Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI

[gimp_user]

On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:
 On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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.
 
  FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your
  statement is false.  You can't speak for me and I don't agree with you
  so...  If you can provide hard data that backs this up with numbers well
  that might be a different story but it would have to be global figures.
 
  Thanks

 I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and
 thereby portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple
 strands. The difficulty that idividuals face in  switiching from one
 software interface to another naturally varies from individual to
 individual. But that is no way intended to be interpreted as the core of my
 contribution.

 My original posting  was intended to draw attention to multiple layers of
 reality that contribute to professional decision  about software choices
 that go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based upon
 assessment of levels of experience and known skills. Someone who says Well
 I know Gimp but I am  sure I could adapt to photoshop is going to face an
 uphill struggle convincing an agency that he has all the right skills. His
 statement would be taken as evidence of not understanding the role of an
 individual contributor in a complex supply chain.

 While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin
 similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability  of multiple
 individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple
 organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not
 currently in a position to seriously challenge PS.

 By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which was
 never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it does
 not apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also suggest
 to me that you have not carefully read and understood the theme.

 What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply chain,
 on at least equal terms with PS and that cannot happen overnight. It would
 be foolish to suggest that that could be achieved by simply having a GUI
 that makes for an easy transition. PS has to be considered not just as a
 tool for for high quality image manipulation but also as an attempt to
 provide an integrated solution to the requirements of a complete supply
 chain.

 The real world is far more complex than the needs and abilities of
 individuals and my contribution was only intend to open a crack in the door
 of examining the impliaction of those wider complexities. Gimp has the
 potential to be developed to at least equal photoshop but because it can
 interface with the rich world of open source solutions it could do even
 better. Whether it will or will not do so is a choice available to the
 community.

 I am not saying Gimp should choose to set out to do so. I am saying that
 while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs of many
 individuals, such as yourself.   It is also my opinion that it has the
 potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative industry of
 high quality image makers. To do that, in my opinion, it will need to make
 many changes if it is to satisfy the needs of a supply chain accustomed to
 share resources and skills (including common toolsets). It means providing
 tools for non-destructive editing to enable more than one individual and
 organisation to contribute to the creation, manipulation, selection,
 cataloguing, distribution and promotion of  images.

 These requirement present a serious challenge and no easy one for an open
 source project to fulfill.

In response to this
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.

Your question is a good one and I hope I will be able to explain why 
non-destructive editing is not ia contradiction.

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. However  it is getting there and each 
version seems to provide me with a more complete 

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI

[Patrick Shanahan]

* gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09-28-07 07:20]:
 [...]
 It means providing tools for non-destructive editing to enable more
 than one individual and organisation to contribute to the creation,
 manipulation, selection, cataloguing, distribution and promotion of
 images.  
 
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?

-- 
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album:  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://counter.li.org
___
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

[carol irvin]

-- Forwarded message --
From: carol irvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sep 28, 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
To: gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED]

This makes total sense to me.  If you work for ad agencies, for example,
everyone will want to be using
the same set of tools and not converting anything.  I am not with an ad
agency so it doesn't affect me.  I use both Photoshop and Gimp for my own
projects which no one else works on.  My motivation in learning Gimp is
totally financial.  I am switching myself to open source programs whenever I
can to save money.  It is no more complex than that.  I've got just about
everything else covered via open source but for the image editing.

I'm glad someone brought up this floating selection dilemma.  I will relate
my experience with it in a separate email.

carol (new member)

On 9/28/07, gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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.
 
  FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your
  statement is false.  You can't speak for me and I don't agree with you
  so...  If you can provide hard data that backs this up with numbers well
  that might be a different story but it would have to be global figures.
 
  Thanks
 
 I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and
 thereby
 portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple strands.
 The
 difficulty that idividuals face in  switiching from one software interface
 to
 another naturally varies from individual to individual. But that is no way

 intended to be interpreted as the core of my contribution.

 My original posting  was intended to draw attention to multiple layers of
 reality that contribute to professional decision  about software choices
 that
 go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based upon assessment
 of
 levels of experience and known skills. Someone who says Well I know Gimp
 but
 I am  sure I could adapt to photoshop is going to face an uphill struggle

 convincing an agency that he has all the right skills. His statement would
 be
 taken as evidence of not understanding the role of an individual
 contributor
 in a complex supply chain.

