Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop
Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta writes: > [...] > As for my choice, I am using GIMP! > [...] Wow, that's really best Portugal!!! Sincerely, -- "They have made fools of us. For justice we must go on our knees to Don Corleone." -- Amerigo Bonasera, "Chapter 1", page 11 ___ 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
Hello! Sorry for taking so long to thank your replies, but I had to solve an urgent and unpleasant problem :-| As for my choice, I am using GIMP! Several arguments in favor of GIMP were/are compelling. One final observation. I'm not a professional photographer. I'm an amateur photographer and scuba diver, earn my living as a teacher of computer science and mathematics in a Portuguese university and a professional husband and father :-) Best regards from Portugal! -- Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta ille nihil dubitat quem nulla scientia dictat ___ 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
doug wrote: >> "Most people thinks having two different menubars in one application is >> insane. The small amount of people that thinks it is a good idea will >> have to maintain code for that themselves, sorry." >> > In a few months' time anybody wanting to look up XXX or YYY in the > archives is going to miss them if they're all mixed up under this one > thread "GIMP vs Photoshop". And they will probably also look in the gimp-developer archives rather than the gimp-user archives, so we should move any further discussion there. / Martin -- My GIMP Blog: http://www.chromecode.com/ "Best way to keep up with GIMP from git" ___ 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
On 20/01/10 23:39, Cédric Gémy wrote: > I don't remember how this discussion has turned to a GUI discussion just > as if the hugest difference wetween the two was this point. > Anyway, Gimp is great, and photoshop has many default too. It also tries > to implement new GUI possibilities, but they sometimes shouldn't, i > guess :) > > "Most people thinks having two different menubars in one application is > insane. The small amount of people that thinks it is a good idea will > have to maintain code for that themselves, sorry." > > One thing that might be interesting is having contextual menu which is > really contextual to image areas we're on, instead of a simple duplicate > of main menu. WOuldn't be a second menu, but just an extract of > immediate main applicable functionnalities. > > pygmee > Folks, can you branch the discussion into separate threads, i.e. subject: XXX; WAS: GIMP vs Photoshop subject: YYY; WAS: GIMP vs Photoshop, etc. ? It's going all over the shop. In a few months' time anybody wanting to look up XXX or YYY in the archives is going to miss them if they're all mixed up under this one thread "GIMP vs Photoshop". Doug ___ 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
I don't remember how this discussion has turned to a GUI discussion just as if the hugest difference wetween the two was this point. Anyway, Gimp is great, and photoshop has many default too. It also tries to implement new GUI possibilities, but they sometimes shouldn't, i guess :) "Most people thinks having two different menubars in one application is insane. The small amount of people that thinks it is a good idea will have to maintain code for that themselves, sorry." One thing that might be interesting is having contextual menu which is really contextual to image areas we're on, instead of a simple duplicate of main menu. WOuldn't be a second menu, but just an extract of immediate main applicable functionnalities. pygmee ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop
> >> > There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS. >> >> Just a few? :) > >Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS? GIMP is an >alternative to PS developed for free use by anyone who wishes to use it. >As I understand it, it isn't users that GIMP wants, it is developers >prepared to give freely of their time and expertise. If you need the >advantages that PS has over GIMP then, by all means, buy and use PS but, >if you want something that does what you want and is free, then use >GIMP. If you can help to improve GIMP then good for you, if you can't >then, as it is said, put up or shut up. > >Norman > > Are you serious? I help out other GIMP users with their problems on GIMP forums or this mailing list. I make tutorials for GIMP on youtube and answer question there too. Made over 50 videos so far and do my best to make them as clear and helpful as possible. I get many comments from people saying thank you for helping out. Or comments from people looking to "photoshop" something and discovering GIMP. I'm also very thankful to all other people who have helped me learn GIMP, either by answering my questions or making tutorials for me to follow. What would GIMP be if there wasn't a community to make tutorials and help eachother and newbies to GIMP. If the GIMP user base grows there is more chance that new people will help with development. The bigger the user base the better, and people who contribute in the way they can help, be it, answering questions, making tutorials, translating GIMP or the help documentation etc etc all help GIMP if you ask me. I usually leave the developers alone. But if I feel strongly about something I think I should have a right to say something and not be told to shut up just because I'm not a GIMP developer. Just for the record, on the few occasion I did say something, the developers always listened to what I had to say. :) -- jolie (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ 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
> I'm sure many professional photographers swear by these. Its up to you > to decide if the quality of the results warrant the price. The only way > to know - for you - is to compare both the commercial apps and the open > source alternatives for what you're trying to accomplish. I would like to add one thing here: you _will_ find that the commercial apps are better, almost without a doubt. Therefore, please file bugs and feature requests at Digikam and F-spot to request the features missing from those apps. I was a heavy F-spot user some years ago, but I switched to Digikam for some feature that F-spot has since acquired. Both apps have serious development teams and they love bug reports and feature requests. So please, make sure that you request the features missing that only the commercial apps currently have, so that they can be ported to Digikam and F-spot. Just be sure to describe the feature in a way that assumes the dev reading the feature request is _not_ familiar with the commercial app, and has no access to it. That way the feature that gets added to the open source app is not a rip-off of the commercial counterpart, rather an independently-developed feature. For Digikam bugs and feature requests: http://bugs.kde.org For F-spot bugs and feature requests: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il ___ 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
Hey people, I didn't start this thread. Don't grind my ass... All I did was mention the obvious features that GIMP doesn't have compared to PS. And I meant competitive *WITH* not *AGAINST* PS. It doesn't have to replace PS -- if GIMP is to eventually have the same utility of PS then it needs the features (and more) that I mentioned. Why would anyone get their knickers in a bunch about that and start shouting "...put up or shut up..." To be clear, I will *NEVER* work on the innards of GIMP. But I will use it for so long as it is available and meets my current needs. And if you or anybody else doesn't like that idea -- stop making it available. Keep it to yourself. Let only developers use it. Like I give a shit ajtiM wrote: > On Sunday 17 January 2010 09:03:32 Norman Silverstone wrote: There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS. >>> Just a few? :) >> Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS? > > I agree with the above 100%. Why? I like GIMP, for me is useful and I support > open source. > Who doesn't like it or it is not enough for her/his work there are many other > choices. > > Mitja > > http://starikarp.redbubble.com > ___ > 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] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Sunday 17 January 2010 09:03:32 Norman Silverstone wrote: > > > There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS. > > > > Just a few? :) > > Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS? I agree with the above 100%. Why? I like GIMP, for me is useful and I support open source. Who doesn't like it or it is not enough for her/his work there are many other choices. Mitja http://starikarp.redbubble.com ___ 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
* Alexandre Prokoudine [01-17-10 11:20]: > On 1/17/10, Norman Silverstone wrote: > > > As I understand it, it isn't users that GIMP wants, it is developers > > prepared to give freely of their time and expertise. If you need the > > advantages that PS has over GIMP then, by all means, buy and use PS but, > > if you want something that does what you want and is free, then use > > GIMP. If you can help to improve GIMP then good for you, if you can't > > then, as it is said, put up or shut up. > > A, nice! :) I've been participating in free software projects all > these years only to have someone ordering me around to shut up and use > proprietary software :) Isn't that lovely? :) > I don't believe that you have properly conveyed and/or understood the substance of the statement, taken somewhat out of context, you debate. I believe that it was intended to convey that you do not complain about a *gift* but offer positive suggestions about directions you believe would benefit the intended audience which is *not* ps users and gimp is not being developed to replace ps or take it's users, but an excellent and capable graphics editing program to use, if you wish. And this *aim*, iiuc, has been spoken here on this list many times. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535@ http://counter.li.org ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop
On 1/17/10, Norman Silverstone wrote: >> > There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS. >> >> Just a few? :) > > Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS? You probably meant to say "competitive against PS", didn't you? :) There is no reason why developers of free software should think in terms of competition unless they work on a project full-time which changes quite a lot. And yet there are many reasons why they at least sometimes *could* think about it. Many interesting free applications have grown from an interest in something and further work is often largely based on motivation that comes from user base, one way or another. A lot of projects died simply because developers didn't receive feedback and decided the project was useless. If you read Enselic's blog, you probably remember that a positive review of 2.6 on Ars Technica quite motivated him to work on 2.7 and beyond. So a free software project is a two-way street. Hold on to that thought. In terms of functionality GIMP has a unique position, shared *probably* only with Artweaver. It isn't a simple editor like Paint.net or Photofiltre, and yet it doesn't have many hi-end features of Ps or PSP. This is actually the reason why so many users have problems with GIMP: they expect that everything beyond Paint.Net and the like is supposed to be on par with Ps. You don't have to like it, btw :) It just exists. So when it comes to GIMP users, what you are dealing with is in fact a lot of people who see and acknowledge GIMP's potential to become a kick-ass hi-end application, but they cannot use it for work right now, because some important features are lacking or because the work can be done, but in a much longer time. In some cases, like since recently in my country, people are forced to use GIMP, because management tells them so, because companies cannot afford Ps licenses. Being able to do work that's in front of you, the time it takes you to accomplish it -- these are the things people are usually quite emotional about. And this is where demand for competition comes from, whether you like it or not. > As I understand it, it isn't users that GIMP wants, it is developers > prepared to give freely of their time and expertise. If you need the > advantages that PS has over GIMP then, by all means, buy and use PS but, > if you want something that does what you want and is free, then use > GIMP. If you can help to improve GIMP then good for you, if you can't > then, as it is said, put up or shut up. A, nice! :) I've been participating in free software projects all these years only to have someone ordering me around to shut up and use proprietary software :) Isn't that lovely? :) Alexandre ___ 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
> > There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS. > > Just a few? :) Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS? GIMP is an alternative to PS developed for free use by anyone who wishes to use it. As I understand it, it isn't users that GIMP wants, it is developers prepared to give freely of their time and expertise. If you need the advantages that PS has over GIMP then, by all means, buy and use PS but, if you want something that does what you want and is free, then use GIMP. If you can help to improve GIMP then good for you, if you can't then, as it is said, put up or shut up. Norman ___ 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
On 1/17/10, Ken Warner wrote: > There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS. Just a few? :) Alexandre ___ 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
