Re: [Gimp-user] sharpen vs. levels, curves, saturation
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 20:49:24 carol irvin wrote: in both photoshop and GIMP you do not need to do these functions as a layer adjustment (i.e. work on layers). You can use the Image menu in photoshop and make these adjustments without layers or in Gimp you can go to the Tools menu and do an adjustment under colors. as long as you are saving your various versions, there is no danger of being stuck with a change you don't like. You CAN do these as a layers adjustment but that presupposes that the user is already good at using layers and also wants to take the extra time to flatten and such. As for the actual use of the tools, each has its own dialog box with sliders and you manually slide the controls till you have something which pleases you. I am NOT a purist where I insist on doing everything in layers. I usually go to layers when I am blending various versions of images. There are some who would regard me as a heretic for saying this though as they don't believe you should do anything without using layers. I think any of these manuals we have been discussing show illustrations of all of the above. Grooking the GIMP, as previously given as a link to the group, for sure shows all of the above and that manual is entirely online and free. carol On 10/9/07, Patrick Shanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * carol irvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-09-07 23:14]: rather than relying on sharpen to sharpen an image, i have much better luck using levels or curves. i also typically increase saturation some on images after i have done a layers or curves adjustment. i thus almost never need to use sharpen, which is good, because sharpen usually doesn't make my image better. the above is true for both GIMP and Photoshop. Please provide a little more detail about this operation, ie: explain layers adjustment and which curves. interesting idea, tks, - -- 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 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn4472 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHDES1ClSjbQz1U5oRAk+vAJ9Mc7faAFMks3lcjM7xAvAUrbqdIwCgmxw5 PU8np2PUrv/6CJkw/sZavZw= =z3XG -END PGP SIGNATURE- I really cannot see any reason not to use layers - Flattening is such an easy but the benefits that come from using layers are so great that I would not see that as an obstacle. To not use layers seems IMHO rather like driving a car on a freeway whilst sticking to 30mph and choosing a low gear ratio. IF one is going to use sophisticated programs such as Gimp and photoshop then the additional effort of learning to use layers is trivial. As far as sharpening is concerned I agree with Carol. I have only ever found sharpening to have a role for low resolution images and then very rarely. It is a tool that is best forgotten in favor of developing higher basic skills. I would never sharpen (unless it is to achieve a specific artistic effect) on high resolution images but for these I always use raw at 16bit. Sharpening does not make a photographic image that was taken without being properly focused any sharper.. in fact when you carefully examine high resolution prints that have been so-called sharpened one can see the traces of the sharpening process and these only serve to make the image appear a little odd. If the image is not sharp to start with there is no digital process available that is going to replace poor technique at the capturing stage. My recomendation to students is if you think your photographic image needs sharpening then go back to basics.Use that image as a spur to re-examining your capturing technique. Examine your camera handling methods. See whether anappropriate shtter/aperture had been used and whether the ability to hand hold a camera steady has been over-estimmated or whether a hand held shot has been attempted that needed a tripod. Using a hand held camera in inapproprate conditions is a recipe for disaster. Could you have changed the ISO? 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] carol's art work over on YouTube, Picasa web albums Cafe Press
On Sunday 30 September 2007 13:46:01 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote: On Sunday 30 September 2007 03:26:33 carol irvin wrote: I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to do this completely in Gimp if I set my mind to it. I don't collaborate with any other artists so it doesn't matter what I use. More than that, you have people you can actually ask to *change* what GIMP does -- they might, whereas PS is nailed in stone (or really, nailed to the whims aspirations of their developers' managers) so won't listen if you're less than Ford, or Boeing, or NASA, or Brazil. Actually that may not strictly true..while it is extremely difficult to get a response back from their development team (who seem to be insulated by brick walls from ordinary users) I once (this was at version 6 of PS or thereabouts) submitted a detailed critique of a tool and made some very specific recomendations for changing it. I sent the proposal to one of their marketing guys and about 6 weeks later got back a response with some queries and a thankyou. This was followed up - I saw some changes in later edition that seemed to be in line with my suggestions but I never heard any more from them so have no way of knowing for sure whether it had anything to do with my input because many others mmay have been saying the same thing. Adobe support is hopeless at responding to development suggestions because Adobe contracted out the support function and whilst it responds quite efficiently to current product support issues it has no real interest in wider considerations. For those the only way to influence seems to be when their marketing people take an interest or if you can speak to a development team leader at a trade show!!. However when changes are needed if enough users kick the ball hard enough then they usually get a response in the end in the commercial world, especially if users hold off from buying the product! That happened with Adobe Pemiere when they were so slow at supporting digital capture on the windows platform - they lost a lot of ground at that time to alternative products. My experience is that communication channels are often much better in the open source worldit but how effective the communication is at converting that plus sign into producing change (and how speedy those changes are introduced) depends more upon how motivated developers are to understanding users needs and how flexible their agenda and plans are when changes are needed to respond to them. It is very easy for developers to feel that as users do not pay they should be happy with whatever they are lucky enough to be given! It can be emotionally challenging to voluntary workers to regard users as clients to be satisfied.Teams naturally have varied ability levels when it comes to fulfilling that part of their role. I know from experience It is easy to lose sight of the fact that a user of one tool may be assisting in the role of developer on another project and remember that in the open source world all arguments of equal standard need to be judged by equal processes irrespective of their source. 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] photo resolution
On Sunday 07 October 2007 00:26:54 Johan Vromans wrote:
gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 05 October 2007 00:44:14 Johan Vromans wrote:
This is not stictly on topic for this list
To make it even more off-topic: it doesn't work for me (FireFox 2.0),
even after fixing the quotes around Javascript...
