Patrick Shanahan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-02-07 13:47]:
> Much unnecessary quote removed.....
> > One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to
> > edit an image for your own use and can revisit the original then the
> > absense of non-destrucitve editing features may not be a handicap.
> > The point is to know what you can and cannot do with each and every
> > toolset and when a tool is appropriate to your needs and when it is
> > not.
> You keep getting back to this "non-destructive editing". WHO can edit
> an image for what-ever purpose and not retain the original? HOW can
> you edit <anything> and not have a copy of <anything> to begin with?
You can do this by storing the original and saving the additional
processing steps. Then the result can be recomputed from the original
image data. Which incidentially is one of the points that GEGL wants to
> You have confirmed your statis as NOISE and nothing else.
Not "just noise", his points have some merit. But they are directed to
the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his
points. That ironically makes his mails pointless...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://simon.budig.de/
Gimp-user mailing list