents - each one then gets followed selectively. Readers
> then find they have to flip backwards and forwards to follow the
> Your question is a good one and I hope I will be able to explain why
> non-destructive editing is not ia contradiction.
> Before amplifying I do not want to you to have any mistaken impressions
> about photoshop because one of my irritations with PS is that it does not
> yet fully achieve fully non-destructive editing. However it is getting
> there and each version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I
> have just upgraded to CS3 which now has exposure adjustments available as a
> non-destructive layer whereas in CS2 exposure was not accomplished
> By this I mean that one starts with loading the original image and that
> original can remain in the bottom of the stack. In the case of professional
> digital images that means raw files are sourced and loaded as 16bit images.
> Non-destructive editing can, for example, be accomplished by having each
> edit take place as a layer which can, at any later point, be revisited,
> either by by the original image manipulator or anyone further down the
> chain. That layer can therefore be tweaked later in the process. There are
> some processes in PS that cannot be accomplished non-destructively but as
> Gimp does not even start with the ability to load a raw image or even an
> image at 16 bit we cannot begin the process.
> With non-destructive editing every individual edit can be selectively
> applied to the output (to screen, printer etc). Each edit is not applied to
> the original which remains intact. For example it means I could apply two
> alternative exposure corrections. At a very much later stage, and after
> much subsequent editing, either I or someone on some other machine, could
> print 4 copies namely the original without either correction, with the
> first correction only, the second correction, or the sum of both
> Non-destructive editing also implies the ability to transfer files between
> people and organization in a form that they can amend the edits applied by
> previous manipulators.
> This is not a complete answer because there is more to it but I hope I have
> geven enough information to help explain why non-destructive editing is not
> a contradiction.
> Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user mailing list