There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS. 1) A decent batch processor and I'm not talking about learning a whole programming language to do so. 2) 16 bit color. 3) Better zonal control so one can adjust light and dark areas of a digital photo more easily so as to enhance shadow detail and reduce highlight blowout. 4) A better raw converter. UFRaw is good but could be improved a lot. Carusoswi wrote: >> On 1/13/10, Programmer In Training wrote: >> On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote: > The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no > cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :) >>> Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest >>> of your life. >> Which part of "see if it will do what you want it to do" did you not read? > :) >> Alexandre >> > > I think the point being made is to see if Gimp (free, always and forever) > will do what you want it to do before spending time evaluating a trial of PS > which cost plenty to start with and more and more as upgrades and new versions > are introduced. What sense does it make to start down the proprietary path > before determining whether or not one would be satisfied with the free > application . . . same goes for the other proprietary aps mentioned. > > Caruso > > > ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop
>On 1/13/10, Programmer In Training wrote: > >>> On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote: The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. >>> >>> But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :) >>> >> Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest >> of your life. > >Which part of "see if it will do what you want it to do" did you not read? :) > >Alexandre > I think the point being made is to see if Gimp (free, always and forever) will do what you want it to do before spending time evaluating a trial of PS which cost plenty to start with and more and more as upgrades and new versions are introduced. What sense does it make to start down the proprietary path before determining whether or not one would be satisfied with the free application . . . same goes for the other proprietary aps mentioned. Caruso -- Carusoswi (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ 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
Norman Silverstone píše v Út 12. 01. 2010 v 20:50 +: > > > The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no > > > cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. > > > > But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :) > > The difficulty is that whilst GIMP will run on virtually any operating > system Photoshop will not. Well, before buying a Mac and trying out, one could give a chance to WINE + Photoshop: http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=17 However, the newest versions do not seem to work. Milan Knizek knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) cz http://www.milan-knizek.net - About linux and photography (Czech language only) ___ 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
On 1/14/10, Marco Ciampa wrote: >> ** Just 8 bit/channel; > yes, just like photoshop some years ago...wait a moment...this means that > serious photo work started just some 5-10 years ago > > PS: jpeg photos are 8 bit only This is totally unrelated. Open (almost) any photo in GIMP, edit it with levels or curves and look at the resulted hair comb in histogram. Alexandre ___ 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
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 04:51:02PM +, Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta wrote: > Hello! [...] > * Photoshop: Must be used for 'serious' work. Yeah...it's just like to say that you have to use Windows for serious work... ;-) > * GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo > on a web page. Otherwise forget it because: > > ** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is); totally wrong > ** Just 8 bit/channel; yes, just like photoshop some years ago...wait a moment...this means that serious photo work started just some 5-10 years ago PS: jpeg photos are 8 bit only so...if you do "serious" work with jpeg photos GIMP is just good enough. If you use an (not so) expensive digital camera with "raw" format you still can use it full capability using some 16 bit converters tools like ufraw, rawstudio, rawtherapee and you can even do some hdr photo with tools like qtpfsgui... > ** No CMYK. not completly true, see separate+ plug-in and read this: http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2009/06/gimp-squaring-cmyk-circle.html > Even though answers on this list may be biased, I have to ear them. > So, are this statements true? Now you may judge by yourself... -- Marco Ciampa ++ | Linux User #78271 | | FSFE fellow #364 | ++ ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop
About the 8 , 16 bit issue maybe all what you need may be just first correct your image with something as RawTherapee (now Gpl ),and in case of need of further editing , send the result to gimp (You may set in Rawtherapee Gimp as "associate image editor) Let say that if you need to works with layers, layermask, selections, brush tools,etc gimp (or photoshop) are the tools for the trade BUT If you have to do adjust exposures, color temperature, gamma, contrast, and even denoise or demosaizice high res RAW images from your digital camera then RawTherapee not only suffice, it is even more adapt If you use film i believe 16 or 8 bit will not make any visible difference -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop
About the 8 , 16 bit issue maybe all what you need may be just first correct your image with RawTherapee (now Gpl ),and in case of need of further editing , send the result to gimp (You may set in rawtherapee Gimp as "associate image editor) Let say that if you need to works with layers, layermask, selections, brush tools,etc gimp (or photoshop) are the tools for the trade If you have to do adjust exposures, color temperature, gamma, contrast, and even denoise or demosaizice high res RAW images from your digital camera then RawTherapee not only suffice, it is even more adapt -- photocomix (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ 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
Torsten says: Also, no serious photographer will just abandon analog photography and go totally digital. Any fine grained film will yield much better resolutions than what the most expensive digital cameras are capable of. This is simply not true. I am a serious non-professional photographer who carefully tracks pro equipment and technology. Film was approximately the same resolution and quality when the Canon D60 came out. The largest book in the world has 6ft by 4ft prints made both from Fuji Velvia and also the Canon D60. They are on par. Since then resolution for digital has far surpassed film. There are plenty of photographers that stilll use film, but they are a shrinking minority. Michael ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop
>On 1/13/10, Programmer In Training wrote: > >>> On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote: The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. >>> >>> But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :) >>> >> Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest >> of your life. > >Which part of "see if it will do what you want it to do" did you not read? :) > >Alexandre > I think they didn't read the second "it". But that's just a guess. ;-) The point in this case is that the person asking the question is using Linux. I'm with Norman, try GIMP, it doesn't hurt, and see if it does what you want it to do. Once you feel comfortable with image manipulation software you can always go for that trial and see if Photoshop works better. -- jolie (via www.gimpusers.com) ___ 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
Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta a écrit : > Hello! > > I don't understand anything about digital image manipulation but I've > got to learn as, last year, I finally bought a digital camera, after > making photos with film for many years, mainly B&W which I developed > and printed myself. To learn digital image manipulation I need a > program such as GIMP and Photoshop. > > Another important piece of information about me: I've been using Un*x > since 1986. These days I use OpenBSD (server) and > Debian/Ubuntu/gNewSense (desktop/laptop) and I don't want to change OS > - if I have to, I'll be changing to Mac OS X, no Microsoft Windows. > > According to my 'research', Photoshop is the 'de facto' standard for > image manipulation, quite expensive and exists for Mac OS X or > Microsoft Windows. GIMP is free, its license is GPL, and exists for > GNU/Linux, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows. > > My 'research' included asking on a mailing list about photography > (photos made with a specific brand of cameras) about technical > differences between these two programs. The answers I got can be > summarized to: > > * Photoshop: Must be used for 'serious' work. > > * GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo > on a web page. Otherwise forget it because: > > ** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is); > ** Just 8 bit/channel; > ** No CMYK. > > Even though answers on this list may be biased, I have to ear them. > So, are this statements true? > > TIA! > > PS - I have also been advised to use a program such as Aperture (Mac > OS X only) or Lightroom (Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows), as that is > what a photographer really needs. Because of this advise, I guess > I'll be asking some questions on the digiKam and F-Spot mailing lists, > as presume these make the same job as Aperture or Lightroom. > First : do you have a reflex and do you use the raw format for your photos ? If no you are not concerned by the "limitations" of Gimp. If you have a reflex and use the raw format to record photos Gimp covers 95% of the needs of a very good and professional photographer. ___ 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
On 1/13/10, Programmer In Training wrote: >> On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote: >>> The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no >>> cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. >> >> But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :) >> > Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest > of your life. Which part of "see if it will do what you want it to do" did you not read? :) Alexandre ___ 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
On 1/12/2010 2:38 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote: >> The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no >> cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. > > But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :) > > Alexandre Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest of your life. -- PIT All original parts of emails (C) under http://owl.apotheon.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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
> > The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no > > cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. > > But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :) The difficulty is that whilst GIMP will run on virtually any operating system Photoshop will not. Norman ___ 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
On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote: > The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no > cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :) Alexandre ___ 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
The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. Never mind what others will tell you about whether it should be 16 bit or 8 bit and is colour management essential or not. I suggest the thing to do is that you decide what you want to achieve and then see how this may be done. Norman ___ 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
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 16:51 +, Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta wrote: > * Photoshop: Must be used for 'serious' work. Depends on who's being serious. Truth is, it depends on the type of work and one man's "serious" is another man's "who cares". Note that I've done covers for magazines with GIMP and that was loong before the current version provided many of the advanced features it has today. But also note that I'm not a photographer. My SLR died a few years ago and I've yet to replace it. > * GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo > on a web page. Otherwise forget it because: Baloney. See previous comment re: magazine covers. I've also designed images printed on clothing and other products. So you'd have to define "serious" to validate that assertion. However, "serious" photography may have different needs than other "serious" graphic design work. Since I'm not a photographer I can't say if that's the case. > ** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is); The current version has color management tools. Color management is the ability to map the colors from one device to another. So mapping the colors you got from your digital camera to what you see on your display requires software to make sure they visually match due to the way hardware (cameras and monitors) behave with respect to color. > ** Just 8 bit/channel; Still true. They're working toward 16 bits per channel. Lack of 16 bits per channel can be a problem for some users such as the visual effects industry. > ** No CMYK. GIMP works in sRGB mode but can convert from other modes to sRGB (via color management). It does not convert to CMYK mode though it can color separate sRGB into CMYK with plugins. To my knowledge (which is limited on the subject) Photoshop does not work in CMYK mode either - it just maps (on the fly) CMYK to sRGB (or similar color model) so it appears to be working in CMYK. GIMP doesn't do that (at least not yet). > PS - I have also been advised to use a program such as Aperture (Mac > OS X only) or Lightroom (Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows), as that is > what a photographer really needs. I'm sure many professional photographers swear by these. Its up to you to decide if the quality of the results warrant the price. The only way to know - for you - is to compare both the commercial apps and the open source alternatives for what you're trying to accomplish. -- Michael J. HammelPrincipal Software Engineer mjham...@graphics-muse.org http://graphics-muse.org -- Got a full 6-pack, but lacks the plastic thing to hold it all together. -- From a real employee performance evaluation. ___ 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