-- Johan
Thanks johan for correcting my typo-- try this version (it should work)- my
typing and cutting/pasting combination got well and truly screwed up!! !!
HTML
HEAD
TITLE Screen/TITLE
SCRIPT LANGUAGE=Javascript
function displayScreenProperties() {
with(document) {
write(Bheight: /B)
writeln(screen.height+BR)
write(Bwidth: /B)
writeln(screen.width+BR)
write(BcolorDepth: /B)
writeln(screen.colorDepth+BR)
}
displayScreenProperties()
/SCRIPT
/HEAD
BODY
/BODY
/HTML
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] photo resolution
On Friday 05 October 2007 00:44:14 Johan Vromans wrote:
Leon Brooks GIMP [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One possible/partial answer is to use some JavaScript to read
the window's dimensions alter the width height parameters
of the IMG tag to scale whatever you provide, so it fits.
This will still cause the whole image (which may be large) to be
downloaded.
To get really fancy, provide several different images have
your JS select the closest fit scale that.
This would be a better option.
-- Johan
This is not stictly on topic for this list but prepare a few different sized
images and then,
if you are not familiar with getting screen and window property information,
try loading this into your browser for getting screen properties - it should
get you going - you might want to join a javascript list to help further:
HTML
HEAD
TITLE Screen/TITLE
SCRIPT LANGUAGE='Javascript
function displayScreenProperties() {
with(document) {
write(Bheight: /B)
writeln(B(screen.height+BR)
write(Bwidth: /B)
writeln(B(screen.width+BR)
write(BcolorDepth: /B)
writeln(B(screen.colorDepth+BR)
}
displayScreenProperties()
/SCRIPT
/HEAD
BODY
/BODY
/HTML
___
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Creativity Ceilings
In response to an excellent suggestion from Carol I have reposted this item under the above title. Should anyone wish to continue this discussion then please do so here rather than under the Bit-depth Processing title as it gets a bit confusing when discussions drift off topic. Thanks Carol ORIGINAL Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing Date: Wednesday 03 October 2007 From: gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu 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
Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote: Not just noise, his points have some merit. But they are directed to the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his points. That ironically makes his mails pointless... If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will not be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed over 30 years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest to keep on topic, ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off topic by making personal comments. So here is my polite request: You are not obliged to read my posts so please be thoughtful of others and either contribute on topic or keep quiet. I would add: Maybe you are not comfortable with the topic but please leave anyone else who has a different point of view, free to contribute in comfort. Topics in which noone is interested die early. Most people realize that one person's noise may be another's music. I find the most interesting and valuable contributions come from people who have sound arguments well expressed and who, when they disagree with another's argument, are able to find ways to respond and be personally respectful at the same time. Thanks ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 11:52:13 Patrick Shanahan wrote: * gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-02-07 13:47]: Much unnecessary quote removed. One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an image for your own use and can revisit the original then the absense of non-destrucitve editing features may not be a handicap. The point is to know what you can and cannot do with each and every toolset and when a tool is appropriate to your needs and when it is not. You keep getting back to this non-destructive editing. WHO can edit an image for what-ever purpose and not retain the original? HOW can you edit anything and not have a copy of anything to begin with? Your question is a good one and the distinctions are sometimes simple, sometimes complex. In this response I am going to try and explain my perception here. First the distinction between the original and the process of editing. You are correct to point out that sensible processors will retain a copy of their original. Here your question suggests a lack of clarity on my part. 1. The term non-destructive editing is term that describes a process chosen for editing rather than the simple retainment of a copy of the original (which is simply a back up). 2. There is no external authority who precisely defines what is and what is not non-destructive editing but it is a term in wide use and has a certain group of expectations attached to it that sometimes loosely and sometimes quite precisely define it. 3. The term Non-destructive editing is generally taken to have a meaning that goes well beyond the simple keeping of a record of exactly what has been done at every stage so one can troll back through the record to recreate each stage. 4. The non-destructive specific record from editing is not the same as a separate record of every action or stage in the process. 