 While the absence of a recognised skill transition route ( i.e. no skin
 similar
 to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability  of multiple
 individuals
 to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple organisations it is
 far
 from being the only reason while Gimp is not currently in a position to
 seriously challenge PS.

 By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which was
 never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it does
 not
 apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also suggest to
 me
 that you have not carefully read and understood the theme.

 What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply chain,
 on
 at least equal terms with PS and that cannot happen overnight. It would be

 foolish to suggest that that could be achieved by simply having a GUI that
 makes for an easy transition. PS has to be considered not just as a tool
 for
 for high quality image manipulation but also as an attempt to provide an
 integrated solution to the requirements of a complete supply chain.

 The real world is far more complex than the needs and abilities of
 individuals
 and my contribution was only intend to open a crack in the door of
 examining
 the impliaction of those wider complexities. Gimp has the potential to be
 developed to at least equal photoshop but because it can interface with
 the
 rich world of open source solutions it could do even better. Whether it
 will
 or will not do so is a choice available to the community.

 I am not saying Gimp should choose to set out to do so. I am saying that
 while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs of many
 individuals, such as yourself.   It is also my opinion that it has the
 potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative industry of
 high quality image makers. To do that, in my opinion, it will need to make

 many changes if it is to satisfy the needs of a supply chain accustomed to
 share resources and skills (including common toolsets). It means providing
 tools for non-destructive editing to enable more than one individual and
 organisation to contribute to the creation, manipulation, selection,
 cataloguing, distribution and promotion of  images.

 These requirement present a serious challenge and no easy one for an open
 source project to fulfill.

 ___
 Gimp-user mailing list
 Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
 

Re: [Gimp-user] remember last location for save as, save a copy, save, open

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 21:57 +0200, firepol wrote:

 I open an image stored
 in /media/usb-external/graphics/work/animals/cat/mycat/christmas/cat.jpg
 
 Now, if I cut a part of the image and I paste it into a new image,
 then I click save as I get as default my home directory (in my
 case /home/paul/) which is very annoying since I'd like to save the
 modified image in the same folder (last location) I've just opened a
 few seconds before. I need to re-navigate the whole tree to select the
 directory, loosing a bunch of time. 

Sometimes you want to save the image there, and sometimes you don't.
Since there's no relation between the image you opened and the one you
are saving, it would be somewhat odd to open the save file-chooser in
the loaction where you last opened a different image.

It's not easy to find a good solution that fits for all cases. For GIMP
2.4 we have changed the behavior of the Open and Save dialogs so that
they open in the last used directory if you are using them from the same
image. For all other needs, I suggest that you use the Bookmarks feature
of the file-chooser dialog to avoid having to renavigate the filesystem.


Sven


___
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

[gimp_user]

On Friday 28 September 2007 06:20:05 gimp_user wrote:
 On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:
  On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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.
  
   FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your
   statement is false.  You can't speak for me and I don't agree with you
   so...  If you can provide hard data that backs this up with numbers
   well that might be a different story but it would have to be global
   figures.
  
   Thanks
 
  I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and
  thereby portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple
  strands. The difficulty that idividuals face in  switiching from one
  software interface to another naturally varies from individual to
  individual. But that is no way intended to be interpreted as the core of
  my contribution.
 
  My original posting  was intended to draw attention to multiple layers of
  reality that contribute to professional decision  about software choices
  that go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based upon
  assessment of levels of experience and known skills. Someone who says
  Well I know Gimp but I am  sure I could adapt to photoshop is going to
  face an uphill struggle convincing an agency that he has all the right
  skills. His statement would be taken as evidence of not understanding the
  role of an individual contributor in a complex supply chain.
 
  While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin
  similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability  of multiple
  individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple
  organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not
  currently in a position to seriously challenge PS.
 
  By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which was
  never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it does
  not apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also
  suggest to me that you have not carefully read and understood the theme.
 
  What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply chain,
  on at least equal terms with PS and that cannot happen overnight. It
  would be foolish to suggest that that could be achieved by simply having
  a GUI that makes for an easy transition. PS has to be considered not just
  as a tool for for high quality image manipulation but also as an attempt
  to provide an integrated solution to the requirements of a complete
  supply chain.
 