Am Dienstag, 12. Januar 2010 17:51:02 schrieb Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta: > ** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is); Unless you use a very outdated version of Gimp, this is not true. > ** Just 8 bit/channel; > ** No CMYK. This is still true, but should be fixed within the next releases. You might have read something about GEGL already on the list - this is the underlying library that is being developed for this purpose. That said, unless you have an extremely expensive printer (i.e. one that also is capable of color management and handling wide color channels - which most color printers you get to buy at the normal hardware stores don't), 8-bit channel width is enough to manipulate photographic images in most cases. Also, no serious photographer will just abandon analog photography and go totally digital. Any fine grained film will yield much better resolutions than what the most expensive digital cameras are capable of. (Try applying a digital photography to the outside wall of a building, and you'll see what I mean - it is no problem with an analog image... and again, analog films can be digitized with a good film scanner to a much higher resolution as what you get from a digital camera). Torsten signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop
IMHO, and to cut the long story short: - use the GIMP - learn how to use it by means of the help included, the many excellent tutorials existing, Akkana Peck's book and MeetTheGimp.org video-shows. There are still other resources available. - CMYK: you won't be needing that any time soon, and some day it will be better managed with the GIMP (as of now, there are some plugins as of separate+). CMYK is mostly important for printing, but many printers can do well using RGB color space. - 8 bits depth: you can live with that, and 'soon' the GIMP will allow you to use higher values. Maybe towards version 3.0 (?). I can be wrong, of course, but it does work for me. I'm not a photographer pro, though; so take my opinion FWIW. No need of Photoshop, or even LightRoom in my book. Best of lucks Jaime Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta wrote: > Hello! > > I don't understand anything about digital image manipulation but I've > got to learn as, last year, I finally bought a digital camera, after > making photos with film for many years, mainly B&W which I developed > and printed myself. To learn digital image manipulation I need a > program such as GIMP and Photoshop. > > Another important piece of information about me: I've been using Un*x > since 1986. These days I use OpenBSD (server) and > Debian/Ubuntu/gNewSense (desktop/laptop) and I don't want to change OS > - if I have to, I'll be changing to Mac OS X, no Microsoft Windows. > > According to my 'research', Photoshop is the 'de facto' standard for > image manipulation, quite expensive and exists for Mac OS X or > Microsoft Windows. GIMP is free, its license is GPL, and exists for > GNU/Linux, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows. > > My 'research' included asking on a mailing list about photography > (photos made with a specific brand of cameras) about technical > differences between these two programs. The answers I got can be > summarized to: > > * Photoshop: Must be used for 'serious' work. > > * GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo > on a web page. Otherwise forget it because: > > ** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is); > ** Just 8 bit/channel; > ** No CMYK. > > Even though answers on this list may be biased, I have to ear them. > So, are this statements true? > > TIA! > > PS - I have also been advised to use a program such as Aperture (Mac > OS X only) or Lightroom (Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows), as that is > what a photographer really needs. Because of this advise, I guess > I'll be asking some questions on the digiKam and F-Spot mailing lists, > as presume these make the same job as Aperture or Lightroom. > ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop
Hello! I don't understand anything about digital image manipulation but I've got to learn as, last year, I finally bought a digital camera, after making photos with film for many years, mainly B&W which I developed and printed myself. To learn digital image manipulation I need a program such as GIMP and Photoshop. Another important piece of information about me: I've been using Un*x since 1986. These days I use OpenBSD (server) and Debian/Ubuntu/gNewSense (desktop/laptop) and I don't want to change OS - if I have to, I'll be changing to Mac OS X, no Microsoft Windows. According to my 'research', Photoshop is the 'de facto' standard for image manipulation, quite expensive and exists for Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows. GIMP is free, its license is GPL, and exists for GNU/Linux, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows. My 'research' included asking on a mailing list about photography (photos made with a specific brand of cameras) about technical differences between these two programs. The answers I got can be summarized to: * Photoshop: Must be used for 'serious' work. * GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo on a web page. Otherwise forget it because: ** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is); ** Just 8 bit/channel; ** No CMYK. Even though answers on this list may be biased, I have to ear them. So, are this statements true? TIA! PS - I have also been advised to use a program such as Aperture (Mac OS X only) or Lightroom (Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows), as that is what a photographer really needs. Because of this advise, I guess I'll be asking some questions on the digiKam and F-Spot mailing lists, as presume these make the same job as Aperture or Lightroom. -- Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta ille nihil dubitat quem nulla scientia dictat ___ 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
Hi, On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 18:48 -0400, carol irvin wrote: > I have one technical question about this list. Do I also need to send > this reply to the list or does replying to anyone send it > automatically to the list? There's no magic going on. Your answer goes to the recipients that your mail client shows as recipients and to no one else. If your mail client has a "Reply to All" feature, I suggest that you use that when replying to mails from the list. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
Sven, I have an idea for something which might be fun to do as a group and educational as well. Each person (who wanted to participate) would take an art step phase further using GIMP until we had a completed art work. For example, let's say you'd start it using a brush. Then maybe I'd go into what you did with an eraser and make it something else. Then maybe Leon would use both versions as layers and run the two through the modes (multiple, burn, dodge, etc.,) until finding his own versionand so on down the line. each person would explain what he did in GIMP to get to his phase as well. I find learning by doing is a lot more fun and makes things flow faster too. If people are worried about ending up with mud, they needn't. I could finish off whatever we come up with so it worked (put it artistically back on track). I have found that I do not need to use the most complex techniques in order to come with good artistic results in Photoshop and I assume the same is true in Gimp. This is one thing I don't like in the Photoshop community too, i.e., the slavishness devoted to difficulty of technique or memorizing keyboard shortcuts versus exploration of a worthwhile artistic idea (which may actually be fairly easy to achieve if the idea itself is good enough). The only thing we have to figure out is where we post all the work. If you want to have everyone forward it to me, I can mount it all in an album in Picasa Web Albums as one solution. I have one technical question about this list. Do I also need to send this reply to the list or does replying to anyone send it automatically to the list? This one shows the answer going to Leon but doesn't show the list so I am adding the list as a 2nd receipient. I don't understand if simply sending it to Leon would also send it to the list. It didn't when I was on listservs on yahoo. Also, how many of you on this list are developers for GIMP? I do not personally have any affinity for working in code. I can go to the code and understand most of it on a web page when I'm building a web page. However, I don't have the slightest idea how one goes about building an actual program! carol On 9/30/07, Leon Brooks GIMP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:06:09 Sven Neumann wrote: > > We are listening to our users. That's why we have this mailing- > > list and actually read about the problems and needs of our > > users. > > Round of applause, that sentiment. (-: > > Now I need to organise my own life better so I can make space > to actually contribute code, rather than just words. > > Cheers; Leon > ___ > Gimp-user mailing list > Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user > -- carol ___ 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 Sunday 30 September 2007 20:06:09 Sven Neumann wrote: > We are listening to our users. That's why we have this mailing- > list and actually read about the problems and needs of our > users. Round of applause, that sentiment. (-: Now I need to organise my own life better so I can make space to actually contribute code, rather than just words. Cheers; Leon ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
Hi, On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 14:12 -0700, David Southwell wrote: > 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. Yes, GEGL will bring support for high bit depths in the short term and non-destructive editing in the long term. If you had done a little bit of research, you would know that. The future of GIMP will also bring substantial changes to the user interface. How this will look like exactly is currently being worked on by our user interaction designers. This process is open and can be followed at the team's web-site at http://gui.gimp.org/. We are listening to our users. That's why we have this mailing-list and actually read about the problems and needs of our users. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
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 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
* 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! -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535@ http://counter.li.org ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
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
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
On Saturday 29 September 2007 01:51:59 carol irvin wrote: > I am switching myself to open source programs whenever I > can to save money. It is no more complex than that. Hi Carol! Um, I convert people to OpenOffice who basically don't give a hoot about the $$$. They adopt it because: * They don't need to get permission to spend $$$ (OK, so that's partially $$$ oriented); & * OOo can often recover broken or virussed MSO documents (-: the delight registering on faces as "the impossible" transpires & a couple of days or weeks of work is instantly recovered is immeasurable :-); & * It spits out PDFs without any extra software; & * It runs on anything (so someone can use a Mac at home vs WinXP at work & still face the same software -- oh, & ($$$) not have to pay for it twice); & * Some users much prefer OOo's stylesheets, or template management, or whatever even down to one lad who prefers the view-nonprinting-characters mode; & * One clear-cut preferral for the better HTML editing facilities; & * They can successfully read & write old MSO (& OOo) docs; & * It's better at importing Plain Text, CSVs or InsertRandomFormat documents; & * Variety of features down to Insert Special Character working better, or simply having Insert Formatting Mark, or sundry other added features; & * so on. In short, you may be doing yourself out of the better parts of the deal by simply sticking to financial reasons, essentially ignoring the others. It's a bit like reading scripture for doctrinal reasons only: you miss out on the really juicy bits. (-: I have Linux users who use the penguin because: * It's free (yay, & most of them don't know or care); & * They can read email, browse the web, & word process; & * There are no viruses (well, there actually are a few, but zero of my users have ever tripped over one, & it's kind of heart- warming to have your users tell of other systems blitzing into the ground in spiralling clouds of greasy smoke while they continue their work unabated); & * Things don't change by themselves (well... the machines are set to auto-update, so things do eventually change, but what they're talking about is the random config changes & transient insanity so typical of MS-Windows machines); & * The tools to fix (or alter) almost anything are immediately to hand. In short: cost-sorta/functionality/safety/reliability/flexibility. Cost is one factor of 5, & in Real Life(tm) is often irrelevant. GIMP is not *quite* the same, in that compatibility with another app (not always PS) is more often a concern, but in general terms the cases are "close enough." Cheers; Leon ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
On Friday 28 September 2007, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote: > > While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. > > no skin similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the > > ability of multiple individuals to collaborate in a supply > > chain comprising multiple organisations it is far from being > > the only reason while Gimp is not currently in a position to > > seriously challenge PS. > > You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to > challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works. > > GIMP has different goals than Photoshop and instead of > concentrating on being as similar to Photoshop as possible, our > feature set and user interface will in the future diverge even > further from Photoshop. Simply because we have a different vision > for what GIMP should become and because we believe that this > vision is a lot more interesting than trying to compete with a > commercial product. --snip- Thank you for saying eloquently what I would have stated rudely :-) -- dh signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