5. Now I will attempt to amplify. Let us say we are beginning work on a basic image. (a) I am not entirely happy with the exposure of the image as a whole. If I was editing destructively I would use a tool to change the exposure and the original image chnages accordingly. If I am editing non-destructively then I need a tool to help me. For example it could creates an entirely different layer that appears in a layer stack above the original image. This layer would hold instructs that would apply my adjustment to a selection of layers that appear below the adjustment layer. However this is only stage one and does not quite yet meet current expectations of non-destructivenness. We have to be able to two further requirements: the ability to revisit the adjustment layer and tweak it at any later time (no matter how many subsequent changes have been made). The ability to turn on and off the effect. This is most important because it enables one to view the image with and without the effect at any subsequent time and also create other layers providing the same effect but applying different values. (b) I now carry out many more edits each one of which is similarly handled. Furthermore when I close that image it can be reopened and all the adjustment layers are there for subsequent tweaking by \anyone to whom I choose to pass the file. IF I can present a third party with a full copy of my work, and they can go back in and tweak each effect to their satifaction than I can honestly tell them the image has been editied non-destructively. However if they had to retrace my steps from the history then the edit would definitely not be regarded as non-destructive. How is the record different? Usually with non-destructive editing you have the history (which is the same as a record of every step). However more importantly the adjustment layers only record for each effect what actually modifies the original to produce the final image. So the noise in the history from work that I did, but discarded, does not clutter up the non-destructive editing record. For example if I had adjusted the exposure up and down repeatedly the final adjustment layer would only hold my final setings rather then the ones I had discarded. However if I had two layers holding exposure adjustments I could have both affect the final record or either or none! It is important to appreciate that for the professional interested in high quality images the image at the base of the stack will normally be the raw image stored at 16 bit per channel. However when one is working using HD the actual image could be 48 bit per channel as a result of combining three images to produce the base. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing
On Thursday 04 October 2007 03:41:05 Michael Schumacher wrote: Von: gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will not be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed over 30 years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest to keep on topic, ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off topic by making personal comments. Then what do you do if the topic you keep on to can be regarded as a trolling provocation? I'm not sure if many do still follow this thread. If you want to get back on track, you should probably provide a short summary, for example: - who is your intended target audience - what are you trying to tell them - what do you expect from them Also, it would be interesting to know if you are aware of the future plans for GIMP. In response to your questions: 1. As far as your trolling remark I cannot see what is in the heads of others and I would strongly recomend the policy I adopt. It has kept me out of flame wars for over thirty years. There are always people on the net with strange agendas who get offended for no rational reason. I remember a classic case on a mailing list (using email on on a uucp system) in 1978 when someone used the words this project has been aborted and there was a whole string of responses objecting to the language - it went on for weeks and nobody seemed to think of anything else. People who are easily offended respond irrationally and suspect others of underhand motives. They usuially are unable to take what people say at face value. So I tend to feel a little sorry for them rather than take personal offense. I am not responsible for how others respond and I try and respond to irrationality by ignoring the dross and concentrating on on-topic elements. If you really think I am trolling then you are fee to ignore my contributions safe in the knowledge I will not treat anyone else with unwarranted suspicions or encourage flame wars!!. As far as your other questions: 1. The audience is those that I respond to or respond to me and either discuss or answer on topic. 2. What is in my contributions.. 3. Only what they want to offer. What I like to see is openess, integrity, humanity and respect for others (preferably including myself). I interpret your questioning as an indication you suspect I have some kind of agenda that goes beyond what I say. lf you are harbouring such suspicions then they are misplaced. My response to the interpretation is to wonder what your responses tell me about you. All I can say is I am at a stage in life (around 70) when I have seen much come and go and have benefited artistically from the contributions of many. I like to give back a bit and know that creativity does not come without a struggle. As far as the future plans of Gimp I read the technical detail but find it hard to put my finger on a sense of mission that enables me to place its future in context. However my focus here is on what I and other users can do now with the tools that are available. Artistically I need to solve my challenges with the tools I have and understand what they can and cannot do for me. So for me, being firmly, as far as Gimp is concerned, on the user side, I am not therefore too concerned about plans but am glad to hear that 16bit is on the agenda along with non-destructive editing. When it comes along I will be the first to try it and assess both its potentials and its limitations. When I paint I do not use a fine camel hair brush to put on large swathes of thick paint and the brush manufacturer would not feel