Re: [Gimp-user] Fwd: Opening pictures taken with an Olympus E-510 fails every time
Johnny Rosenberg wrote: Yes, I have got the same answer from another forum as well. I have libexif 0.6.13 installed. It's the version that is available in one of the repositories when Ubuntu 7.04 is just installed. I use the automatic update all the time, and so far there has not been an update for that file. So I downloaded libexif 0.6.16, since someone said that he fixed his problem (the same as mine) with that file after compiling and installing it manually. I am a newbie of compiling so I am not sure if I was doing everything I should, because efter installing it, the same problem persisted. I downloaded an archive which I unpacked in a folder in my home folder. Then I opened a terminal, went to that folder, which contained files like INSTALL (where I could read about how to install), configure and a lot of other files. Then I followed the instructions: ./configure make make install There was a lot of permission denied in the last step, so I tried sudo make install which seemed to work. The problem is that it seems like I still have the old version. The images still can't be loaded, for the same reason as before. So right now I don't know what went wrong. Do I still have the old version? Do I have the new version, but need an even newer one? Do I have both versions so I need to make GIMP use the new one rather than the old one? As I said, I am a hopeless beginner so far... Johnny Rosenberg 1. Unless you uninstalled the old version, it's still there. 2. Unless you did sudo ldconfig the new one won't work (though a reboot would probably do it for you). HTH Andrew ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote: Even with it's bit depth shortcoming, I'd still take GIMP's mature tool set over anything OTHER than PS CS2/3 (at a mere $649US) Approximating the $USD-$AUD conversions (http://www.xe.com/ucc/), that's AUD$743, about the cost of a complete system with dual CPU, a couple of GB of RAM, a pair of RAIDed IDE or SATA drives to the tune of about 300GB, a decent 19 flat screen, a graphics tablet a scanner. So you'd have to spend some time convincing me that PS was worth the extra bananas. (-: Oh, that spending the AUD$750 extra on a better camera wouldn't be a more effective investment :-) Oh, yes, PS requires Windows, so the cost doesn't include AUD$231.70 for Vista (Business OEM, or I could shell out AUD$2167 for 2003 Premium R2), or about AUD$130 for an interfering virus scanner (or about AUD$500 for one that works). Of course, I'd use OpenOffice for office software (save AUD$332 on MS-Office Small Business OEM), Firefox for a browser, ThunderBird for email so on, but the real cost is still AUD$1105 plus risks. I could go for a *pair* of decent 19 flatscreens bump the drive sizes up to 500GB. So tell me again why I'd jilt Wilbur for PhotoShock rather than wait for GIMP 2.5 releases around close of trade this year? (-: Cheers; Leon ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Fwd: Opening pictures taken with an Olympus E-510 fails every time
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 02:34:13 Johnny Rosenberg wrote: Do I still have the old version? [...] Do I have both versions so I need to make GIMP use the new one rather than the old one? Maybe. Try ldd $(which gimp) see what it says. On this system (updated Ubuntu Fiesty) gimp is in /usr/bin/ the libraries for it are all in /usr/lib/ (but I don't see any libexif listed). To see what libexifs you have, try ls -l /usr/lib/*exif* because the compilation may have defaulted to somewhere like /usr/local/lib/ or /opt/lib/ or something else which may not be in your libraries list. Look in /etc/ld.so.conf to see which directories ldconfig searches for libraries. If the configure did use some odd directory, try the configure line as this, then re-do the makes: ./configure --prefix=/usr As root (sudo'ed) try an ldconfig) see if that changes the above ldd report. Uhh... this is probably a mite too complex for some of y'all but it may help Johnny can be safely ignored by others. (-: Cheers; Leon ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Fwd: Opening pictures taken with an Olympus E-510 fails every time
Hi, On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 18:34 +0200, Johnny Rosenberg wrote: The problem is that it seems like I still have the old version. The images still can't be loaded, for the same reason as before. So right now I don't know what went wrong. Do I still have the old version? Do I have the new version, but need an even newer one? Do I have both versions so I need to make GIMP use the new one rather than the old one? You installed the new library to /usr/local/lib while the old one is still installed in /usr/lib and most likely the JPEG plug-in picks up the old version. Try to start gimp using the following command-line: LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib gimp-2.2 Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:27:06 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote: On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote: Even with it's bit depth shortcoming, I'd still take GIMP's mature tool set over anything OTHER than PS CS2/3 (at a mere $649US) Approximating the $USD-$AUD conversions (http://www.xe.com/ucc/), that's AUD$743, about the cost of a complete system with dual CPU, a couple of GB of RAM, a pair of RAIDed IDE or SATA