On Friday 28 September 2007 10:45:14 Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote: > > While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin > > similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability of multiple > > individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple > > organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not > > currently in a position to seriously challenge PS. On Friday 28 September 2007 09:14:50 gimp_user wrote: > On Friday 28 September 2007 06:20:05 gimp_user wrote: > > On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote: > > > On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote: > > > > --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user > > > > > transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is > > > > > ready for adoption by high quality image makers. > > > > > > > > FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your > > > > statement is false. You can't speak for me and I don't agree with > > > > you so... If you can provide hard data that backs this up with > > > > numbers well that might be a different story but it would have to be > > > > global figures. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and > > > thereby portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple > > > strands. The difficulty that idividuals face in switiching from one > > > software interface to another naturally varies from individual to > > > individual. But that is no way intended to be interpreted as the core > > > of my contribution. > > > > > > My original posting was intended to draw attention to multiple layers > > > of reality that contribute to professional decision about software > > > choices that go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based > > > upon assessment of levels of experience and known skills. Someone who > > > says "Well I know Gimp but I am sure I could adapt to photoshop" is > > > going to face an uphill struggle convincing an agency that he has all > > > the right skills. His statement would be taken as evidence of not > > > understanding the role of an individual contributor in a complex supply > > > chain. > > > > > > While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin > > > similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability of multiple > > > individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple > > > organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not > > > currently in a position to seriously challenge PS. > > You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to > challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works. > Actually if you had not had not cut out the part of my contribution that is relevant to this point you will see I actually said: " > > > I am not saying Gimp "should" choose to set out to do so. I am saying > > > that while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs > > > of many individuals, such as yourself. It is also my opinion that it > > > has the potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative > > > industry of high quality image makers. " > GIMP has different goals than Photoshop and instead of concentrating on > being as similar to Photoshop as possible, our feature set and user > interface will in the future diverge even further from Photoshop. IT would be interesting to see what those goals are. This discussion started because users who are making a considerable investment in time to learn gimp are also interested in knowing how they can use it in the future. This discussion is therefore at least as relevant to users as it is to developers. Wether or no GIMP is planning to develop in ways that will provide non-destructive editing and full support for raw and 16+ bit is something that is really relevant and the views of users need to be sought. > Simply > because we have a different vision for what GIMP should become and > because we believe that this vision is a lot more interesting than > trying to compete with a commercial product. OK but how do users contribute to the vision creation process? > > As soon as GIMP 2.4 is released, we will start to integrate GEGL to the > GIMP core and our plans for an image manipulation program based on GEGL > go way beyond what Photoshop offers. We are all ears. > > > > > > By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which > > > was never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it > > > does not apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also > > > suggest to me that you have not carefully read and understood the > > > theme. > > > > > > What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply > > > chain, on at least equal terms with PS and that cann
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
Hi, On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 04:04 -0700, gimp_user wrote: > While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin > similar > to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability of multiple individuals > to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple organisations it is far > from being the only reason while Gimp is not currently in a position to > seriously challenge PS. You are making the wrong assumption here that GIMP would want to challenge PS. It doesn't, that's not how Free Software works. GIMP has different goals than Photoshop and instead of concentrating on being as similar to Photoshop as possible, our feature set and user interface will in the future diverge even further from Photoshop. Simply because we have a different vision for what GIMP should become and because we believe that this vision is a lot more interesting than trying to compete with a commercial product. As soon as GIMP 2.4 is released, we will start to integrate GEGL to the GIMP core and our plans for an image manipulation program based on GEGL go way beyond what Photoshop offers. Feel free to continue your discussion here. But seriously, I don't understand who you are trying to address here. This is the GIMP user mailing-list. If you really wanted a constructive discussion about the future of GIMP, then you would introduce yourself on the gimp-developer list. And you would do this by first telling us who you are and what contributions you have to offer. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
-- Forwarded message -- From: carol irvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sep 28, 2007 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI To: gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This makes total sense to me. If you work for ad agencies, for example, everyone will want to be using the same set of tools and not converting anything. I am not with an ad agency so it doesn't affect me. I use both Photoshop and Gimp for my own projects which no one else works on. My motivation in learning Gimp is totally financial. I am switching myself to open source programs whenever I can to save money. It is no more complex than that. I've got just about everything else covered via open source but for the image editing. I'm glad someone brought up this floating selection dilemma. I will relate my experience with it in a separate email. carol (new member) On 9/28/07, gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote: > > --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user > > > transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is > > > ready for adoption by high quality image makers. > > > > FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your > > statement is false. You can't speak for me and I don't agree with you > > so... If you can provide hard data that backs this up with numbers well > > that might be a different story but it would have to be global figures. > > > > Thanks > > > I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and > thereby > portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple strands. > The > difficulty that idividuals face in switiching from one software interface > to > another naturally varies from individual to individual. But that is no way > > intended to be interpreted as the core of my contribution. > > My original posting was intended to draw attention to multiple layers of > reality that contribute to professional decision about software choices > that > go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based upon assessment > of > levels of experience and known skills. Someone who says "Well I know Gimp > but > I am sure I could adapt to photoshop" is going to face an uphill struggle > > convincing an agency that he has all the right skills. His statement would > be > taken as evidence of not understanding the role of an individual > contributor > in a complex supply chain. > > While the absence of a recognised skill transition route ( i.e. no skin > similar > to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability of multiple > individuals > to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple organisations it is > far > from being the only reason while Gimp is not currently in a position to > seriously challenge PS. > > By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which was > never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it does > not > apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also suggest to > me > that you have not carefully read and understood the theme. > > What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply chain, > on > at least equal terms with PS and that cannot happen overnight. It would be > > foolish to suggest that that could be achieved by simply having a GUI that > makes for an easy transition. PS has to be considered not just as a tool > for > for high quality image manipulation but also as an attempt to provide an > integrated solution to the requirements of a complete supply chain. > > The real world is far more complex than the needs and abilities of > individuals > and my contribution was only intend to open a crack in the door of > examining > the impliaction of those wider complexities. Gimp has the potential to be > developed to at least equal photoshop but because it can interface with > the > rich world of open source solutions it could do even better. Whether it > will > or will not do so is a choice available to the community. > > I am not saying Gimp "should" choose to set out to do so. I am saying that > while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs of many > individuals, such as yourself. It is also my opinion that it has the > potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative industry of > high quality image makers. To do that, in my opinion, it will need to make > > many changes if it is to satisfy the needs of a supply chain accustomed to > share resource
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
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 e
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
* gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09-28-07 07:20]: [...] > It means providing tools for non-destructive editing to enable more > than one individual and organisation to contribute to the creation, > manipulation, selection, cataloguing, distribution and promotion of > images. Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing". The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps you can take the time to explain your meaning? -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USAHOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535@ http://counter.li.org ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
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 01:00:45 George Farris wrote: > If you can provide hard data that backs this up with numbers Unfortunately, this is the Real World(tm), & rejection can be as simple as "it looks too different." However, I would be interested in hard numbers too. Cheers; Leon ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
--- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user > transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is > ready for adoption by high quality image makers. 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 ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
On 9/27/07, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user > > transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is > > ready for adoption by high quality image makers. > > I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I > had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary. > In fact, there are more similarities than differences: > >o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen >o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers) >o And each has a main image window > > The UI differences, IMO, are minor: > >o Distinct windows for palettes and image window This is minor if you have a sane WM such as DWM, which just works; otherwise you do need to negotiate window positioning (ie. most people will need to). >o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools DEFINITELY NOT A MINOR ISSUE. Placing the options at top of screen makes it very easy to refer to them. This is definitely a desirable change to make to GIMP. >o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar. Yes, that is minor (especially as you can disable the menubar and still have access to the menus.) > > Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new > to Photoshop, I don't see the problem. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