the least offended if I told a student hey you might want to use a palette knife here. The brush manufacturer would know that if I saw a student trying to do something with a palette knife that would be better done with a camel hair brush I would be equally honest in the reverse direction. Watching this list (which I have done for many years) I wonder if the Core tem developing Gimp are a little too emotionally committed to the toolset and are not able to see that good tools are pushed to their very limit by users and that during his/her development good artists need to know where the limits are. Developers, by definition , are primarily interested in what is coming -- after all that is only to be expected because they are creating it!! On the other hand users are focused not on the plans for Gimp but on what they can and cannot do with Gimp NOW!! FWIW I wonder whether Gimp developers all too easily misinterpret user discussion of current limits as a critique of Gimp. Some even react as though developers themselves are under attack. Having both technical and artistic background I see such discussion as an artistic necessity, an appreciation of the toolset
Re: [Gimp-user] non-destructive editing
On Thursday 04 October 2007 04:42:55 Raphaël Quinet wrote: On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 02:55:35 -0700, gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote: Not just noise, his points have some merit. But they are directed to the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his points. That ironically makes his mails pointless... If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will not be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed over 30 years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest to keep on topic, ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off topic by making personal comments. I assume that you have read the part of Simon's message that you have quoted above. He did not write that your contributions are noise. He wrote that they are addressed to the wrong audience. Furthermore, the developers (who may be a better audience for feature requests) are already aware of the benefits of non-destructive editing, and the GEGL library is a step in that direction. Considering that most developers are already aware of the benefits (and overhead) of non-destructive editing, I am wondering why you keep on arguing about it. You are posting this on the user list. Although this list can provide good feedback about what some users like or do not like, this may not be the best place to argue about how to implement a feature that has already been discussed several times. Well, unless you think that some members of this list who are not already developers would be so convinced by your arguments that they would decide to learn programming, study the GIMP internals, and start redesigning the whole GIMP core on their own. But I consider this to be rather unlikely. So please think twice before arguing about these issues. I suggest that you take a look at GEGL if you haven't looked at it already. Then feel free to bring back this topic on this list or on the developers list in about two years if you think that GIMP is not making progress in the right direction. -Raphaël P.S.: The suggestion to bring this back in two years is not a way to keep you away. It is just a reflection on the speed at which GIMP is developed and probably the earliest date at which some of the suggested features could be reviewed. ___ I think you miss the point and I do not agree that it is the wrong audience-- because the question arose from users. Users hear about non-destructive editing but do not understand it. Artists use tools to achieve results. When discussing tools, as users do on a user list, the most important discussions to them are discussions of the potentials and the limits of the tool set. To be able to do that they need an understanding of the concepts otherwise they do not realize they can use Gimp when they might otherwise think they are forced to use PS. I hear you coming from a developer perspective and feel you are in danger of misinterpreting discussion of non-destructive editing as a critique of developers, development strategy etc. Discussion of tool potential and limitation is what users of graphic tool sets expect to discuss!! If they cannot discuss these things then they cannot discuss things that are important to them. This is a perspective I do not expect developers to understand but they should not treat such discussion as anathema either. Users who are enthusiatic about tools will push the tools to their limits. I aim to help them do that. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] photo resolution
On Thursday 04 October 2007 07:03:14 David Heino wrote: Hello, If I am producing images for the web, is 72 dpi still sufficient across all possible monitors--a little lap top screen to a large screen HDTV? Think in pixels. If you need to cater for full screen digital projection 1024x768 pixels is pretty standard. ___ 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
