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.
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.
Gimp-user mailing list