Greg wrote: > --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user >> transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is >> ready for adoption by high quality image makers. >> > > I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I > had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary. > In fact, there are more similarities than differences: > >o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen >o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers) >o And each has a main image window > > The UI differences, IMO, are minor: > >o Distinct windows for palettes and image window >o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools >o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar. > > Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new > to Photoshop, I don't see the problem I came from the other direction. Started with GIMP and occasionally use PS. I often use PS books or tips from various sites and unless they invoke a PS specific plugin, I don't have too much trouble translating the techniques. If you don't understand the concepts and are just trying to find identical menus and buttons, I can see where you'd get lost. As for it's professional use, it depends. I've talked to wedding shooters in PPA meetings who ship nothing but JPG's. Due to the volume of images they process, they rarely do any more tweaking then bulk exposure and color balance. For that matter, one of the more successful ones doesn't even shoot raw. Formal's get a bit more attention, but nobody ships raw or TIFF's in that market. PJ and sports seem to use jpg from what limited exposure I've had to them. Landscape/Fine Art might want to store as 16/48 bit, but no current printing technology is going to exceed the range of a 8/24 bit representation. alamy.com takes jpgs as does istockphoto. Generally they seem to be more interested in image size and what compression level was used. Don't know about advertising, but I'd assume they want CMYK's for pre pro? I'd say the real drawback is if you're manipulating your images quite a bit, and I can see where you'd want to keep as many bits around as possible till the end of the edit. BTW, when I said, "a mere $649US" (for PS CS3), I assumed the tags were understood jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Greg wrote: > --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user > > transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is > > ready for adoption by high quality image makers. > > I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I > had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary. > In fact, there are more similarities than differences: > >o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen >o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers) >o And each has a main image window > > The UI differences, IMO, are minor: > >o Distinct windows for palettes and image window >o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools >o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar. > > Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new > to Photoshop, I don't see the problem. Just because you don't understand it does not mean that it is not a large issue. I would tend to agree, but not with your conclusion. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI
--- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...[GIMP] does not have an interface that makes for an easy user > transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is > ready for adoption by high quality image makers. I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary. In fact, there are more similarities than differences: o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers) o And each has a main image window The UI differences, IMO, are minor: o Distinct windows for palettes and image window o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar. Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new to Photoshop, I don't see the problem. Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp vs. Photoshop
dont worry. be happy. just press the delete button. Robert Smits wrote: > On Thursday 21 December 2006 17:39, lists wrote: >> Brendan wrote: >>> On Monday 18 December 2006 19:52, lists wrote: Carter castor wrote: > This goes right to the heart of my biggest complaint about GIMP > though: its name. I don't understand why the developers would put so > much time and hard work into creating a program as professional as > GIMP and then name it after a slang word for a disabled person. How > do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The > people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop > over Gimp 11 times out of 10. Oh my God, let's not start this again. It's an acronym, get over it. >>> Oh wait, Geoffrey says "Get over it". Everybody with an opinion or actual >>> relevent facts, forget it. Geoffrey said so. >> If you'll check the bloody archives, you'll see this same subject has >> been discussed ad nauseam more then once. So, before you post, research >> the archives before wasting a bunch of bandwidth on a horse that's been >> beat to death. Jerk. > > Whether you like it or not, I suspect that the subject will keep coming up > because the name offends the sensibilities of a lot of potential users. > > Now I know that the name is an acronym, and I don't believe those who chose > the name did so with any intent to offend, or even to be humourous. I suspect > they didn't think all that much about the name at all. For many handicapped > people, however calling one of them a "GIMP" is as offensive as calling a gay > person a "faggot". > > Most of us who are now on the list will have seen the discussion wax and > wane, > but in a month or two, someone else will come to the list and make the same > observation, and predictably someone will have the intolerance to tell them > to get over it, and that we've had the discussion. > > I really do think we need to find a better, less offensive name for GIMP, and > the sooner the better, so that we can put energy into supporting it, and > doing whatever we can to extend it's use instead of periodically having this > disagreement. > > > > > ___ > Gimp-user mailing list > Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/600 - Release Date: 23-Dec-06 > 4:47 PM ___ 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
On 12/22/06, Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As earlier threads have already pointed out, most non-American English speakers don't know this use of the word; and in a comprehensive dictionary like the Oxford English dictionary, it's noted as a specifically North American usage. FWIW most speakers of English live on the Indian sub-continent! Doug The fact isn't that the speakers of English live on another continent, the issue is that the educational level of people isn't what it once was. Debating the word Gimp sort of is like debating a word like faggot, gay, or the pronunciation of the word forte (which should sound like the word fort). What they mean now isn't what they use to mean, what people have to understand is that the English language changes, and those changes aren't always for the better... Words change in some cases due to the lack of education, or lack of people correcting others when they hear a misuse of a word. It be nice if people actually used the word correctly, but then if we corrected everyone every time we heard a misused word, we would have less people in the open spotlight because we would find out that the majority of people truly are stupid. Lets get over the egos and just get back to talking about the functionality of the software, and not the complexities of the word of the software itself ok? ___ 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 (Zombie Thread)
I should also mention that this sort of thing comes up on the freebsd lists periodically. "If you'd only change the mascot and drop the whole daemon thing, my church/tiny business would decide to use your operating system. Maybe something cute like a penguin or a kitty waving it's paw?" (the last line being an arrogant and condescending summary of the responses) jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp vs. Photoshop (Zombie Thread)
Brendan wrote: > On Friday 22 December 2006 02:44, jim wrote: >> Eric P wrote: >>> I'm lazy, and I don't feel like reading this entire thread (it seems to >>> show up on a regular basis on the list). >>> >>> Were any new, constructive insights brought up? Anyone care to summarize >>> this thread on this exhausting topic? >> Summary to date: Noobs keep joining the list and want the name changed >> to match their sensibilities. They threaten to continue to add to the >> noise part of the signal to noise ratio until they get their way (see >> "kill file"). I suggest a new list dedicated to their traffic; >> gimp-name-haters@, thereby relieving the rest of the users and devo's >> from actually having to slog through their repeated attempts at >> "reasoning". > > It's good to see that this happens SO OFTEN that cutesy little paragraphs can > be written about how a few people know so much better than the "Noobs". God, > what condescension and arrogance. If by "condescension and arrogance" you mean no longer wanting to have to slog through the same repeated arguments made by people who feel that the name of an app seems to need more discussion than how the app works, well then yes. It's GPL'ed. If you don't like it, fork it and call it whatever you're little heart desires. You won't because it's been suggested before, and naught has happened (that's been announced anyway). Geez, go out and buy yourself a sense of humor for the holidays. btw, thanks for the new kill file entry jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp vs. Photoshop
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:25:35AM -0600, Eric P wrote: > I'm lazy, and I don't feel like reading this entire thread (it seems to show > up on a regular basis on the list). > > Were any new, constructive insights brought up? Anyone care to summarize > this thread on this exhausting topic? Other than the idea of putting a webpage up detailing why a name change is not viable, and such proposals are not welcome on this list, none whatsoever. As usual, this thread is started and mainly populated by people who don't actually contribute to the project, probably because they don't have anything to speak of in the talent or brains department, and thus have to feel better about themselves by whining about *something*. These people have of course not read prior threads, or perhaps choose to ignore them, since several good reasons *not* to change the name in prior discussions are left unrefuted. Along with the webpage about why a name change isn't a good idea, it's tempting to put a list of names of people who have started and dragged on this sort of thread, with an explanation of how these people: a) make snap judgements on software based on name, not on merit b) think one or two anecdotes constitutes real research c) are completely clueless about marketing, since they can't recognize the power of a well established brand d) thusly, should never be taken seriously, let alone hired for anything GIMP has pretty good google ranking, so the page should be ranked highly for said people's names. Pointing out idiots publicly is kind of mean though, so perhaps not. -Yosh ___ 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
/rotflmao :-) lol/ Brendan wrote: >On Thursday 21 December 2006 21:06, Tom Williams wrote: > > >>Brendan wrote: >> >> >>>On Monday 18 December 2006 19:52, lists wrote: >>> >>> Carter castor wrote: >This goes right to the heart of my biggest complaint about GIMP >though: its name. I don't understand why the developers would put so >much time and hard work into creating a program as professional as >GIMP and then name it after a slang word for a disabled person. How >do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The >people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop >over Gimp 11 times out of 10. > > Oh my God, let's not start this again. It's an acronym, get over it. >>>Oh wait, Geoffrey says "Get over it". Everybody with an opinion or actual >>>relevent facts, forget it. Geoffrey said so. >>> >>> >>Well, he's got a valid point. I don't get why everyone is discussing >>the word "Gimp" from an English language standpoint when Gimp is an >>*acronym*, as I also pointed out earlier on in this discussion. >> >>For example, "Sarasota County Area Transit" is a name of a transit >>agency and its acronym is rather interesting. :) >> >> > >What if they wanted to just call it SCAT, and then pretended to be "so >confused" when people laughed? "Jeez, it's just an acronym, even if 300 >million people might giggle and laugh when I say it. Oh well, those Indians >won't laugh when I say GIMP or SCAT." >___ >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] Gimp vs. Photoshop
On Thursday 21 December 2006 21:06, Tom Williams wrote: > Brendan wrote: > > On Monday 18 December 2006 19:52, lists wrote: > >> Carter castor wrote: > >>> This goes right to the heart of my biggest complaint about GIMP > >>> though: its name. I don't understand why the developers would put so > >>> much time and hard work into creating a program as professional as > >>> GIMP and then name it after a slang word for a disabled person. How > >>> do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The > >>> people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop > >>> over Gimp 11 times out of 10. > >> > >> Oh my God, let's not start this again. It's an acronym, get over it. > > > > Oh wait, Geoffrey says "Get over it". Everybody with an opinion or actual > > relevent facts, forget it. Geoffrey said so. > > Well, he's got a valid point. I don't get why everyone is discussing > the word "Gimp" from an English language standpoint when Gimp is an > *acronym*, as I also pointed out earlier on in this discussion. > > For example, "Sarasota County Area Transit" is a name of a transit > agency and its acronym is rather interesting. :) What if they wanted to just call it SCAT, and then pretended to be "so confused" when people laughed? "Jeez, it's just an acronym, even if 300 million people might giggle and laugh when I say it. Oh well, those Indians won't laugh when I say GIMP or SCAT." ___ 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 (Zombie Thread)
On Friday 22 December 2006 02:44, jim wrote: > Eric P wrote: > > I'm lazy, and I don't feel like reading this entire thread (it seems to > > show up on a regular basis on the list). > > > > Were any new, constructive insights brought up? Anyone care to summarize > > this thread on this exhausting topic? > > Summary to date: Noobs keep joining the list and want the name changed > to match their sensibilities. They threaten to continue to add to the > noise part of the signal to noise ratio until they get their way (see > "kill file"). I suggest a new list dedicated to their traffic; > gimp-name-haters@, thereby relieving the rest of the users and devo's > from actually having to slog through their repeated attempts at > "reasoning". It's good to see that this happens SO OFTEN that cutesy little paragraphs can be written about how a few people know so much better than the "Noobs". God, what condescension and arrogance. ___ 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