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 Monday 01 October 2007 16:09:23 jim feldman wrote: Patrick Shanahan wrote: * Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-01-07 13:29] In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right tool for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP natively supports 12-bits or higher, I'm gonna have to stick to Photoshop for now. Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW. True for all DSLR's (I think), but some better PS's also can produce TIFF's which uses a lossless compression (actually being pedantic) as sort of pseudo raw format. For me at least, the big reasons for PS CS over gimp are the following: - The plugins. For the pro/semi pro shooter, there are just way too many very cool plugins for PS. Everything from Noise-Ninja to lens distortion corrections to some very interesting portrait tools to virtual view camera adjustments (more than just perspective correction). - Integration with the color spiders and CMS - 8/24 vs 16/48 - This is at least on the horizon for GIMP In GIMP's defense, many (if not the vast majority) of digital photographers will have no need of these features. Even if by some magic they were available, few would use them because of the cost or complexity. It's a good tool. I use it a great deal myself, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it to teach an into to digital darkroom course. The exception would be, for students who were on a professional photographer track. jim I think this approach is a sound one because using gimp students can, given a computer and internet access, get to know about digital processes without committing themselves to the expense of purchasing PS. They can find out whether they feel able to assimilate and use digital imaging processes because so many of the techniques remain the same. However there is no way, given the gimnps currently available tools set one I would feel confident recomending it to students for professional processing or for working collaboratively with other professionals in the industry. I wish this were not the case but until Gimp development reaches reaches the right level that is the way it is. There is also the problem of non-destructive editing which cannot be advanced until Gimp has the tools to handles raw files rather than relying upon conversions using an external tool set.. ___ 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 Friday 28 September 2007 17:28:36 jim feldman wrote: 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? The problem is this is not the way to test the difference between differing bit depth. Monitors have their own limitations is display and gamut which result in an inability to portray differences between 8 bit and 16 bit images.. Professionals need to supply images which are for presentation on many grades of alternative media. IF a professional were to say well I cannot see the difference on my monitor his statement would be interpreted as a dec;aration of an inability to understand the basics. There is no way that 8bit images can complete with 16 bit images -- the vision of the screen is a very impure and lossy projection of any image and the greater the bit depth the greater the loss of image quality and gamut. So basically this approach tells you nothing but the fact a screen display has very limited capabilities. 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 ___ 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 Monday 01 October 2007 16:41:02 carol irvin wrote: I've done some photography but usually I end up painting over it and converting it to mixed media as I really prefer painting to photography. I think for users who are drawn to art and painting, GIMP may satisfy their needs more easily. The adage pare it down typically is a good one for all artists to keep in mind and Photoshop can lead one in exactly the opposite direction. I know it is terribly easy for me to end up with mud after i overdo it with all the plug-ins, styles, custom shapes and so forth that i've amassed in the PS program. Certainly if you are into painting and using photographs as inspiration then an 8bit jpg image projected at 1024x768 resolution is probably all you needs beacuse your subletirs are going to appear with brush magic rather than PS magic!! The two art forms are s distinctly different. However if you are in to photography and want to produce high resolution digital images then with great regret n I see no alternative but getting your head around using raw PS. However if you only want to project images using an overhead projector at 1024x768 then gimp will do everything you need.. there is no way that either a screen or a projector can show the different between an 8 bit and a 16 boit image.. the media limits the message!! chuckles ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] non-destructive editing
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. As this was a diversion from an original topic in a separate thread, and because your question is such a good one, I have decided to recast my original reply as a seperate topic and provide a little more detail. This is not the first time a lack of understanding about the term non-destructive editing has come up and you are not the only one who has the mistaken belief that it is OK to falsely accuse others on this list of something equivalent to having falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for non- distructive editing when you do not even understand the term under discussion. I believe gimp is a good enough tool not to need inappropriate defensive reactions or ill-informed responses when its limitations are discussed. The discussion of limitations leads to enhancement and there his ample history of enhancement in Gimp's progress. Gimp is a substantial tool that, in common with all other tool sets has limitations and weaknesses. In non-destructive editing Gimp's weaknesses are substantial, however once support for 16 bit per channel AND native raw file handling has been developed the path will be open for solving the problem. 