drives to the tune of about 300GB, a decent 19 flat screen, a graphics tablet a scanner. So you'd have to spend some time convincing me that PS was worth the extra bananas. (-: Oh, that spending the AUD$750 extra on a better camera wouldn't be a more effective investment :-) Oh, yes, PS requires Windows, so the cost doesn't include AUD$231.70 for Vista (Business OEM, or I could shell out AUD$2167 for 2003 Premium R2), or about AUD$130 for an interfering virus scanner (or about AUD$500 for one that works). Of course, I'd use OpenOffice for office software (save AUD$332 on MS-Office Small Business OEM), Firefox for a browser, ThunderBird for email so on, but the real cost is still AUD$1105 plus risks. I could go for a *pair* of decent 19 flatscreens bump the drive sizes up to 500GB. So tell me again why I'd jilt Wilbur for PhotoShock rather than wait for GIMP 2.5 releases around close of trade this year? (-: Cheers; Leon Simple For amateurs you are right BUT professional libraries mostly require 16bit. No 16bit no sale. So one chooses to use a tool whose output satisfies market requirements. You must remeber that the cost of hardware/software is not a significant consideration for professional photgraphers.Its costs are trivial by comparison with cameras, lenses and other capital costs. For processing Industry wide compatibility is the over-riding consideration. Because gimp does not support 16 bit per pixel and higher (for high density) and because it 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. They all need to facilitate collaboration using a common software interface, so that all users in the supply chain can be mutually supportive and produce compatible output. This requiredment is particularly strong with software which has so many features that no one user will be totally familiar with all of them. When gimp provides an alternative skin that emulates PS and solves resolution and compatibility issues (including integrated raw handling, exif manipulation and image library management then it is potentially adoptable as an alternative for high quality image makers. Until then, despite all its wonderful features, it remains a beached whale as far as that class of professionals are concered. On the other hand it is a great tool for web image creation but for anything else with regret I need to use PS. Solve those two hurdles then maybe ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 02:22:14 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote: On Wednesday 26 September 2007 19:13:48 David at ATF4 wrote: They all need to facilitate collaboration using a common software interface, so that all users in the supply chain can be mutually supportive and produce compatible output. This requiredment is particularly strong with software which has so many features that no one user will be totally familiar with all of them. GIMP wins that one simply by being available to everyone. * Nobody uses a machine GIMP won't run on; * Nobody is too poor to use GIMP; oh, staying up to date is cheaper, too; * Nobody lives in a country to which GIMP is a forbidden export; * Nobody lives in a country in which GIMP is capitalistic exploitation, environmental abuse, racist technology or whatever; * Any national inspectors can see any part of GIMP they like, with or without warrants, 24x7; * GIMP is not unclean in any known religion (although in a few real places, you'd have to replace Wilbur -- which you could do without copyright/trademark/whatever issues). These points may be true but for professional there are totally irrelevant. They do not care about what machine it runs on.. they are more concerned about the output than the means. These points are only relevant to those who are NOT faced with the requirements of the professional world. GIMP IMHO needs to address the needs of the real world. When gimp provides an alternative skin that emulates PS and solves resolution and compatibility issues (including integrated raw handling, exif manipulation and image library management then it is potentially adoptable as an alternative for high quality image makers. OK; * Raw imports are a plugin; Inconvenient and how does one deal with the issue of non-destructive editing? * Exif manipulation can be done externally -- or, sooner or later, someone will write a plugin, no doubt with convenient (semi-)automation facilities; Inconvenient and impractical * A PhotoShop face has already been done ( was poorly supported to wide scorn), so it could be done again, only in a more systematic fashion; It only received scorn because the GIMP development team ignored the basic requirement of development - using MVC in the early days - so the code structure does facilitate view customization (or skin development). IMHO Gimp has never recovered from that internal structural system design flaw. * Image library management can be done externally but I imagine would be a natural interest for an EXIF plugin. So... all of this is possible. I think if a PS face were done for real, it could only survive as a kind of strap-on rather than a replacement for GIMP. If there was an MVC architecture there would be no need to consider replacement as a necessary choice. That would also provide a safety buffer for GIMP should Adobe get restless about a percieved imitator, since you can be sure they'd be most uninterested in losing sales due to software- photocopying of their trademarked, copyrighted, etc