--- carol irvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Like your national park pics? :) Actually, I like the surrealistic
look it gives
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
i used to teach in a college setting but in a non-art dept. the commercial
art courses were all given with adobe products. this was good from one
standpoint, i.e. that the students would be using the programs that an ad
agency or similar would be using. It was bad from the standpoint though
On 10/2/07, gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
I am hardly an expert on this whole issue. I would like to see a side by side
comparison
of prints made from 8 bit vs 16 bit images to see just exactly what the
difference might
be. I think your average person probably wouldn't care. It has been mentioned
that
monitors are poor venues on
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:50:44 Elwin Estle wrote:
I am hardly an expert on this whole issue. I would like to see a side by
side comparison of prints made from 8 bit vs 16 bit images to see just
exactly what the difference might be. I think your average person probably
wouldn't care. It
--- 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
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:58:47AM -0700, 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,
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:38:38 -0400
From: carol irvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
... The instructors don't
care about
anything but the artistic merit of the results. If I were the student, I'd
just go
Hi David,
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:35:36 -0700
From: David Southwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the average user.
I would like to, respectfully, disagree. Photoshop IS meant for an
average user. Just
* Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-01-07 13:29]:
I normally don't shoot in RAW because, from what I've read, it seems
difficult to work with, but it also sounds interesting, too.
no more so than any other graphic format...
Also, I've read that not all RAW apps are created equal, that you can
get
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.
On 9/29/07, Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
Also asked but not
I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than
I expected...and that's a good thing.
I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?
Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original
Greg wrote:
I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?
Loss? Yes. Noticeable? Maybe, maybe not.
Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original
bit-depth or as 8-bit?
Everything in Gimp
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
Hi Leon,
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:29 +1000, Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
I must say that as a programming novitiate, sorta, I do find
the open to- fro-ing on lists like GIMP's very informative.
I am all for open discussions on this list but if a discussion is based
on false accusations and
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
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
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
Quoting gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... An MVC architecture and user view customisation tools
would be much more attractive route because it would lay the groundwork for
emulating other tool sets including any future tools competitve to PS. The
challenge for gimp is how to
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 05:07 -0700, gimp_user wrote:
It only received scorn because the GIMP development team ignored the basic
requirement of development - using MVC in the early days - so the code
structure does facilitate view customization (or skin development). IMHO
Gimp has
On Thursday 27 September 2007 03:49:25 Sven Neumann wrote:
Do you even know what you are talking about? I don't think so.
Oh. Someone seems to have put Sven into Happy Mode. (-:
I must say that as a programming novitiate, sorta, I do find
the open to- fro-ing on lists like GIMP's very
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to
incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken
nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be only temporary --
the ultimate necessity to have a
On 9/27/07, Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to
incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken
nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be only
I've read a few msgs. that talked about how GIMP only does 8-bit
processing. Does that mean if I load, say, a 16-bit image, Will GIMP
display and/or save the image as an 8-bit image? If that IS the case,
that's a rather serious short-coming for photographers and such.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've read a few msgs. that talked about how GIMP only does 8-bit
processing. Does that mean if I load, say, a 16-bit image, Will GIMP
display and/or save the image as an 8-bit image? If that IS the case,
that's a rather
Greg wrote:
I've read a few msgs. that talked about how GIMP only does 8-bit
processing. Does that mean if I load, say, a 16-bit image, Will GIMP
display and/or save the image as an 8-bit image? If that IS the case,
that's a rather serious short-coming for photographers and such.
34 matches
Mail list logo