  The real world is far more complex than the needs and abilities of
  individuals and my contribution was only intend to open a crack in the
  door of examining the impliaction of those wider complexities. Gimp has
  the potential to be developed to at least equal photoshop but because it
  can interface with the rich world of open source solutions it could do
  even better. Whether it will or will not do so is a choice available to
  the community.
 
  I am not saying Gimp should choose to set out to do so. I am saying
  that while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs of
  many individuals, such as yourself.   It is also my opinion that it has
  the potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative
  industry of high quality image makers. To do that, in my opinion, it will
  need to make many changes if it is to satisfy the needs of a supply chain
  accustomed to share resources and skills (including common toolsets). It
  means providing tools for non-destructive editing to enable more than one
  individual and organisation to contribute to the creation, manipulation,
  selection, cataloguing, distribution and promotion of  images.
 
  These requirement present a serious challenge and no easy one for an open
  source project to fulfill.

 In response to this

 On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
OOPS it was actually  Patrick Shanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] who 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.

 Your question is a good one and I hope I will be able to explain why
 non-destructive editing is not ia contradiction.

 Before amplifying I do not want to you to have any mistaken impressions
 about 

Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI

[gimp_user]

On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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.

 FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your
 statement is false.  You can't speak for me and I don't agree with you
 so...  If you can provide hard data that backs this up with numbers well
 that might be a different story but it would have to be global figures.

 Thanks

I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and thereby 
portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple strands. The 
difficulty that idividuals face in  switiching from one software interface to 
another naturally varies from individual to individual. But that is no way 
intended to be interpreted as the core of my contribution.

My original posting  was intended to draw attention to multiple layers of 
reality that contribute to professional decision  about software choices that 
go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based upon assessment of 
levels of experience and known skills. Someone who says Well I know Gimp but 
I am  sure I could adapt to photoshop is going to face an uphill struggle 
convincing an agency that he has all the right skills. His statement would be 
taken as evidence of not understanding the role of an individual contributor 
in a complex supply chain. 

While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin similar 
to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability  of multiple individuals 
to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple organisations it is far 
from being the only reason while Gimp is not currently in a position to 
seriously challenge PS. 

By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which was 
never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it does not 
apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also suggest to me 
that you have not carefully read and understood the theme.

What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply chain, on 
at least equal terms with PS and that cannot happen overnight. It would be 
foolish to suggest that that could be achieved by simply having a GUI that 
makes for an easy transition. PS has to be considered not just as a tool for 
for high quality image manipulation but also as an attempt to provide an 
integrated solution to the requirements of a complete supply chain.

The real world is far more complex than the needs and abilities of individuals 
and my contribution was only intend to open a crack in the door of examining 
the impliaction of those wider complexities. Gimp has the potential to be 
developed to at least equal photoshop but because it can interface with the 
rich world of open source solutions it could do even better. Whether it will 
or will not do so is a choice available to the community.

I am not saying Gimp should choose to set out to do so. I am saying that 
while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs of many 
individuals, such as yourself.   It is also my opinion that it has the 
potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative industry of 
high quality image makers. To do that, in my opinion, it will need to make 
many changes if it is to satisfy the needs of a supply chain accustomed to 
share resources and skills (including common toolsets). It means providing 
tools for non-destructive editing to enable more than one individual and 
organisation to contribute to the creation, manipulation, selection, 
cataloguing, distribution and promotion of  images.  

These requirement present a serious challenge and no easy one for an open 
source project to fulfill.

___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

[Gimp-user] remember last location for save as, save a copy, save, open

[firepol]

Hi there,

I open an image stored in
/media/usb-external/graphics/work/animals/cat/mycat/christmas/cat.jpg

Now, if I cut a part of the image and I paste it into a new image, then I
click save as I get as default my home directory (in my case /home/paul/)
which is very annoying since I'd like to save the modified image in the same
folder (last location) I've just opened a few seconds before. I need to
re-navigate the whole tree to select the directory, loosing a bunch of time.

The usability improvement I'm suggesting is to always remember the last
location where the user opened or saved a file. E.g. I open a file from
/media/usb-external/graphics, then I manipulate it and create a new image
fom it, The save as should be already open the
/media/usb-external/graphics. If I create a folder temp and save the file
there, then click open I'd like to be aleady in
/media/usb-external/graphics/temp (last location)... see what I mean?

If you don't like this behavior, at least copy the behavior of Adobe
Photoshop: it's not smart as the one I'm suggesting but at least it
remembers the last saved folder, even if you close photoshop.