On Thursday 21 December 2006 23:51, Robert Smits wrote: > > > Oh wait, Geoffrey says "Get over it". Everybody with an opinion or > > > actual relevent facts, forget it. Geoffrey said so. > > > > If you'll check the bloody archives, you'll see this same subject has > > been discussed ad nauseam more then once. So, before you post, research > > the archives before wasting a bunch of bandwidth on a horse that's been > > beat to death. Jerk. > > Whether you like it or not, I suspect that the subject will keep coming up > because the name offends the sensibilities of a lot of potential users. > > Now I know that the name is an acronym, and I don't believe those who chose > the name did so with any intent to offend, or even to be humourous. I > suspect they didn't think all that much about the name at all. For many > handicapped people, however calling one of them a "GIMP" is as offensive as > calling a gay person a "faggot". > > Most of us who are now on the list will have seen the discussion wax and > wane, but in a month or two, someone else will come to the list and make > the same observation, and predictably someone will have the intolerance to > tell them to get over it, and that we've had the discussion. > > I really do think we need to find a better, less offensive name for GIMP, > and the sooner the better, so that we can put energy into supporting it, > and doing whatever we can to extend it's use instead of periodically having > this disagreement. Yes *points at best post in thread* ___ 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 (Zombie Thread)
jim wrote: >Eric P wrote: > > >>I'm lazy, and I don't feel like reading this entire thread (it seems to show >>up on a regular basis on the list). >> >>Were any new, constructive insights brought up? Anyone care to summarize >>this thread on this exhausting topic? >> >> >> > >Summary to date: Noobs keep joining the list and want the name changed >to match their sensibilities. They threaten to continue to add to the >noise part of the signal to noise ratio until they get their way (see >"kill file"). I suggest a new list dedicated to their traffic; >gimp-name-haters@, thereby relieving the rest of the users and devo's >from actually having to slog through their repeated attempts at "reasoning". > >At least at the current levels, it's easy to know when a thread starts >heading in that direction, and tell t'bird to bit bucket the messages. > >jim > > > Or how about adding a section to the list-etiquette, referring them to one of the earlier threads? Anything to pre-empt the very tedious subject coming up yet again ;-) Doug ___ 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
Trapper wrote: > > >1. Gimp means "to walk with a limp" in English and is slang. ... Most >English speakers >generally relate gimp to the slang variant, most of us are familiar with >it and most of us consider it to be something negative. > > It would be very nice if people looked up the archives once in a while.. and if they didn't take quite so provincial an attitude ;-) What you mean is ""limp" in American English Speakers of American English". As earlier threads have already pointed out, most non-American English speakers don't know this use of the word; and in a comprehensive dictionary like the Oxford English dictionary, it's noted as a specifically North American usage. FWIW most speakers of English live on the Indian sub-continent! Doug ___ 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
Trapper wrote: > Most English speakers > generally relate gimp to the slang variant, most of us are familiar with > it and most of us consider it to be something negative. > Can I just change that to "most American English speakers?" I learnt the meaning of the slang word "gimp" while reading a similar discussion to this on a news forum a couple of years ago. ___ 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
> > Speaking about Gimpression, it could be taken as a copy of the MS > > Expression at the time being. I think it is a great name, but people > > tend to exaggerate when it comes to "stealing". > > What? No. Gimpression would NOT be confused with that. I think it's a great > name. I note that, so far, no one has taken up my challenge. Norman ___ 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 (Zombie Thread)
Eric P wrote: > I'm lazy, and I don't feel like reading this entire thread (it seems to show > up on a regular basis on the list). > > Were any new, constructive insights brought up? Anyone care to summarize > this thread on this exhausting topic? > Summary to date: Noobs keep joining the list and want the name changed to match their sensibilities. They threaten to continue to add to the noise part of the signal to noise ratio until they get their way (see "kill file"). I suggest a new list dedicated to their traffic; gimp-name-haters@, thereby relieving the rest of the users and devo's from actually having to slog through their repeated attempts at "reasoning". At least at the current levels, it's easy to know when a thread starts heading in that direction, and tell t'bird to bit bucket the messages. jim ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp vs. Photoshop
I'm lazy, and I don't feel like reading this entire thread (it seems to show up on a regular basis on the list). Were any new, constructive insights brought up? Anyone care to summarize this thread on this exhausting topic? EP ___ 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
On Thursday 21 December 2006 17:39, lists wrote: > Brendan wrote: > > On Monday 18 December 2006 19:52, lists wrote: > >> Carter castor wrote: > >>> This goes right to the heart of my biggest complaint about GIMP > >>> though: its name. I don't understand why the developers would put so > >>> much time and hard work into creating a program as professional as > >>> GIMP and then name it after a slang word for a disabled person. How > >>> do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The > >>> people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop > >>> over Gimp 11 times out of 10. > >> > >> Oh my God, let's not start this again. It's an acronym, get over it. > > > > Oh wait, Geoffrey says "Get over it". Everybody with an opinion or actual > > relevent facts, forget it. Geoffrey said so. > > If you'll check the bloody archives, you'll see this same subject has > been discussed ad nauseam more then once. So, before you post, research > the archives before wasting a bunch of bandwidth on a horse that's been > beat to death. Jerk. Whether you like it or not, I suspect that the subject will keep coming up because the name offends the sensibilities of a lot of potential users. Now I know that the name is an acronym, and I don't believe those who chose the name did so with any intent to offend, or even to be humourous. I suspect they didn't think all that much about the name at all. For many handicapped people, however calling one of them a "GIMP" is as offensive as calling a gay person a "faggot". Most of us who are now on the list will have seen the discussion wax and wane, but in a month or two, someone else will come to the list and make the same observation, and predictably someone will have the intolerance to tell them to get over it, and that we've had the discussion. I really do think we need to find a better, less offensive name for GIMP, and the sooner the better, so that we can put energy into supporting it, and doing whatever we can to extend it's use instead of periodically having this disagreement. -- Bob Smits Ladysmith BC Phone 250-245-2553 Fax 250-245-5531 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp3Jov3mGTGO.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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
* Tom Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12-21-06 21:10]: > For example, "Sarasota County Area Transit" is a name of a transit > agency and its acronym is rather interesting. :) Ella would agree, rest her sole. -- Patrick ShanahanRegistered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org@ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/ ___ 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
Brendan wrote: > On Monday 18 December 2006 19:52, lists wrote: > >> Carter castor wrote: >> >>> This goes right to the heart of my biggest complaint about GIMP >>> though: its name. I don't understand why the developers would put so >>> much time and hard work into creating a program as professional as >>> GIMP and then name it after a slang word for a disabled person. How >>> do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The >>> people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop >>> over Gimp 11 times out of 10. >>> >> Oh my God, let's not start this again. It's an acronym, get over it. >> > > Oh wait, Geoffrey says "Get over it". Everybody with an opinion or actual > relevent facts, forget it. Geoffrey said so. Well, he's got a valid point. I don't get why everyone is discussing the word "Gimp" from an English language standpoint when Gimp is an *acronym*, as I also pointed out earlier on in this discussion. For example, "Sarasota County Area Transit" is a name of a transit agency and its acronym is rather interesting. :) Peace... Tom ___ 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
Brendan wrote: > On Monday 18 December 2006 19:52, lists wrote: >> Carter castor wrote: >>> This goes right to the heart of my biggest complaint about GIMP >>> though: its name. I don't understand why the developers would put so >>> much time and hard work into creating a program as professional as >>> GIMP and then name it after a slang word for a disabled person. How >>> do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The >>> people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop >>> over Gimp 11 times out of 10. >> Oh my God, let's not start this again. It's an acronym, get over it. > > Oh wait, Geoffrey says "Get over it". Everybody with an opinion or actual > relevent facts, forget it. Geoffrey said so. If you'll check the bloody archives, you'll see this same subject has been discussed ad nauseam more then once. So, before you post, research the archives before wasting a bunch of bandwidth on a horse that's been beat to death. Jerk. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin ___ 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
> Speaking about Gimpression, it could be taken as a copy of the MS > Expression at the time being. I think it is a great name, but people > tend to exaggerate when it comes to "stealing". What? No. Gimpression would NOT be confused with that. I think it's a great name. ___ 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
On Monday 18 December 2006 19:52, lists wrote: > Carter castor wrote: > > This goes right to the heart of my biggest complaint about GIMP > > though: its name. I don't understand why the developers would put so > > much time and hard work into creating a program as professional as > > GIMP and then name it after a slang word for a disabled person. How > > do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The > > people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop > > over Gimp 11 times out of 10. > > Oh my God, let's not start this again. It's an acronym, get over it. Oh wait, Geoffrey says "Get over it". Everybody with an opinion or actual relevent facts, forget it. Geoffrey said so. ___ 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
Luca de Alfaro wrote: > Correct. However, there is no reason why these .icc profiles should > go in photoshop rather than in the printer driver. Especially as I > have anyway to tell my printer driver (I am not sure why) which kind > of paper I am using. > Luca > > On 12/21/06, Bob Ewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It should be pointed out that an icc profile is not for a printer, but >> rather a printer and a specific paper. You need separate ones for each >> type of paper. If you're really fussy, you might want to change the >> profile for each box of paper. In any event, the profile for matte >> paper is definitely different from glossy paper. Some printers even use >> different inks for them. >> >> Similarly, monitors change over time and need to be re-profiled as they >> do. The default for a Spyder2PRO is weekly. >> >> -- >> Bob >> >> You need to have the choice. Often it is easier to let the print driver or the printer process the profile. In critical work, photoshop or the gimp has more information available and can make a better adjustment. For example, the image may have higher resolution or greater bit depth than the printer. -- Bob ___ 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
< big snip > > 4. An application should always be named with the target audience being > considered if you're looking for product exposure. In the case of The > Gimp, the target audience is not programmers and software developers. > When the intended audience sees the name they need it to relate to > "graphics" in their thoughts. The word Gimp does not even come close. It > gives us mere mortals absolutely no indication of what it actually is or > does, even though it has tremendous artistic and image manipulation > capabilities. This may have been said before, if so, I am sorry. I presume that readers of this list come from many parts of the world yet most of the critics of the name Gimp refer to English meanings. The question is, must a product describe its purpose by its name? Very often it is considered bad practice for a name to do this. The name may infer the purpose without actually being descriptive. If a truly neutral name can be found then that is the one to use. Great care needs to be used in choosing names for products with a world wide potential. Remember the famous example of Rolls Royce, who named their new car Silver Mist. The name was quickly withdrawn. Ask a German and learn why. Now, who can tell me what Gimp means in French or German or Italian or Russian or Chinese to mention but a few? Similarly, what is Photoshop in those languages so that the name shows its purpose? If there are no satisfactory answers to these 2 simple questions then I suggest this thread should stop as it is meaningless. Norman ___ 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
