Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote: IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the average user. Average can mean typical it can mean numbers (as in mean/mode/median), either way, PS fits the bill. So if you want to struggle with an average creativity ceiling suffer average problems, you would choose CS. A lot of people (can't offer you numbers on this one, have to settle for many) regard average as the only reasonable alternative to failure. They won't necessarily _say_ this when discussing it, but that's how it operates in Real Life. The essence of this approach is that it makes them allergic to true success to attributes like innovation. When marketing to these users (or their bosses) I suspect you'd have to figure out what they're hedging against in specifying PS, then show how GIMP clearly offers them better results _in_their_terms_. This is doubly hard because opening discussion on the very topic which subtly terrifies them simply raises internal horror shuts down communication. So you have to be subtle about it, probably approach it under the guise of the fabulous new gadget I found which seems to solve X, Y Z rather than this PS replacement that we're going to bet the boat on. Cheers; Leon ___ 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 02 October 2007 23:11:19 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote: On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote: IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the average user. Average can mean typical it can mean numbers (as in mean/mode/median), either way, PS fits the bill. You are right - I should have defined my use of the term more precisely to guard against misinterpretation. In this context I used average when I should have referred to those who are not professional image makers producing high quality/high resolution images for whom a whole range of tools, including photoshop become necessary. There area much larger number of people whose primary use of a camera is for taking snaps on holiday and do not have the time, energy or inclination to devote to image processing or becoming familiar with complex applications such as photoshop and gimps. So perhaps my perception of average user is different to yours. So if you want to struggle with an average creativity ceiling suffer average problems, you would choose CS. I do not see either PS or Gimp creating ceilings on creativity. My experience of creative people is that they find ways to be creative no matter what tool set they happen to be using at the time. This is rather like the painter who will sometimes use an extremely limited pallette to achieve a desired affect. Just because s/he has all the colours/media available it does not mean one needs to use them on every occasion. IMaybe I should also have distinquished between issues related to creativity and issues that are related to having techniques available to meet the demands set by the creative goal. For example the technical requirements for projecting an image at 1024x768 resolution or for producing a monster 3x2 metre high resolution print may make equal demands in the creativity department but the technical demands of the media are fantastically different. The choice of image capture and processing techniques are IMHO far more closely related to what I will call the exhibiting media. A lot of people (can't offer you numbers on this one, have to settle for many) regard average as the only reasonable alternative to failure. They won't necessarily _say_ this when discussing it, but that's how it operates in Real Life. I hear your sentiment -- some people do have that type of psychological framework but I am not certain whether one can generalize from it because people approach choices in so many different ways. The essence of this approach is that it makes them allergic to true success to attributes like innovation. When marketing to these users (or their bosses) I suspect you'd have to figure out what they're hedging against in specifying PS, then show how GIMP clearly offers them better results _in_their_terms_. For some Gimp will meet some or all of their requirements. IMHO it is not about better results but about appropriate tools for certain tasks. If for example the task requires raw and non-destructive editing (for whatever reason ranging from artistic to client requirement) then one chooses an appropriate toolset - Critera also frequently limit the range of available methods. This is doubly hard because opening discussion on the very topic which subtly terrifies them simply raises internal horror shuts down communication. So you have to be subtle about it, probably approach it under the guise of the fabulous new gadget I found which seems to solve X, Y Z rather than this PS replacement that we're going to bet the boat on. If they are terrified then perhaps their terror would have been sufficient to have destroyed their creativity!! Creative people use many different types of tools and brushes and are rarely horrified by having more choices. They are also most unlikely to bet on any individual choice! As I see it gimp is a valuable tool within my 8 most frequently used digital image manipulation programs. I also have numerous tools I use much less frequently. IAs a creative artist I do not want to limit my output by seeking replacements but widen my potential by adding to my tool sets. I try to ask myself what is the best tool for me to achieve this particular result? I often find myself using more than one tool set on the same piece of work. I suppose my choices come from an approach that prioritizes devotion to the creative output rather than to a specific tool or method. Others will choose different priorities. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] asif--thanks for Gimp learning sites
i already knew about Groking the Gimp and have read parts of it. However, I also have a digital version of Sam's Guide to GIMP in 24 Hours which is easier to read so I shifted over to that first. I did not know about your other leads so have bookmarked them all so I can return for tutorials when needed. Thanks! carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] can we change bit processing header in subject line?
bit processing is now such a huge email that I am having trouble telling when I want to read it and when I don't. There is some really good creative info coming in on it which I don't want to miss. But there is also some sort of continuing feud going on under that same heading, which I do not want to read. Perhaps the people who want to post continuing creative insights could title theirs on the subject line creativity and if they want to limit it even further could add camera or painting or art. As for the feuders, I don't really know what they can label theirs but I would really like something that earmarks it so I can delete it unread as I don't want to devote further time to scanning through them just to delete them. I suppose you could just label it feud continues and those who want to follow it can and those who want to delete unread can do so. Thank you. -- carol ___ 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 02 October 2007 11:58:47 Greg wrote: --- Patrick Shanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW. I know, but if you can retain your original bit-depth, the lossyness isn't as noticeable, especially if you set the compression to the lowest possible. At least, that's my understanding. This is true for the first iteration. Unfortunately intermediate saves work rather like sound recordings.. there is some additional loss at each stage and the effect of the lossyness of the format is therefore multiplied. The effect of lossyness can reduce the effectiveness of some editing and image manipulation algorythms. Even at minimum compression there is lossyness. On the other hand lossyness of a reasonably high resolution digital image does not matter of you are using an overhead projector at 1024x768. You can increase the degree of compression quite substantiallly before the difference is really noticeable. In fact OHP can make images which would be panned, or even appear unsharp when printed as a large print, can appear really attractive when projected at 1024x768. But try to create a large high resolution image (or apply substantial enlargment to a portion of an image), then the results of lossyness are quickly all too apparent. I practise trying to define my target final output from a sourced image. However I cannot always accurately predict how an image will finally be used so I tend to opt for working with a raw image unless I know the the final media will be in a comparatively low resolution and with a constrained gamut. After all the problems of scaling an image to a lower reolution/gamut are minimal by comparison with the limitation inherent in trying to scale up. My two pennorth ___ 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 10/3/07, gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [lots of stuff] David, I've read all your posts. Carol has shared some of her art images with us so I know what she's after, and although this isn't directly relevant to GIMP, can you point us towards a website with some of your images? I understand they will have been modified using PS, just curious what kind of work you are doing so I have a better sense of where your comments are coming from. i.e. A landscape photographer has a different perspective than a commercial photographer. I tried, but the http://www.atf4.com site is really boring. Thanks. -- Tim Jedlicka, Network Entomologist [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.galifree.com ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