Personally I think that it would be nice to change the behavior as I'm
suggesting (I think it can save a lot of time to regular users), don't you
think it's smarter to remember the last used location instead of navigating
the directories tree each time you want to save a new image?

Please consider this improvement... see also my initial request
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481002

Best regards,

--firepol
___
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

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote:

 While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin 
 similar 
 to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability  of multiple individuals 
 to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple organisations it is far 
 from being the only reason while Gimp is not currently in a position to 
 seriously challenge PS. 

You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to
challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works.

GIMP has different goals than Photoshop and instead of concentrating on
being as similar to Photoshop as possible, our feature set and user
interface will in the future diverge even further from Photoshop. Simply
because we have a different vision for what GIMP should become and
because we believe that this vision is a lot more interesting than
trying to compete with a commercial product.

As soon as GIMP 2.4 is released, we will start to integrate GEGL to the
GIMP core and our plans for an image manipulation program based on GEGL
go way beyond what Photoshop offers.

Feel free to continue your discussion here. But seriously, I don't
understand who you are trying to address here. This is the GIMP user
mailing-list. If you really wanted a constructive discussion about the
future of GIMP, then you would introduce yourself on the gimp-developer
list. And you would do this by first telling us who you are and what
contributions you have to offer.


Sven


___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Re: [Gimp-user] remember last location for save as, save a copy, save, open

[Pere Pujal i Carabantes]

El dv 28 de 09 del 2007 a les 19:34 +0200, en/na Sven Neumann va
escriure:

 It's not easy to find a good solution that fits for all cases. For GIMP
 2.4 we have changed the behavior of the Open and Save dialogs so that
 they open in the last used directory if you are using them from the same
 image. For all other needs, I suggest that you use the Bookmarks feature
 of the file-chooser dialog to avoid having to renavigate the filesystem.

Just a couple of ideas.

May be Gimp can auto add/remove Bookmarks? I guess this can give more
problems than adressed.

Or  may be after modifying file-chooser, there will be a place for
app-bookmarks in plus of user-bookmarks?


Yours
Pere

___
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

[David Southwell]

On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote:
 Hi,

 On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote:
  While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin
  similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability  of multiple
  individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple
  organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not
  currently in a position to seriously challenge PS.



On Friday 28 September 2007 09:14:50 gimp_user wrote:
 On Friday 28 September 2007 06:20:05 gimp_user wrote:
  On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:
   On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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.
   
FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your
statement is false.  You can't speak for me and I don't agree with
you so...  If you can provide hard data that backs this up with
numbers well that might be a different story but it would have to be
global figures.
   
Thanks
  
   I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and
   thereby portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple
   strands. The difficulty that idividuals face in  switiching from one
   software interface to another naturally varies from individual to
   individual. But that is no way intended to be interpreted as the core
   of my contribution.
  
   My original posting  was intended to draw attention to multiple layers
   of reality that contribute to professional decision  about software
   choices that go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based
   upon assessment of levels of experience and known skills. Someone who
   says Well I know Gimp but I am  sure I could adapt to photoshop is
   going to face an uphill struggle convincing an agency that he has all
   the right skills. His statement would be taken as evidence of not
   understanding the role of an individual contributor in a complex supply
   chain.
  
   While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin
   similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability  of multiple
   individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple
   organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not
   currently in a position to seriously challenge PS.

 You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to
 challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works.

Actually if you had not had not cut out the part of my contribution that is 
relevant to this point you will see I actually said: 

   I am not saying Gimp should choose to set out to do so. I am saying
   that while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs
   of many individuals, such as yourself.   It is also my opinion that it
   has the potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative
   industry of high quality image makers.


 GIMP has different goals than Photoshop and instead of concentrating on
 being as similar to Photoshop as possible, our feature set and user
 interface will in the future diverge even further from Photoshop. 

IT would be interesting to see what those goals are. This discussion started 
because users who are making a considerable investment in time to learn gimp 
are also interested in knowing how they can use it in the future. This 
discussion is therefore at least as relevant to users as it is to developers.

Wether or no  GIMP is planning to develop in ways that will provide 
non-destructive editing and full support for raw and 16+ bit is something 
that is really relevant and the views of users need to be sought. 
 Simply 
 because we have a different vision for what GIMP should become and
 because we believe that this vision is a lot more interesting than
 trying to compete with a commercial product.