industrial design (not that it's good, by any means, just that everybody's used to it; sort of parallel to MS-Office like that). provided the size proportions and designs of the interface are not a copy and is a means of controlling entirely different source code I do not believe this to be hurdle. Maybe some members of the team are unnecessarily scared of rousing adobe's wrath! An MVC architecture and user view customisation tools would be much more attractive route because it would lay the groundwork for emulating other tool sets including any future tools competitve to PS. The challenge for gimp is how to create a long term strategy which may enable it to flexibly meet future needs that cannot be accurately forecast now. MVC architecture provides the flexibility required here. So IMHO the next major version of GIMP requires a total recasting of the code structure in line with an MVC architecture. The current system architectural is the major stumbling block for the long term. Until that is solved I do not see GIMP moving away from the beached whale status as far as its professional high quality image manipulation future. A down-side of this imitation would be that it effectively acts to support retain Adobe's market monopoly. People would tend to view it as the real thing (tm Coca Cola) GIMP as a mere copy rather than as an independently architected work of genius. Cheers; Leon I am afraid we have to deal with the real world rather than the world as we would wish it to be. I have always thought there has been a lack of grasp of the implications of the real world adverseley affecting the choices that the gimp development team make. There is no doubt that Gimp is a substantial work but its design flaws and most notably the lack of a well designed MVC architecture and its
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
Quoting gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... An MVC architecture and user view customisation tools would be much more attractive route because it would lay the groundwork for emulating other tool sets including any future tools competitve to PS. The challenge for gimp is how to create a long term strategy which may enable it to flexibly meet future needs that cannot be accurately forecast now. MVC architecture provides the flexibility required here. So IMHO the next major version of GIMP requires a total recasting of the code structure in line with an MVC architecture. The current system architectural is the major stumbling block for the long term. Until that is solved I do not see GIMP moving away from the beached whale status as far as its professional high quality image manipulation future. This criticism of GIMP development is the complete opposite of my perception. If anything, the speed of GIMP development has historically been hampered by the development team's focus on abstracting the different components of data, controls, and presentation. Splitting off the GTK and the GDK components as separate libraries certainly took away from GIMP development efforts at the time. The language-agnostic plug-in system was a forerunner in bringing MVC architecture to an application at a level which permitted users to actually redefine the capabilities of the program -- and while 'libgimp' is typically employed by GIMP plug-ins, it is available for any other project to link with as a library entirely separate from the GIMP. The GIMP developers often choose to enhance the abilities of the tools/libraries upon which it relies, rather than opt for a quick fix GIMP-specific solution. They have not only followed, but have contributed to internationalization, menu/dialog functioning, even the underlying GObject system of 'glib'. (Any scorn of GIMPshop which may have occurred is owing to its developer NOT wanting to work within the framework of the existing MVC architecture, and NOT wishing to enhance its capabilities; rather than the GIMP developers shunning MVC.) Regarding the 8-bit color model being discussed and a call for the total recasting of the code structure, that is precisely the decision that was made about six years ago: to factor out the image storage model and abstract the access and manipulation of that storage. The approach chosen was to make such functionality a separate library (GEGL) and continue with the GIMP's development until such time as the library was ready for incorporation into the GIMP code. Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be only temporary -- the ultimate necessity to have a separate library would still exist -- and would only apply to the GIMP project. Far from burnishing its own image, the GIMP developers opt for the best approach and the long-term solutions, often to the cost of short-term expectations. They unselfishly aim to factor their code in a way that benefits all free software projects, not just the GIMP. There should be great pride in doing things right, even if it may take longer[1]. [1] Personally, I don't think it does take longer. When one looks at the big picture, the short-term solutions ultimately lead to greater amounts of development effort and such projects eventually need to adapt to the more generalized approach or they bog down. For a commercial company (such as Adobe), expending developer resources to produce short-term kludges can be justified if their is compensation from their customer base and if it maintains a marketplace edge over their competitors. In the real world of Free Software development, such efforts amount to nothing more than inefficiency in developer resources. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