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. Its support for non-destructive editing is now quite substantial. It is getting there by a process of incremental improvement (whilst gimp cannot approach it) and each version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I have just upgraded to CS3 which, among other things, now has exposure adjustments available as a non-destructive layer whereas in CS2 exposure was not accomplished non-destructively.) By this I mean that one starts with loading the original image and that original can remain in the bottom of the stack. In the case of professional digital images that means raw files are sourced and loaded as 16bit images. Non-destructive editing can, for example, be accomplished by having each edit take place as a layer which can, at any later point, be revisited, either by by the original image manipulator or anyone further down the chain. That layer can therefore be tweaked later in the process. There are some processes in PS that cannot be accomplished non-destructively but as Gimp does not even start with the ability to load a raw image or even an image at 16 bit we cannot begin the process. With non-destructive editing every individual edit can be selectively applied to the output (to screen, printer etc). Each edit is not applied to the original which remains intact. For example it means I could apply two alternative exposure corrections. At a very much later stage, and after much subsequent editing, either I or someone on some other machine, could print 4 copies namely the original without either correction, with the first correction only, the second correction, or the sum of both corrections. Non-destructive editing also implies the ability to transfer files between people and organization in a form that they can amend the edits applied by previous manipulators. This is not a complete answer because there is more to it but I hope I have geven enough information to help explain why non-destructive editing is not a contradiction and also to ask you to withdraw your rather unkind and inappropriate accusation of falsity. Thanks ___ 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 Saturday 29 September 2007 07:46:37 Patrick Shanahan wrote: * gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09-29-07 02:00]: 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 ... [much *unnecessary* quoted mat'l removed] While your quoting style suits you and *is* quite complete, frankly it is a pain in the ass to read and very unnecessary as are the personal posts you made to me. I read the list and am quite capable of reading your responses to the list. A personal response is only necessary if unrelated to list traffic and/or really of a personal nature. Anyone who reads the list will have seen your earlier posts and be aware of the thread history. Most capable individuals will be able to recapture anything that they may have missed if that interested. IMNSHO, it is only necessary for you to quote enough material to put your answers (?) or arguments into perspective. As a linux user you *are* held to a higher value and your contributions *will* be seen in the same light and value as you present yourself here which your quoting manerism reflects and detracts. please see: http://email.about.com/cs/netiquettetips/qt/et090402.htm http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html no response necessary or expected! Well if you need to be that arrogant I guess it is your prerogative ___ 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 Saturday 29 September 2007 07:46:37 Patrick Shanahan wrote: * gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09-29-07 02:00]: 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 ... [much *unnecessary* quoted mat'l removed] While your quoting style suits you and *is* quite complete, frankly it is a pain in the ass to read and very unnecessary as are the personal posts you made to me. I read the list and am quite capable of reading your responses to the list. A personal response is only necessary if unrelated to list traffic and/or really of a personal nature. Anyone who reads the list will have seen your earlier posts and be aware of the thread history. Most capable individuals will be able to recapture anything that they may have missed if that interested. IMNSHO, it is only necessary for you to quote enough material to put your answers (?) or arguments into perspective. As a linux user you *are* held to a higher value and your contributions *will* be seen in the same light and value as you present yourself here which your quoting manerism reflects and detracts. please see: http://email.about.com/cs/netiquettetips/qt/et090402.htm http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html no response necessary or expected! Well if pou need to be that arrogant I dont not suppose you can be deterred ___ 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 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
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
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
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
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
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] photography
On Thursday 13 September 2007 06:13:52 Mogens Jæger wrote: Thank you all for the interesting comments and information. In the past I was a great fan of the SLR and I had several starting with a Russian camera, 'Zenit', which I still have and finishing up with a Nikon with 28mm and 135mm lenses which unfortunately were stolen. My Arthritic problems were just starting so I moved to an Olympus compact camera with built in zoom and have staggered from then into the digital era. In my earlier years I had a dark room which eventually I had to give up and now I see my computer taking over the functions of a dark room. So you see, I am not a newcomer to photography and I am well aware of the problems with dust etc especially with SLR cameras. As I said in my original posting I need ease of handling and RAW. Changing lenses is not so easy when one hand is holding a walking cane even standing for any length of time is a problem. Carrying equipment is not