Correct. However, there is no reason why these .icc profiles should go in photoshop rather than in the printer driver. Especially as I have anyway to tell my printer driver (I am not sure why) which kind of paper I am using. Luca On 12/21/06, Bob Ewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It should be pointed out that an icc profile is not for a printer, but > rather a printer and a specific paper. You need separate ones for each > type of paper. If you're really fussy, you might want to change the > profile for each box of paper. In any event, the profile for matte > paper is definitely different from glossy paper. Some printers even use > different inks for them. > > Similarly, monitors change over time and need to be re-profiled as they > do. The default for a Spyder2PRO is weekly. > > -- > Bob > > ___ > 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] Gimp vs. Photoshop
Trapper wrote: > 5. The Gimp's GUI, unfortunately, is in direct opposition to human logic > and our normal thought patterns. I have no other way to describe it. I > know of no one under any OS that emulates The Gimp's GUI strategy. > There's probably good reason for that. I don't find Gimp to be perfect, but neither terrible, and Photoshop is no better. In Gimp, there are these various things that put off new users: if you just want to change the colors, why do you have to bother with the "layers" menu if you don't even know (at first) what is a layer? Once you learn, why are things replicated under Layer and Tools? Why are some things Tools (e.g., levels) and other Filters? It doesn't make a lot of sense. On the other hand, Photoshop is equally criptic and nonsensical, and awkward. So many of the useful things are hidden in Image->Adjustments : as so many things are there, and the Image menu is quite empty otherwise, Adjustments should have been a top-level menu. Also, it's very hard to understand why things are listed both as Image->Adjustments and Layer -> New Adjustment Layer, and the worst is that those two things behave in slightly different ways. And why some things have an adjustment layer, while others (unsharp mask for instance) are filters that once applied, cannot be modified? I guess that it is just difficult to organize all the functions of an image editing tool in a way that is both logical, and that leads to productive use. I wonder about Picasa, actually. But at any rate, I feel your criticism of Gimp is grossly exagerated, in the sense that it does not seem any worse than Photoshop, Powerpoint, Word, and is certainly better than Openoffice. Luca ___ 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
Luca de Alfaro wrote: > I wholeheartedly agree. > It is an absurdity that some print drivers ship with separate .icc profiles. > > I am not quite sure why the situation evolved, but I suspect that > professional users started to wish to have a way to calibrate their > output for their specific printer (even now, people who care about > color matching have their specific printer profiled). As it was > difficult to modify the printer driver to accept the .icc profile, the > developers of sophisticated applications such as Photoshop started to > include support for such profiles. > > So, it is a good point that in the gimp architecture, perhaps > gimp-print or gutenprint is the most logical place where to support > printer profiles. > > Luca > > On 12/21/06, Chris Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I suspect Chris' reply was meant to go to the list. So I reply here. >> Whoops - thanks. >> >>> Monitor calibration should be done in the video driver. Or in the >>> monitor. >> You're probably right. >> >> Chris >> ___ >> It should be pointed out that an icc profile is not for a printer, but rather a printer and a specific paper. You need separate ones for each type of paper. If you're really fussy, you might want to change the profile for each box of paper. In any event, the profile for matte paper is definitely different from glossy paper. Some printers even use different inks for them. Similarly, monitors change over time and need to be re-profiled as they do. The default for a Spyder2PRO is weekly. -- Bob ___ 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
> Luca de Alfaro wrote: >> I, for one, don't believe that open source projects should necessarily >> avoid slang words. "Gimp" is a relatively obscure slang word. Let me >> define this: most English speakers speak English as a second language, >> and i bet 99% of them are not familiar with the unofficial uses of the >> word "Gimp". From the responses to similar threads in the past, not >> even a majority of US speakers knows the meaning of "Gimp" (of course, >> this may not be necessarily true locally in all communities). >> Moreover, these slang uses come and go. Yes, they may offend a small >> percent of US users, but that's far from the majority. There are too >> many such slang words that come and go to worry about them. >> 1. Gimp means "to walk with a limp" in English and is slang. Oddly, it also means "vigor, spirit" and that is not slang. It also means " a stiff trim border or course thread used for making outlines of designs or designs on garments." This also is not slang. Most English speakers generally relate gimp to the slang variant, most of us are familiar with it and most of us consider it to be something negative. 2, The vast majority of English speakers have no reason to know the meaning of GIMP, as it applies to the graphics application suite. They don't use it and most would find it to difficult to use even if they did know what it was. They always have something much less complicated and more understandable to them to meet their everyday needs. The same most probably is true in most parts of the world. 3. The Linux community, in general, has always been stuck on naming their functions, progs, apps, etc. in a manner that someone heavy into programming and development can relate to but it always seems to leave the actual application user in the fog because they cannot relate it to what it actually is or does. They get stuck with the technical description. Imagine if Corel developed Draw! under the name VGRP for vector graphics rendering program. Corel VGRP! Oh yeah, that would go over like a lead balloon. 4. An application should always be named with the target audience being considered if you're looking for product exposure. In the case of The Gimp, the target audience is not programmers and software developers. When the intended audience sees the name they need it to relate to "graphics" in their thoughts. The word Gimp does not even come close. It gives us mere mortals absolutely no indication of what it actually is or does, even though it has tremendous artistic and image manipulation capabilities. 5. The Gimp's GUI, unfortunately, is in direct opposition to human logic and our normal thought patterns. I have no other way to describe it. I know of no one under any OS that emulates The Gimp's GUI strategy. There's probably good reason for that. ___ 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
I wholeheartedly agree. It is an absurdity that some print drivers ship with separate .icc profiles. I am not quite sure why the situation evolved, but I suspect that professional users started to wish to have a way to calibrate their output for their specific printer (even now, people who care about color matching have their specific printer profiled). As it was difficult to modify the printer driver to accept the .icc profile, the developers of sophisticated applications such as Photoshop started to include support for such profiles. So, it is a good point that in the gimp architecture, perhaps gimp-print or gutenprint is the most logical place where to support printer profiles. Luca On 12/21/06, Chris Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I suspect Chris' reply was meant to go to the list. So I reply here. > > Whoops - thanks. > > > Monitor calibration should be done in the video driver. Or in the > > monitor. > > You're probably right. > > Chris > ___ > 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] Gimp vs. Photoshop
> I suspect Chris' reply was meant to go to the list. So I reply here. Whoops - thanks. > Monitor calibration should be done in the video driver. Or in the > monitor. You're probably right. Chris ___ 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
"Chris Mohler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> One thing I never understood is: >> >> Why do applications have to deal with color profiles? >> >> Color profiles are hardware device specific and at least in the case >> of printers they are specific to the combination of printer and >> driver (and paper). I think color profiles are best dealt with in the >> device driver. That way the output of all applications will be >> consistant and every application does not need to reinvent the wheel. >> >> Matthias > > That seems to be the thinking behind leaving the CMYK space(s) behind. > OTOH, there are several uses for ICC profiles in RGB space(s) - > monitor calibration, for one. I suspect Chris' reply was meant to go to the list. So I reply here. Monitor calibration should be done in the video driver. Or in the monitor. Matthias ___ 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
"Luca de Alfaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - support for color profiles (.icc profiles - how are you going to > profile a printer otherwise?) One thing I never understood is: Why do applications have to deal with color profiles? Color profiles are hardware device specific and at least in the case of printers they are specific to the combination of printer and driver (and paper). I think color profiles are best dealt with in the device driver. That way the output of all applications will be consistant and every application does not need to reinvent the wheel. Matthias ___ 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
Looking into different English-Russian dictionaries (the most comprehensive ones) I can see the meaning of the word gimp, being discussed here, as the 3-rd or 6-th in the order of usage frequency. Others are (synonyms) 1. galloon, braid 2. spirit, vim 3. may be limp, may be neckerchief 4. Scottish: slim, elegant ... Gimping: clothing industry: cutting of tooth at detail cut Gimpy: miserable, lame man Gimper: American: excellent professional (about military person). As any English word has so many meanings, it's hard to avoid some of them. Not to be offensive, but even the word "queen" has one not so wide spoken meaning. And what? The ones, whose mother tongue is not English would not consider this at all. As for inhabitants of English speaking countries - its their peculiarity, what meaning would come in their mind when they hear the word "Gimp". Luca de Alfaro wrote: > I, for one, don't believe that open source projects should necessarily > avoid slang words. "Gimp" is a relatively obscure slang word. Let me > define this: most English speakers speak English as a second language, > and i bet 99% of them are not familiar with the unofficial uses of the > word "Gimp". From the responses to similar threads in the past, not > even a majority of US speakers knows the meaning of "Gimp" (of course, > this may not be necessarily true locally in all communities). > Moreover, these slang uses come and go. Yes, they may offend a small > percent of US users, but that's far from the majority. There are too > many such slang words that come and go to worry about them. > > Once at a database conference, there were some Japanese giving a proud > talk on the performance of their HECK algorithm (don't recall what it > was). Funny - but notice, the paper WAS accepted. I bet they didn't > study at school what HECK meant. > > This is the problem for US and UK people: their language is being > increasingly defined by people who speak it as a second language. > > Luca -- With respect Alexander Rabtchevich ___ 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
I, for one, don't believe that open source projects should necessarily avoid slang words. "Gimp" is a relatively obscure slang word. Let me define this: most English speakers speak English as a second language, and i bet 99% of them are not familiar with the unofficial uses of the word "Gimp". From the responses to similar threads in the past, not even a majority of US speakers knows the meaning of "Gimp" (of course, this may not be necessarily true locally in all communities). Moreover, these slang uses come and go. Yes, they may offend a small percent of US users, but that's far from the majority. There are too many such slang words that come and go to worry about them. Once at a database conference, there were some Japanese giving a proud talk on the performance of their HECK algorithm (don't recall what it was). Funny - but notice, the paper WAS accepted. I bet they didn't study at school what HECK meant. This is the problem for US and UK people: their language is being increasingly defined by people who speak it as a second language. Luca On 12/18/06, Frank McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:01:59 -0800 > Anthony Ettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The > > > > people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop > > > > over Gimp 11 times out of 10. > > > > ...and MS makes a good browser. > > > > Friend of mine was over on the weekend - I was doing some jpg work..and > he > asked what software I was using - when I told him it's called the Gimp, he > fell > over laughing. His comment "what is it about Linux geeks that they pick these > weird names" - even when I explained its origin it didn't help - He added > "Ask a > car maker (like Ford) whether model names (like Edsel) are important". > And this stuff like "GNU is not Unix" drives me crazy. > > > -- > Cheers > > Frank > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFFh0wC8Rvr3Tn207ARAqjVAJ9lhutrPZYuDmlTO8tVIw/holz9qwCfRIMI > R9FldmS2pf1C0zFKucAX/nY= > =h/PM > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > ___ > 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] Gimp vs. Photoshop
