On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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 discussion.
As this was a diversion from an original topic in a separate thread, and
because your question is such a good one, I have decided to recast my
original reply as a seperate topic and provide a little more detail.
This is not the first time a lack of understanding about the
term "non-destructive editing" has come up and you are not the only one who
has the mistaken belief that it is OK to falsely accuse others on this list
of something equivalent to having
>"falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing"
when you do not even understand the term under discussion.
I believe gimp is a "good enough" tool not to need inappropriate defensive
reactions or ill-informed responses when its limitations are discussed. The
discussion of limitations leads to enhancement and there his ample history of
enhancement in Gimp's progress. Gimp is a substantial tool that, in common
with all other tool sets has limitations and weaknesses. In non-destructive
editing Gimp's weaknesses are substantial, however once support for 16 bit
per channel AND native raw file handling has been developed the path will be
open for solving the problem.
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. Its support for non-destructive editing
is now quite substantial. It is getting there by a process of incremental
improvement (whilst gimp cannot approach it) and each
version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I have just
upgraded to CS3 which, among other things, 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 corrections.
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
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 and also to ask you to withdraw your rather unkind and
inappropriate accusation of falsity.
Gimp-user mailing list