Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:17, Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:01:30PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote: gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems? this sentence makes no sense, sorry. allow me to fix it: gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is not a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems? sorry. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user I cant help but add a few of my personal thoughts on this topic.. I use GIMP because it ISNT PS. AND the fact that PS doesn't readily run on my favorite OS. Where as GIMP runs on at least 3 different ones... This in it self add conciderable to my choice. I can have three different studios running Linux, Windows and OSX and still have a homogenous image manipulating software. (BIG plus in my book) Second; If changing from PS to GIMP is a bigger hurdle than changing the other way around, its not GIMP's fault. Its a problem behind the keyboard. I have never liked PS cluttered layout, and have found GIMP's interface alot easier to handle. So in MY case changing TO GIMP never was much of a question. There are all kinds of talks about PS being more advanced, have lots more plugins etc. So? If a commercial software thats been around for so many years as PS, DIDN'T have more bells and whistles than a uncommercial piece that only been around a few years, I'd be more then surpriced. GIMP started very small and has, in a short few years grown conciderable. So back to the topic... WHY would you want to make GIMP look like PS?? WHY would you change layout to something, in my mind, inferior? If i want to have PS i'd run PS. I run GIMP because it more then fits my needs. I run GIMP because i find it easier to use. And i DO run GIMP because it's free for me to use. I dont want to, and dont have the money to spend on new versions and releases. Now mind you, i do NOT slight those who want to take babysteps. Bus as Carol said. Its not very smart. Getting from A to B is one step. Sure it might be a big one. But why cut it up in small steps? Its like exchanging your softwarebase in steps. First lets take out the database. and Learn a way of making the old and new software work in unison. Then lets exchange the reporttool. And get more problems as the new system doesn't talk to the clients. And as last step (after lots of headaches and patching scripts) lets exchange the clients. Now the only thing we have to do is educate the users a third time to make everyting work again. And thus ending up at B as planned from the beginning. Bottom line, why change a program into sometingelse just cause its looks and handles as the old one? Wouldn't it be better to stay with the old in that case? And the parts of forking. Its sure is easier to steal an idea and fiddle with it so it looks as it mine, than it is coming to an agreement of a certain way of operation. But is it fair play? Is it well done? I think not. These are my own personal thoughts on the matter. So don't go flaming the community for what i write here. Any complaints will be duly read, and answered to if i find them relevant. With a sincere thanks to the developers, maintainers and people working and improving GIMP... -- /Rikard - email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] web : http://www.rikjoh.com mob : +46 (0)736 19 76 25 Public PGP fingerprint 15 28 DF 78 67 98 B2 16 1F D3 FD C5 59 D4 B6 78 46 1C EE 56 ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green
Rikard Johnels wrote: On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:17, Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:01:30PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote: gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems? this sentence makes no sense, sorry. allow me to fix it: gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is not a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems? sorry. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user I cant help but add a few of my personal thoughts on this topic.. I use GIMP because it ISNT PS. AND the fact that PS doesn't readily run on my favorite OS. Where as GIMP runs on at least 3 different ones... This in it self add conciderable to my choice. I can have three different "studios" running Linux, Windows and OSX and still have a homogenous image manipulating software. (BIG plus in my book) It is indeed a big plus to have GIMP on all three systems, but the GUI is therefore somewhat restricted. The GTK GUI developed is clearly different from what windows users are used to. Do I hear "I don't care about Photoshop/Windows Users that want to transfer to GIMP?"... then why was GIMP compiled for windows at all, just for a bunch people that were patient enough to learn it? Doesn't a good GUI distinguish itself by a seamless integration into various OS's without having to re-learn how window handling works (for a Photoshop user it is quite a step to a document interface with alt+tabbing to the various menus involved) or relearn all shortcut keys (e.g. it would be a great future improvement if the user can say if it will use a 'Photoshop/Windows' shortcut key profile, or an original GIMP shortcut key profile). Second; If changing from PS to GIMP is a bigger hurdle than changing the other way around, its not GIMP's "fault". Sure? Again, doesn't it say something about general usability of GIMP's GUI? A good GUI is characterized that it is 'understandable' by the great majority of users, inexperienced, experienced using other software platforms and experienced using GIMP. I work with GIMP daily and I try to convince other people that GIMP is a good choice. But I see also that all these users have larger difficulties to learn GIMP compared