For a class, I don't know, but for serious photo work, Photoshop is incredibly more advanced. Some exampes: Color: - support for more than 8 bits/color/pixel (my scanners have 16) - support for color profiles (.icc profiles - how are you going to profile a printer otherwise?) - support for color spaces (sRGB, but also Adobe98, etc etc) Basic Processing: - Is able to dither when converting according to a curve or a color profile. This avoids color banding. - You can have adjustment layers, thus postponing both the decision, and the processing. Especially if you work with 8 bits/pixel, it makes quite a bit of difference. Fancy Algorithms: There is a remarkable number of fancy algorithms built into Photoshop; some examples are: - Good algorithms for correcting lens aberrations, color fringing, lens blur, and more. - Good algorithms for collating images into a panoramic. - Good algorithms for producing extended dynamic range images. - Good algorithms for converting from one colorspace to the other - Good algorithms for shadow/highlight correction and the list goes on and on, even before counting the plug-ins many professionals developed. I love the interface of Gimp, and I love linux and open source software, but it's Photoshop's management of color, and professional algorithms, that in the end make me go to Photoshop; Photoshop is a much superior tool for serious photography. The problem is that it is the very heart of Gimp which is limited in its capabilities, so one cannot fix it in a lightweight way. If there is no notion of color space in an image... well! I am periodically torn between going to develop for cinepaint (at least they got the color spaces and profiles correct, one can just redo some algorithms), or rewriting a new tool for scratch in a decent language like Ocaml (I really have come to dislike C). However, in the end, as I lack time even for doing what I should be doing for my job, I do nothing, and I use mostly Photoshop for photo editing. Luca On 12/16/06, John R. Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ON another list someone was complaining about the expense nad bother of > upgrading to the latest Photoshop, including licenses etc. I suggested Gimp > as a no cost/no fuss alternative for students. I received a long reply, much > of which I am not technically competent to answer. I have never used > Photoshop. Anyone else care to take a crack at one or more issues raised? > - > > I've checked out GIMP before. > > > > I was going to try to run it again to see if this comment held any > > > > water: > > > There may be a feature or two that are unique to Photoshop but I'll > > > bet you > > > can live without them. > > > > …but X11 choked on my 34 activated fonts. From what I recall of > > version 2.1.x, it (and I) suffered from its aggravating GUI and > > inconsistent tools, and a general lack of features. That being said, > > if friends and family members are pining for some way to scan and > > modify old photos, I install GIMP for them and show them how to do it. > > > > GIMP works for casual use. I don't see it fitting into a professional > > workflow mainly because of the utter awkwardness of the GUI. Maybe if > > you're used to the Gnome UI standards or have the mindset of a > > programmer, it's less awkward. But that's another story. These are > > first year students I'm talking about here. They can barely get the > > OSX dock straight, let alone browsing for files in the GIMPs browser, > > which reveals the BSD underbelly of OSX, hidden folders and all. > > > > Update: I gave X11 some time (10 minutes on my hermetically > > maintained dual 1.25 G4 with 2 gigs of ram) and it finally loaded > > GIMP and also GIMPshop. While it seems that the feature sets have > > expanded quite a bit, there are still things that I use regularly in > > Photoshop missing. Here's a list. > > > > Adjustment layers: non-destructive editing. It can save you whole > > minutes if not dozens of them. > > CMYK Support: Come on! > > Wacom support- I'm sure you can get it working in linux, but we're > > not switching. > > Semi-automated extraction- a real time saver. > > Live filter previews- what's the point without them? > > Color profiles (again, come on- how is importing an image into > > Scribus just to apply a color profile a productive workflow?) > > Limited output options (a.k.a. mostly useless file types) > > Vanishing Point (it's actually useful) > > No typeface previews > > > > I could go on and on but I feel that I'm wasting breath, so to speak. > > Yeah, you can do a lot in the GIMP but it's just not enough. Beyond > > its limitations, it's difficult to use, doesn't play well with > > others, and would probably curl up in a ball and die if it tried to > > interact with our scanners on the intel machines. Photoshop saves > > time which saves money in the long run, and thus the software pays > > for itself. I'm not trying to
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp vs. Photoshop
> I tried both, but since I'm using GIMP all the time i foundthe > photoshop interface mostly chaotic. But I'm sure it must be the same > for people who pass from PS to GIMP. Most people are complaining about > the amount of windows the GIMP opens, but then virtual desktops handle > this problem with ease and even turn it into an advantage. > > As for learning PS or GIMP... i wonder how many students can afford to > buy PS and also how many will really use all the tools that are in PS > and not in GIMP. (apart adjustment layers, they are great and I wish > they were in GIMP) > > Speaking about Gimpression, it could be taken as a copy of the MS > Expression at the time being. I think it is a great name, but people > tend to exaggerate when it comes to "stealing". > I used to not like gimp when I first switched...but after spending the last few weeks intensely going through tutorials, et. al. I'm quite familiar with the interface now - and will never go back to PS. -- Anthony Ettinger phone: 408-656-2473 resume: http://chovy.dyndns.org/resume.html Currently available for contract work blog: http://www.chovy.com ___ 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
On 12/19/06, Toby Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anthony Ettinger wrote: > > Anyway, instead of flaming, how about some suggestions: > > > > Gimpressive > > Gimpression > > > Out of all the many suggested (re)names, these two are the only two I've > ever seen and liked. Maybe because many GNU and GNOME programs already > have a leading G in the name, leaving G-Impressive and G-Impression as > the result, while still keeping a solid nod at the original GIMP acronym. > > If the GIMP developers finally get fed up with all the arguments about > the name :-) one of the above two would get my vote. > > Cheers, > Toby Haynes > ___ > Gimp-user mailing list > Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user > I tried both, but since I'm using GIMP all the time i foundthe photoshop interface mostly chaotic. But I'm sure it must be the same for people who pass from PS to GIMP. Most people are complaining about the amount of windows the GIMP opens, but then virtual desktops handle this problem with ease and even turn it into an advantage. As for learning PS or GIMP... i wonder how many students can afford to buy PS and also how many will really use all the tools that are in PS and not in GIMP. (apart adjustment layers, they are great and I wish they were in GIMP) Speaking about Gimpression, it could be taken as a copy of the MS Expression at the time being. I think it is a great name, but people tend to exaggerate when it comes to "stealing". -- LEGENY Jozef ___ 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
Ok, that was too much. I wanted to send you a mail last time already, but I assumed that you did this accidentally. Obviously you didn't. So please, when posting to this list, try not to use HTML mail. And if you absolutely can't turn HTML mail off in your mail client, then at least don't fiddle with colors and/or fonts. Learning how to quote properly would help as well... Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp vs. Photoshop
FWIW, I'm truly sorry for posting *anything* related to this thread, and especially for the nasty tone. I should know better. Chris ___ 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
* Frank McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12-18-06 21:22]: > drives me crazy. well, you said he used windoz! -- Patrick ShanahanRegistered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org@ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/ ___ 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
On 12/18/06, Frank McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:01:59 -0800 > Anthony Ettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The > > > > people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop > > > > over Gimp 11 times out of 10. > > > > ...and MS makes a good browser. > > > > Friend of mine was over on the weekend - I was doing some jpg work..and > he > asked what software I was using - when I told him it's called the Gimp, he > fell > over laughing. His comment "what is it about Linux geeks that they pick these > weird names" - even when I explained its origin it didn't help - He added > "Ask a > car maker (like Ford) whether model names (like Edsel) are important". > And this stuff like "GNU is not Unix" drives me crazy. > > Frank, you have a valid point when you're trying to sell a product. But open source has a tendency to go against the grain in this dept. -- Anthony Ettinger phone: 408-656-2473 resume: http://chovy.dyndns.org/resume.html Currently available for contract work blog: http://www.chovy.com ___ 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:01:59 -0800 Anthony Ettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The > > > people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop > > > over Gimp 11 times out of 10. > > ...and MS makes a good browser. Friend of mine was over on the weekend - I was doing some jpg work..and he asked what software I was using - when I told him it's called the Gimp, he fell over laughing. His comment "what is it about Linux geeks that they pick these weird names" - even when I explained its origin it didn't help - He added "Ask a car maker (like Ford) whether model names (like Edsel) are important". And this stuff like "GNU is not Unix" drives me crazy. -- Cheers Frank -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFh0wC8Rvr3Tn207ARAqjVAJ9lhutrPZYuDmlTO8tVIw/holz9qwCfRIMI R9FldmS2pf1C0zFKucAX/nY= =h/PM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
On 12/18/06, John Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not to flame here or anything, but has anybody done an actual study as > to if IT managers are overlooking GIMP because of the name, and I'm not > talking anecdotes. I'm talking about a systematic survey. > I don't deny that some people MAY have a bias against GIMP, but you need > to look at the other side of the picture: what about the developers who > still associate GIMP with a great program. Product names are filled > with all sorts of good will, and if you're going to change, you'd better > be able to sit down and say that there is a valid reason to do this. > And while we're on the topic of names, here's one idea: Maybe linux journal, but I haven't seen anything specific toward Gimp. >From my own experience, I've been an early adopter with open source, and find it funny that once something hits mainstream, like Ubuntu or Firefox - the same people that used to make comments like "I don't have any problem for *my* software." - tend to talk praise once it's become norm to use OS software ie. Firefox. Frankly, the point is that people tend to change their minds rather quickly with the proper influence. -- Anthony Ettinger phone: 408-656-2473 resume: http://chovy.dyndns.org/resume.html Currently available for contract work blog: http://www.chovy.com ___ 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
> > How do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The > > people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop > > over Gimp 11 times out of 10. ...and MS makes a good browser. -- Anthony Ettinger phone: 408-656-2473 resume: http://chovy.dyndns.org/resume.html Currently available for contract work blog: http://www.chovy.com ___ 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
Not to flame here or anything, but has anybody done an actual study as to if IT managers are overlooking GIMP because of the name, and I'm not talking anecdotes. I'm talking about a systematic survey. I don't deny that some people MAY have a bias against GIMP, but you need to look at the other side of the picture: what about the developers who still associate GIMP with a great program. Product names are filled with all sorts of good will, and if you're going to change, you'd better be able to sit down and say that there is a valid reason to do this. And while we're on the topic of names, here's one idea: G-Lighten Toby Haynes wrote: > Anthony Ettinger wrote: >> Anyway, instead of flaming, how about some suggestions: >> >> Gimpressive >> Gimpression >> > Out of all the many suggested (re)names, these two are the only two I've > ever seen and liked. Maybe because many GNU and GNOME programs already > have a leading G in the name, leaving G-Impressive and G-Impression as > the result, while still keeping a solid nod at the original GIMP acronym. > > If the GIMP developers finally get fed up with all the arguments about > the name :-) one of the above two would get my vote. > > Cheers, > Toby Haynes > ___ > 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] Gimp vs. Photoshop
Carter castor wrote: > This goes right to the heart of my biggest complaint about GIMP > though: its name. I don't understand why the developers would put so > much time and hard work into creating a program as professional as > GIMP and then name it after a slang word for a disabled person. How > do you sell that to a corporation? How do you market that? The > people in business suits are going to chose a program named Photoshop > over Gimp 11 times out of 10. Oh my God, let's not start this again. It's an acronym, get over it. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