OK but how do users contribute to the vision creation process?

 As soon as GIMP 2.4 is released, we will start to integrate GEGL to the
 GIMP core and our plans for an image manipulation program based on GEGL
 go way beyond what Photoshop offers.

We are all ears.
  
   By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which
   was never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it
   does not apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also
   suggest to me that you have not carefully read and understood the
   theme.
  
   What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply
   chain, on at least equal terms with PS and that cannot happen
   overnight. It would be foolish to suggest that that could be achieved
   by simply having a GUI that makes for an easy transition. PS has to be
   considered not just as a tool for for high 

Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

[Greg]

I appreciate all the info and discussion on this.  It's a lot more than
I expected...and that's a good thing.

I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?

Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original
bit-depth or as 8-bit?


  

Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, 
and more!
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658 
___
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

[David Hodson]

Greg wrote:

 I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
 loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?

Loss? Yes. Noticeable? Maybe, maybe not.

 Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original
 bit-depth or as 8-bit?

Everything in Gimp (currently) is 8 bits per channel.

-- 
David Hodson  --  this night wounds time
___
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

[jim feldman]

Greg wrote:
 I appreciate all the info and discussion on this.  It's a lot more than
 I expected...and that's a good thing.

 I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
 loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?
   
From prints? no.  On your monitor?  maybe. You will notice it when you
try and correct for under or over exposure or gamma, and you'll notice
it more in the underexposed areas where sensor noise will be more
visible.  Much of this would be done in the UFRAW converter which DOES
use all the bits, so you can argue it's less of an impact.
 Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original
 bit-depth or as 8-bit?
   
Once the image is pulled into GIMP, it's 8/24 bit for processing and
display.

Here's a reasonably quick experiment.

Gather a few images that represent your typical shooting

Download UFRAW and the GIMP (maybe not so quick depending on your
download speeds).  Pull your 12/36bit image into UFRAW and make whatever
exposure/balance tweaks needed and then have it hand it off to GIMP. 
Have both images up at the same time.  What do your eyes tell you?

I've posted this before, and in case you missed it, you really need to
do a bit of digital darkroom 101.  Go to www.normankoren.com and read
through his site. Really.
I'm not trying to be pedantic or condescending, but when you finish
going through his tutorial, you'll be asking questions that will get you
more targeted answers.  You might drop him a little paypal gelt when
you're done because people charge $500 for one day seminars to present
similar material.

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

[David Herman]

On Friday 28 September 2007, Sven Neumann wrote:
 Hi,

 On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote:
  While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e.
  no skin similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the
  ability  of multiple individuals to collaborate in a supply
  chain comprising multiple organisations it is far from being
  the only reason while Gimp is not currently in a position to
  seriously challenge PS.

 You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to
 challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works.

 GIMP has different goals than Photoshop and instead of
 concentrating on being as similar to Photoshop as possible, our
 feature set and user interface will in the future diverge even
 further from Photoshop. Simply because we have a different vision
 for what GIMP should become and because we believe that this
 vision is a lot more interesting than trying to compete with a
 commercial product.
--snip-

Thank you for saying eloquently what I would have stated rudely :-)

-- 
dh


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
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

[Leon Brooks GIMP]

On Saturday 29 September 2007 01:51:59 carol irvin wrote:
  I am switching myself to open source programs whenever I
 can to save money.  It is no more complex than that.

Hi Carol!

Um, I convert people to OpenOffice who basically don't give a
hoot about the $$$. They adopt it because:

 * They don't need to get permission to spend $$$ (OK, so
   that's partially $$$ oriented); 

 * OOo can often recover broken or virussed MSO documents
   (-: the delight registering on faces as the impossible
   transpires  a couple of days or weeks of work is instantly
   recovered is immeasurable :-); 

 * It spits out PDFs without any extra software; 

 * It runs on anything (so someone can use a Mac at home vs
   WinXP at work  still face the same software -- oh,  ($$$)
   not have to pay for it twice); 

 * Some users much prefer OOo's stylesheets, or template
   management, or whatever even down to one lad who prefers
   the view-nonprinting-characters mode; 

 * One clear-cut preferral for the better HTML editing facilities; 

 * They can successfully read  write old MSO ( OOo) docs; 

 * It's better at importing Plain Text, CSVs or InsertRandomFormat
   documents; 

 * Variety of features down to Insert Special Character working
   better, or simply having Insert Formatting Mark, or sundry
   other added features; 

 * so on.