to other graphical software, because they have been already 'poisoned' with general Windows GUIs (eg., GUIs in which menu's are always within the program interface and not separate 'windows', a standard set of shortcut keys, file menu handlers that are different from the GTK ones). If GIMP developers just ignore that, it sounds to me as if they just deliberately confine their software to a particular (and small) group of people. That is a big pity, because I believe that the more people use GIMP, the better the program becomes and the bigger the chances are that such OSS software stays on and remains in development. Its a problem behind the keyboard. I have never liked PS cluttered layout, and have found GIMP's interface alot easier to handle. So in MY case changing TO GIMP never was much of a question. In your case changing to gimp was never much of a question. Would the same go for other graphical software users? Or "do they just have to stick with Photoshop"? There are all kinds of talks about PS being more advanced, have lots more plugins etc. So? If a commercial software thats been around for so many years as PS, DIDN'T have more "bells and whistles" than a "uncommercial" piece that only been around a few years, I'd be more then surpriced. GIMP started very small and has, in a short few years grown conciderable. I totally agree with that, great go GIMP. But it is not the time to be complacent and just think that GIMP is 'perfect and otherwise bug off to other software'. There are more graphical software users on this planet that appreciate the goals of GIMP, but still can't do what they want with it. Should we just ignore the wishes of this future user group and go on with only doing what the current community wants? If so, than don't get mad about more of such forks in the future. So back to the topic... WHY would you want to make GIMP look like PS?? Nope, I think he/she wants GIMP to be "more usable" for a wider range of users than it is now. It just happens that a large amount of users that think of switching to GIMP are PS users. Geez, how strange that people then propose improvements of the GIMP GUI that are inspired by PS's GUI? Are those wishes just totally ignored by people that claim to have a 'better' idea how software has to
Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green
Von: Bram Kuijper [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do I hear I don't care about Photoshop/Windows Users that want to transfer to GIMP?... then why was GIMP compiled for windows at all, just for a bunch people that were patient enough to learn it? FYI, it was compiled for windows because someone wanted to use his scanner (which did only come with Windows drivers) with it. And it is not a good idea to make the developers reconsider why something is still being maintained for a particular platform :) HTH, Michael -- DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert: GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green
Bram Kuijper wrote: Sure? Again, doesn't it say something about general usability of GIMP's GUI? A good GUI is characterized that it is 'understandable' by the great majority of users, inexperienced, experienced using other software platforms and experienced using GIMP. I work with GIMP daily and I try to convince other people that GIMP is a good choice. But I see also that all these users have larger difficulties to learn GIMP compared to other graphical software, because they have been already 'poisoned' with general Windows GUIs (eg., GUIs in which menu's are always within the program interface and not separate 'windows', a standard set of shortcut keys, file menu handlers that are different from the GTK ones). If GIMP developers just ignore that, it sounds to me as if they just deliberately confine their software to a particular (and small) group of people. That is a big pity, because I believe that the more people use GIMP, the better the program becomes and the bigger the chances are that such OSS software stays on and remains in development. (snip) Nope, I think he/she wants GIMP to be more usable for a wider range of users than it is now. It just happens that a large amount of users that think of switching to GIMP are PS users. Geez, how strange that people then propose improvements of the GIMP GUI that are inspired by PS's GUI? Are those wishes just totally ignored by people that claim to have a 'better' idea how software has to work? I disagree with you on these two points. A friend of mine fairly recently started using Gimp for her own photo manipulation (resizing and other basic functions). She's running Windows XP and Windows is *all* she knows (meaning she has no Mac or *nix experience whatsoever). I'm not sure if she had seen PhotoShop or not before but Gimp was her first hands-on experience with any tool of it's nature. She obviously didn't know what any of the tools or functions were simply because she had never used a tool like Gimp before. Given that, she's gotten her head wrapped around the tool such that she understands how to use some of the functions it performs and can manipulate her images mostly as she wants (she's still learning how to do things, as am I). The point being, she had definitely been poisoned by the general Windows UI and that wasn't a factor in her Gimp experience. Gimp looking exactly like PhotoShop or even MS Word didn't change the fact she had no idea what a layer was or what a crop tool was. This brings me to the second point. PS users wanting Gimp to look and affectively act like PS simply want Gimp to be a free PS, so they can use it legally without having to pay a boatload of money or without having to pirate a copy. PS users are very familiar with the PS UI (which is as overwhelming and user UN-friendly