Hi, On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 05:07 -0700, gimp_user wrote: It only received scorn because the GIMP development team ignored the basic requirement of development - using MVC in the early days - so the code structure does facilitate view customization (or skin development). IMHO Gimp has never recovered from that internal structural system design flaw. So you have obviously not even taken the time to look at the code before you started to write your mostly pointless accusations. Someone told you that MVC design is the solution for everything and now you are spreading the word? Do you even know what you are talking about? I don't think so. So... all of this is possible. I think if a PS face were done for real, it could only survive as a kind of strap-on rather than a replacement for GIMP. If there was an MVC architecture there would be no need to consider replacement as a necessary choice. Such an architecture is already in place (as you would know if you had taken the time to look at the code). The point is just that about 70% of the code is UI code (and a lot of that code uses model-view-controller concepts, yeah). So, if you are willing to rewrite those 70% then you can build a different UI on top of the GIMP core. This thread is not appropriate for the gimp-user list, please stop it here. Questions about the code and the short and long-term plans for GIMP development can be brought up and discussed on the gimp-developer list. To the anonymous poster who started it, can you now please unsubscribe yourself from this list and take your pointless ramblings elsewhere? Thank you. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Photoshop Versions
--- Leon Brooks GIMP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, yes, PS requires Windows Isn't there still a Mac version? Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
--- 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. I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary. In fact, there are more similarities than differences: o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers) o And each has a main image window The UI differences, IMO, are minor: o Distinct windows for palettes and image window o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar. Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new to Photoshop, I don't see the problem. Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] scaling
On 9/25/07, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Wikipedia article certainly was over my head. From what I read on the Gimp bug page lanczos scaling is not yet perfect. (But then what is?) I have to upscale images from 16M to 48M and it seems the client takes them apart and looks at them through a microscope and rejects them if there are signs of sharpening or interpolation artefacts. So far as I can see, my Gimp (2.4.0-rc2) does have lanczos downscaling I know. That is why I made a point of saying it doesn't. It has some strange facsimile of Lanczos downscaling. If you compare ImageMagick's implementation with GIMP's, you can see a clear difference (and that ImageMagick gives better looking results.) For your requirements, if you don't need to do much interactive processing, I recommend ImageMagick. For a start, it has many different interpolation filters (specified using '-filter FILTER' commandline parameter) that you can try for image scaling, compared to GIMP's three. I'm certain that one of them will obtain better results for your particular situation. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
On Thursday 27 September 2007 03:49:25 Sven Neumann wrote: Do you even know what you are talking about? I don't think so. Oh. Someone seems to have put Sven into Happy Mode. (-: I must say that as a programming novitiate, sorta, I do find the open to- fro-ing on lists like GIMP's very informative. Cheers; Leon ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Fwd: Opening pictures taken with an Olympus E-510 fails every time
2007/9/26, Leon Brooks GIMP [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 26 September 2007 02:34:13 Johnny Rosenberg wrote: Do I still have the old version? [...] Do I have both versions so I need to make GIMP use the new one rather than the old one? Maybe. Try ldd $(which gimp) see what it says. On this system (updated Ubuntu Fiesty) gimp is in /usr/bin/ the libraries for it are all in /usr/lib/ (but I don't see any libexif listed). To see what libexifs you have, try ls -l /usr/lib/*exif* because the compilation may have defaulted to somewhere like /usr/local/lib/ or /opt/lib/ or something else which may not be in your libraries list. Look in /etc/ld.so.conf to see which directories ldconfig searches for libraries. If the configure did use some odd directory, try the configure line as this, then re-do the makes: ./configure --prefix=/usr As root (sudo'ed) try an ldconfig) see if that changes the above ldd report. Uhh... this is probably a mite too complex for some of y'all but it may help Johnny can be safely ignored by others. (-: Cheers; Leon I did this and it works. Thanks! ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be only temporary -- the ultimate necessity to have a separate library would still exist -- and would only apply to the GIMP project. Yikes, you had a good argument until this bit... Yes, what you say is true, but with 16-bit color, all of those professional graphics houses would have been eyeing Gimp for the last 6 years, instead of shunning it. They don't care about what code is maintainable. From an engineering standpoint, doing what the devels did was right, but holding it up as the only choice that could have benefitted people is not accurate. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Greg 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. I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary. In fact, there are more similarities than differences: o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers) o And each has a main image window The UI differences, IMO, are minor: o Distinct windows for palettes and image window o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar. Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new to Photoshop, I don't see the problem. Just because you don't understand it does not mean that it is not a large issue. I would tend to agree, but not with your conclusion. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
On 9/27/07, Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 26 September 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be only temporary -- the ultimate necessity to have a separate library would still exist -- and would only apply to the GIMP project. Yikes, you had a good argument until this bit... Yes, what you say is true, but with 16-bit color, all of those professional graphics houses would have been eyeing Gimp for the last 6 years, instead of shunning it. They don't care about what code is maintainable. From an engineering standpoint, doing what the devels did was right, but holding it up as the only choice that could have benefitted people is not accurate. 'best approach' does not imply that, and I see no other part you could be referring to here. Of course CinePaint (the hack/fork of Gimp 1.04 to support high bitdepth and alt colorspaces) filled a need -- and the people who are commercially using that are rather likely to switch to GIMP when GIMP supports those things, as CinePaint then changes in perception from being a superpowered cripple next to GIMP, to just being a cripple. I believe this demonstrates both the good points and problems of the quick-hack approach. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
Greg 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. I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary. In fact, there are more similarities than differences: o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers) o And each has a main image window The UI differences, IMO, are minor: o Distinct windows for palettes and image window o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar. Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new to Photoshop, I don't see the problem I came from the other direction. Started with GIMP and occasionally use PS. I often use PS books or tips from various sites and unless they invoke a PS specific plugin, I don't have too much trouble translating the techniques. If you don't understand the concepts and are just trying to find identical menus and buttons, I can see where you'd get lost. As for it's professional use, it depends. I've talked to wedding shooters in PPA meetings who ship nothing but JPG's. Due to the volume of images they process, they rarely do any more tweaking then bulk exposure and color balance. For that matter, one of the more successful ones doesn't even shoot raw. Formal's get a bit more attention, but nobody ships raw or TIFF's in that market. PJ and sports seem to use jpg from what limited exposure I've had to them. Landscape/Fine Art might want to store as 16/48 bit, but no current printing technology is going to exceed the range of a 8/24 bit representation. alamy.com takes jpgs as does istockphoto. Generally they seem to be more interested in image size and what compression level was used. Don't know about advertising, but I'd assume they want CMYK's for pre pro? I'd say the real drawback is if you're manipulating your images quite a bit, and I can see where you'd want to keep as many bits around as possible till the end of the edit. BTW, when I said, a mere $649US (for PS CS3), I assumed the sarcasm/sarcasm tags were understood jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
On 9/27/07, Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary. In fact, there are more similarities than differences: o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers) o And each has a main image window The UI differences, IMO, are minor: o Distinct windows for palettes and image window This is minor if you have a sane WM such as DWM, which just works; otherwise you do need to negotiate window positioning (ie. most people will need to). o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools DEFINITELY NOT A MINOR ISSUE. Placing the options at top of screen makes it very easy to refer to them. This is definitely a desirable change to make to GIMP. o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar. Yes, that is minor (especially as you can disable the menubar and still have access to the menus.) Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new to Photoshop, I don't see the problem. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