In short, you may be doing yourself out of the better parts of
the deal by simply sticking to financial reasons, essentially
ignoring the others.

It's a bit like reading scripture for doctrinal reasons only: you
miss out on the really juicy bits. (-:

I have Linux users who use the penguin because:

 * It's free (yay,  most of them don't know or care); 

 * They can read email, browse the web,  word process; 

 * There are no viruses (well, there actually are a few, but zero
   of my users have ever tripped over one,  it's kind of heart-
   warming to have your users tell of other systems blitzing
   into the ground in spiralling clouds of greasy smoke while
   they continue their work unabated); 

 * Things don't change by themselves (well... the machines are
   set to auto-update, so things do eventually change, but what
   they're talking about is the random config changes  transient
   insanity so typical of MS-Windows machines); 

 * The tools to fix (or alter) almost anything are immediately to
   hand.

In short: cost-sorta/functionality/safety/reliability/flexibility.
Cost is one factor of 5,  in Real Life(tm) is often irrelevant.

GIMP is not *quite* the same, in that compatibility with another
app (not always PS) is more often a concern, but in general terms
the cases are close enough.

Cheers; Leon
___
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

[gimp_user]

On Friday 28 September 2007 14:12:30 David Southwell wrote:
 On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote:
  Hi,
 
  On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote:
   While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin
   similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability  of multiple
   individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple
   organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not
   currently in a position to seriously challenge PS.

 On Friday 28 September 2007 09:14:50 gimp_user wrote:
  On Friday 28 September 2007 06:20:05 gimp_user wrote:
   On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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.

 FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so
 your statement is false.  You can't speak for me and I don't agree
 with you so...  If you can provide hard data that backs this up
 with numbers well that might be a different story but it would have
 to be global figures.

 Thanks
   
I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text
and thereby portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing
multiple strands. The difficulty that idividuals face in  switiching
from one software interface to another naturally varies from
individual to individual. But that is no way intended to be
interpreted as the core of my contribution.
   
My original posting  was intended to draw attention to multiple
layers of reality that contribute to professional decision  about
software choices that go well beyond costs of acquirement.
Recruitment is based upon assessment of levels of experience and
known skills. Someone who says Well I know Gimp but I am  sure I
could adapt to photoshop is going to face an uphill struggle
convincing an agency that he has all the right skills. His statement
would be taken as evidence of not understanding the role of an
individual contributor in a complex supply chain.
   
While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no
skin similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability  of
multiple individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising
multiple organisations it is far from being the only reason while
Gimp is not currently in a position to seriously challenge PS.
 
  You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to
  challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works.

 Actually if you had not had not cut out the part of my contribution that is
 relevant to this point you will see I actually said:
 

I am not saying Gimp should choose to set out to do so. I am saying
that while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the
needs of many individuals, such as yourself.   It is also my opinion
that it has the potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a
collaborative industry of high quality image makers.

 

  GIMP has different goals than Photoshop and instead of concentrating on
  being as similar to Photoshop as possible, our feature set and user
  interface will in the future diverge even further from Photoshop.

 IT would be interesting to see what those goals are. This discussion
 started because users who are making a considerable investment in time to
 learn gimp are also interested in knowing how they can use it in the
 future. This discussion is therefore at least as relevant to users as it is
 to developers.

 Wether or no  GIMP is planning to develop in ways that will provide
 non-destructive editing and full support for raw and 16+ bit is something
 that is really relevant and the views of users need to be sought.

  Simply
  because we have a different vision for what GIMP should become and
  because we believe that this vision is a lot more interesting than
  trying to compete with a commercial product.

 OK but how do users contribute to the vision creation process?

  As soon as GIMP 2.4 is released, we will start to integrate GEGL to the
  GIMP core and our plans for an image manipulation program based on GEGL
  go way beyond what Photoshop offers.

David Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] interjected at this point:
Thank you for saying eloquently what I would have stated rudely :-)

To which my response is:
Those who have something valuable to say do not need to be rude. Sven's 
response was both pertinent and helpful.

I had previously said there was no suggestion on my part that Gimp should 
move in any specific direction. However IMHO users need to understand the 
imp[lications of varying opportunities so they can influence the direction of 
development. I therefore