> On 10/2/07, gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 01 October 2007 16:09:23 jim feldman wrote: > > > Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > > > * Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-01-07 13:29] > > > > > > > >> In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right > > > > tool > > > > > >> for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP > > > >> natively supports 12-bits or higher, I'm gonna have to stick to > > > >> Photoshop for now. > > > > > > > > Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for > > > > it) and you need to shoot RAW. > > > > > > True for all DSLR's (I think), but some better P&S's also can produce > > > TIFF's which uses a lossless compression (actually being pedantic) as > > > sort of pseudo raw format. > > > > > > For me at least, the big reasons for PS CS over gimp are the following: > > > - The plugins. For the pro/semi pro shooter, there are just way too > > > many very cool plugins for PS. Everything from Noise-Ninja to lens > > > distortion corrections to some very interesting portrait tools to > > > virtual view camera adjustments (more than just perspective > > > correction). - Integration with the color "spiders" and CMS > > > - 8/24 vs 16/48 - This is at least on the horizon for GIMP > > > > > > In GIMP's defense, many (if not the vast majority) of digital > > > photographers will have no need of these features. Even if by some > > > magic they were available, few would use them because of the cost or > > > complexity. It's a good tool. I use it a great deal myself, and I > > > wouldn't hesitate to use it to teach an "into to digital darkroom" > > > course. The exception would be, for students who were on a > > > professional photographer track. > > > > > > jim > > > > I think this approach is a sound one because using gimp students can, > > given a > > computer and internet access, get to know about digital processes without > > committing themselves to the expense of purchasing PS. They can find out > > whether they feel able to assimilate and use digital imaging processes > > because so many of the techniques remain the same. However there is no > > way, > > given the gimnps currently available tools set one I would feel confident > > recomending it to students for professional processing or for working > > collaboratively with other professionals in the industry. I wish this > > were not the case but until Gimp development reaches reaches the right > > level that > > is the way it is. > > > > There is also the problem of non-destructive editing which cannot be > > advanced > > until Gimp has the tools to handles raw files rather than relying upon > > conversions using an external tool set.. > > On Tuesday 02 October 2007 09:38:38 carol irvin wrote: > i used to teach in a college setting but in a non-art dept. the commercial > art courses were all given with adobe products. this was good from one > standpoint, i.e. that the students would be using the programs that an ad > agency or similar would be using. It was bad from the standpoint though > that most of the students could not afford all of these adobe products on > their own. This meant that as they were taking these courses, they had to > get all their work done on either their classroom computers or the > library's computers. They could not work on their projects at home. These > projects were very time consuming. Ideally, they were also the logical > jumping off point for the student to do a great deal of experimentation. > However, you weren't going to do much experimenting in the classroom or > library if you'd already put in hours and hours of work in fairly > uncomfortable circumstances of sitting in the typical classroom or library > chair. If you are a student with a fair amount of discretionary income > for school supplies, you can solve this problem by buying the student > versions of the adobe programs. If you are a student who is financially > hard pressed from semester to semester, the GIMP gives you a creative > experimenting opportunity otherwise not available to you. I should add > that the instructors cannot tell, when looking at your completed project, > what program you did it on. They are looking at the end result only. If > your end result is A material, it doesn't matter what you did it on. This > is also where originality of idea pays off more than flexing your muscles > with the hardest techniques. It is NOT GOOD if your work looks like > everyone else's and that is the great weakness of digital art straight > across the board (largely because of the overemphasis on technique over > idea). The instructors don't care about anything but the artistic merit of > the results. If I were the student, I'd just go home and do the art work > on the Gimp where I could have all my comforts around me for the days and > days of long hours needed to produce the art work. you could do some of > the art work in the classroom in photoshop and then store it online before > you left so you could pick it up at home. > What you say makes a lot of sense. Your approach is one that focusses on matching the tool to the need. That makes good sense both technically and artistically.
My only caution is that each student needs to appraciate both the merits and demerits of each tool and that is extremely hard to convey because there can be no hard and fast rules. As I think I have said elsewhere, if the medium is a projected or screen jpg image then it makes no real difference whether the image is 8 bit or 16 bit or whether it was created as a raw image or a jpg. Frankly the same result can be achieved in either gimp or photoshop. But if the student is going on to professional high quality digital image making then Gimp (at its present standard of development) is unlikely to provide provide the answer when s/he makes that move. _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user