as people can argue Gimp is) and aren't willing or aren't capable of opening their minds to a different way of doing things. This is like a Windows user who complains about not being able to make Mac OS X or Linux behave just like Windows or the Windows user who can't differentiate between a word processor and Word (in this case, they think ALL word processors are Word and assume everyone with a computer has Word). I think those who focus their expertise on the functions being performed will have an easier time using ANY kind of PS-like app since it will be a matter of finding or learning how any given app performs those functions. Those who focus their expertise on learning the UI get programmed to the point of not having any chance of being productive if the UI they are used to isn't around. By virtue of the fact Gimp was chosen as the basis of Gimpshop, that proves Gimp is very functional and does work. The problem for PS users is they simply can't let go of the PS UI and Gimpshop was born. Now, I believe (could be mistaken) it's been the position of the Gimp developers that Gimp is not intended to be PhotoShop so why change the entire UI to look/act like PhotoShop? It's not like attracting 50,000 PhotoShop users will result in tremendous donations to the Gimp development effort or anything. Of course, it would make those PhotoShop users very happy since they get to almost have their cake and eat it too. :) I think a PhotoShop compatibility mode, that is integrated in Gimp, would be a good compromise. That way people still use Gimp first and foremost and can simply have it look like PS instead of trying to change Gimp into something it's not necessarily wanting or trying to be. My $0.03... :) Peace Tom ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green
Hello Carol, On Feb 25, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Carol Spears wrote: first thing. in keeping with the spirit of how gimpshop came to be, i am curious if there are separate online resources for this application. they opted (probably for really good reasons) to go on their own to provide software for what is probably a large group of users. perhaps you could list gimpshop resources here so that the gimp users can redirect the gimpshop questions to the proper place. personally, i do not want to interfer with them. they filled a nitch and did this without the gimp developers. i suspect they had really good reasons to do this. it would be wrong, in my opinion, to start to help them now -- keeping with the spirit of their project. From your writing tone, I sense a bit of a rift between Gimp and Gimpshop. I find that odd given that I did not sense it at the Gimpshop site. While there I heard nothing but praise and references back to Gimp.org, but admittedly I didn't set out to find animosity. From what I have read, Gimpshop is the Gimp with a skin to make it a bit more like Photoshop. From using it myself I would have to say that is a fair assessment. No question, Gimpshop is not Photoshop, nor did I expect it to be. I expected it to be the Gimp with a twist, which, as far as I can tell, it is. For me Gimpshop is a way for me to introduce the Gimp to other volunteers that I work with at a local non-profit. We take in old computers, refurbish them, use them to teach under-served kids in grades 4-8 how to use computers, and then give the computers to the students at the end of the session which last about 8 weeks. The non- profit already has a tremendous amount of material for teaching Photoshop (my guess would be some pared-down version). Plus Photoshop is something the existing volunteers are very familiar with. However, because of technical, legal, and financial constraints, we have decided to migrate to using and teaching Open Source. The Gimp seems to be a natural choices for image manipulation, with the Gimpshop providing a smooth migration path given our existing Photoshop infrastructure. Sure, eventually we'll migrate completely to the Gimp. But for now, it's baby steps. For me Gimpshop is also a way to learn about image manipulation. I know nothing about Photoshop nor the Gimp nor Gimpshop nor any other image manipulation program. (Actually, I used to know PaintShop pro, but that was over a decade ago, so it may as well be as though I know nothing.) So, I decided to take an on-line course on Photoshop. But instead of using Photoshop I'm using Gimpshop. So far, it has been working pretty well. I can follow along pretty closely, although Gimpshop does do some things a bit differently, which is OK. What's really pleasant is that the forums have a nice mix of neophytes like myself and pros, who help out us neophytes. And us neophytes can come up with some pretty basic questions. But that's OK, too. After all it is a beginning course on Photoshop. Which brings us to resources. The only resource I know of that is specifically about Gimpshop is the Gimpshop website, which appears to be little more than a blog. There do not appear to be any forums or mailing lists or IRC channels or on-line courses. Just a download link and a blog. But as far as I can tell Gimpshop is not about image manipulation, but rather about putting a Photoshop-like skin on top of Gimp. By putting a Photoshop-like skin on the Gimp, all the resources that one normally uses for Photoshop (books, on-line tutorials, forums, courses, co-workers, etc.) all become available to Gimpshop users. In addition to the Photoshop resources, in only makes sense (at least it did to me) that all of the Gimp resources become available, too, given that underneath Gimpshop runs the Gimp. As for providing help, that is entirely a personal choice. If you feel that by helping me you are helping them over at Gimpshop and you feel strongly about not helping them over at Gimpshop for whatever reason, then do not help me. That's OK. To me image manipulation is just a hobby. It's fun. It's challenging. It's something new for me to learn. It's something for me to show my family and friends. I enjoy Open Source for the same reasons. It's fun. It's challenging. It's a way to develop a community of users and friends. In summary, I like Gimpshop and the Gimp and have come to understand that this forum is perhaps not a friendly place to mention Gimpshop. OK. Fair enough. Them's the rules. In the future I will refrain from mentioning Gimpshop and make sure my questions and any answers I give only pertain to the Gimp. Regards, - Robert http://www.cwelug.org/downloads Help others get OpenSource software. Distribute FLOSS for Windows, Linux, *BSD, and MacOS X with BitTorrent
Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:19:46PM -0600, Robert Citek wrote: Hello Carol, On Feb 25, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Carol Spears wrote: first thing. in keeping with the spirit of how gimpshop came to be, i am curious if there are separate online resources for this application. they opted (probably for really good reasons) to go on their own to provide software for what is probably a large group of users. perhaps you could list gimpshop resources here so that the gimp users can redirect the gimpshop questions to the proper place. personally, i do not want to interfer with them. they filled a nitch and did this without the gimp developers. i suspect they had really good reasons to do this. it would be wrong, in my opinion, to start to help them now -- keeping with the spirit of their project. From your writing tone, I sense a bit of a rift between Gimp and Gimpshop. I find that odd given that I did not sense it at the Gimpshop site. While there I heard nothing but praise and references back to Gimp.org, but admittedly I didn't set out to find animosity. The guy who did Gimpshop decided to do his own thing, and didn't consult the community at all before doing it. Since he didn't engage the community and those who actually know the code best, he did it in a completely stupid fashion technically. He forked the code. Completely ignoring the developers and the community to begin with generates a fair amount of animosity. From what I have read, Gimpshop is the Gimp with a skin to make it a bit more like Photoshop. From using it myself I would have to say that is a fair assessment. No question, Gimpshop is not Photoshop, nor did I expect it to be. I expected it to be the Gimp with a twist, which, as far as I can tell, it is. Nope. It's not a skin. It's a code fork. It could have been a skin, but either the Gimpshop guy didn't know how (and didn't bother to ask), or he maliciously decided to make a name for himself on the work of others, with doing very little work himself. Oh, and on top of that, beg for money. As for providing help, that is entirely a personal choice. If you feel that by helping me you are helping them over at Gimpshop and you feel strongly about not helping them over at Gimpshop for whatever reason, then do not help me. That's OK. To me image manipulation is just a hobby. It's fun. It's challenging. It's something new for me to learn. It's something for me to show my family and friends. I enjoy Open Source for the same reasons. It's fun. It's challenging. It's a way to develop a community of users and friends. Except Gimpshop divides this community. So by supporting it, you're contributing to making the community not fun for other users and friends. Is that what you want to do? How about instead of promoting a someone who doesn't understand how free software works, and doesn't actually understand what he's doing technically, actually work with people who know what they're doing to see something you desire? The idea of a photoshop skin isn't a bad one, but the way Gimpshop went about was absolutely horrible. -Yosh ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:19:46PM -0600, Robert Citek wrote: On Feb 25, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Carol Spears wrote: first thing. in keeping with the spirit of how gimpshop came to be, i am curious if there are separate online resources for this application. they opted (probably for really good reasons) to go on their own to provide software for what is probably a large group of users. perhaps you could list gimpshop resources here so that the gimp users can redirect the gimpshop questions to the proper place. personally, i do not want to interfer with them. they filled a nitch and did this without the gimp developers. i suspect they had really good reasons to do this. it would be wrong, in my opinion, to start to help them now -- keeping with the spirit of their project. From your writing tone, I sense a bit of a rift between Gimp and Gimpshop. I find that odd given that I did not sense it at the Gimpshop site. While there I heard nothing but praise and references back to Gimp.org, but admittedly I didn't set out to find animosity. i am sorry if my tone suggested this. if i start a project like gimpshop on my own and wanted the help of the gimp developers, i would probably talk to them about how to go about having this project. it is part of what i think working together is. perhaps it is that i have expanded the definition too much for todays standards. going on with this idea though, if i started a project without seeing how to work with the existing developers, probably i would continue to not want them to intervene. especially, if i had modified the sources in such an unmaintainable way. i borrowed your car and i gave it an automatic tranmission for you, don't worry about thanking me! please, do not do that to my car. i am not going to do this to your car--and, you do not have to