comfortable and I do like to wander on my own when out for a shoot. Norman Depending on which focal area is of your interest, there are more interesting suggestions - all of the bridge type, witch means bigger compacts. My suggestion is (being an Olympus fan) the Olympus SP-560 UZ. It has a 27 - 486 (35 mm equivalent) lens, 8Mp and saves in RAW. Besides that it has an CCD-based image stabilization system. And of course full manual exposure control. Just add a couple of points: 1. If you do decide to buy a DSLR which IMHO is the only sound choice if you do want to produce high quality images, then it is really important to carefully consider what lenses you really need. 2. My personal choice for professional use is the Canon 5D (I have two bodies) which has a full frame chip rather then the reduced chip sizes of the consumer DSLR. Inevitably, as cost of producing full frame chips drop they will become available on consumer range camera. This means that any lenses you buy which cannot be used on full frame will be useless when you upgrade to full frame. (e.g the S lenses on the canon range will not be a good long term investment. Most phtographers change their bodies far more frequently than lenses. Over a lifetime a photographer will spend much more on lenses than camera bodies. 3. If you do want to produce projected images then gimp will serve you well because digital projectors have very low resolution (most run at 1024x768). For such images you do not need a high resolution camera. HOWEVER if you want to produce large high quality prints then unfortunatelyt gimp does not cut the mustard. The current lack of supprt for 16bit per channel means it is far below the industry standard. (Photoshop CS3 now has support that extends well beyond 16bit per channel).and for that reason I most other other professionals use photoshop much as we would like to be able to use gimp. Another gimp problem is the learning curve -- it does not have an interface that makes it an easy step to move from photoshop to gimp. Anyway you makes your choice from waht suits you ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] large tile sizes and large images on Freebsd
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 18:31:10 jim feldman wrote: Bram Van Steenlandt wrote: Hi list, I run FreeBSD 6.2 (2 gig ram) and use gimp-2.2.17 for editing my large (1x1pixels) photos. This works when the tile cache is set to 256MB but this is not enough for fast editing. When I set the tile cache to 512MB or more it stops with error: GLib-ERROR **: gmem.c:135: failed to allocate 16384 bytes I checked in top while the gimp was opening the image and I still had 400MB free before it stopped (not counting my 4000MB free swap). I have another computer with Fedora 7 and less RAM (1 gig) and here this does work, tile size is set to 512MB and editing is rather fast. I found this old thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg07633.htm l wich a bit the same. So my questions are: -Is there some magic setting wich allows the tile size to be bigger ? -Can't the gimp be configured to not save to disk after every edited pixel ? If you put one pencil dot on an image it takes 4 seconds before you can do the next. -Is there a way to work in ram only ? Can I for example buy 2 additional gig and then force the gimp to use only this memory and give me a messages out of memory when this does not work ideas As the original poster of that thread, let me tell you what I know. 1. No magic. I assume there's something bad happening between glib and the FreeBSD memory allocation routines, but whatever it is carried across 5.3 to 6.2. I'm pretty sure I logged a bugzilla case, but in the end, I switched to a linux platform and lost interest. I get the feeling that the GIMP devs don't use FBSD and as long as it builds and runs, they're not all that interested in what seems like corner cases. 2. You could try setting undo level to 0 at the risk of not being able to recover from any mistake 3. nope, at least not that I've found 4. nope Don't bother with film-gimp or whatever they're calling the project these days. It does HDR, but their big memory handling is even worse. Turns out that the images projected in theaters are actually not all that hi rez. Your eye fills in the missing spots frame by frame. If you built KDE for your desktop, you might want to check out Krita as an image editor. Last I looked at it (which is maybe 9 mos), I still liked the GIMP better, but it (krita) handles images completely differently, so it might be worth a shot. Didn't get a chance to run any of my scans through it. As a fellow and long time freebsd user I am puzzled why you should want to take such large images and process them using gimp which can only handle 8 bit per channel rather than 16bit. The concommitant loss of image quality makes this a no-no for me. I cannot image you are scanning images at 8 bit per channel. I concur with the last poster - look at krita or if you have an appropropriate alternative platfrom one of the latest versions of photoshop might be better. I am sorry to sayIMHO that (atm) there is nothing in the open source community that matches photoshop until gimp gets its act together to provide support for 16 bit (which I understand may be with us soon) and an optional GUI that makes the learning curve transition from photoshop to gimp relatively smooth. Personally, much as I would prefer to use gimp on my freebsd platform, I only use it for trvial image manipulation tasks until it has support for 16 bit and handling large image files more smoothly on all platforms. Gimp could have a wonderful future but I fear, for reasons I will not discus here, that it will always fall short of its real potential. Best of luck Freebsd gimp user ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