thank me for that. please, read my comments with the tone of respect for the way the gimpshop development team has opted to work. From what I have read, Gimpshop is the Gimp with a skin to make it a bit more like Photoshop. From using it myself I would have to say that is a fair assessment. No question, Gimpshop is not Photoshop, nor did I expect it to be. I expected it to be the Gimp with a twist, which, as far as I can tell, it is. i think you read wrongly, however, i read different things and perhaps i read the wrong information. i am personally against making gimp look like photoshop at all. i speak for myself however. some of the gimp developers are now involved with all these crazy usability forums where everyone is a usability expert and lord knows, i really speak for myself now. reasons i have to be against letting gimp look anything like photoshop are mostly involving personal experiences where the gimp user can show the photoshop user how to make it work and not the other way around. even when i accidentally chose two splash made by photoshop: http://ircd.gimp.org/~carol/splash/river/ http://ircd.gimp.org/~carol/splash/sun2/ i saw words used that would be in my opinion a real problem to translate. the word pond for instance, to describe ripple size. in gimp, a similar tutorial would suggest the value or number for the similar gimp plug-in. the numeric value is much more translateable and ultimately understandable. gimp is a learning tool and more and more designed for ease in translation. all of the converted photoshop users of gimp who refuse to get it without the photoshop spoon attest to gimps success in what it does. personally, i would be disinterested in making it easier for photoshop users unless i could make some money from it. For me Gimpshop is a way for me to introduce the Gimp to other volunteers that I work with at a local non-profit. We take in old computers, refurbish them, use them to teach under-served kids in grades 4-8 how to use computers, and then give the computers to the students at the end of the session which last about 8 weeks. The non- profit already has a tremendous amount of material for teaching Photoshop (my guess would be some pared-down version). Plus Photoshop is something the existing volunteers are very familiar with. However, because of technical, legal, and financial constraints, we have decided to migrate to using and teaching Open Source. The Gimp seems to be a natural choices for image manipulation, with the Gimpshop providing a smooth migration path given our existing Photoshop infrastructure. Sure, eventually we'll migrate completely to the Gimp. But for now, it's baby steps. half a step is silly. baby steps are really not useful. you do not teach open source unless you also teach how to work with developers if there is problems with understanding. call this a baby step in sorry the gimpshop web site has not enough bandwidth, please contribute to that team so you can continue to take your baby steps. if there is not a smooth translation of use
Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:01:30PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote: gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems? this sentence makes no sense, sorry. allow me to fix it: gimp (the way it was made) is a much better way to learn image manipulation. one more time, if changing from photoshop to gimp is a problem and changing from gimp to photoshop is not a problem -- wherein are the gimp design problems? sorry. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] blue + yellow = green
Robert Citek writes: I'm slowing getting familiar with gimp/gimpshop. And so I thought I would try a couple of toy problems. One toy problem is to create a venn diagram. The resulting image would look something like a Visa logo, except the colors of the circles would be blue and yellow, with the intersection being green. Using layer modes, you can get an effect similar to what you're describing: you can make overlapping areas of layers turn colors that reflect the addition or subtraction of the two colors. Unfortunately, blue and yellow don't combine to make green in either addition or subtraction mode; they make white. Think about the RGB values of the colors to understand why -- if you don't know the RGB values of colors off the top of your head, watch the sliders in the color chooser dialog when you select the colors to see how red, green and blue combine to make each color. Blue is 00F, yellow is FF0, and adding them makes white, FFF, instead of green, 0F0. To get a better feel for how colors combine, try this exercise: make a black background layer. On top of it, make three circles, each in its own layer, one colored red, one green, and one blue. Move the circles so that they overlap each other partially but not completely. Now, in the Layers dialog, set each of the three circles to Addition mode and watch how they combine. Play with circles of different colors in different layer modes to see what happens. To clarify, I'm not looking to select the intersection based on color and then fill the selection with green, but rather have gimp/gimpshop imitate what one would do in the real world with color filters, e.g. acetate[3], and a white light. Subtract mode does basically what colored filters would do to a white light (do the circles exercise I described, but start with a white background instead of black). Addition mode is what you would see if you shone lights of different colors (e.g. a blue light and a yellow light) onto the same surface. Unfortunately, in neither mode will blue and yellow combine to make green, even though that is the combination you'd expect if you're used to mixing paints. ...Akkana ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
