--- carol irvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know it is terribly easy for me to end up with mud after I overdo
it
> with all the plug-ins, styles, custom shapes and so forth that I've
> amassed in the PS program.
Like your national park pics? :) Actually, I like the surrealistic
look it gives
On 10/3/07, gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [lots of stuff]
>
David,
I've read all your posts. Carol has shared some of her "art" images with us
so I know what she's after, and although this isn't directly relevant to
GIMP, can you point us towards a website with some of your images? I
und
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 11:58:47 Greg wrote:
> --- Patrick Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for
> > it) and you need to shoot RAW.
>
> I know, but if you can retain your original bit-depth, the lossyness
> isn't as noticeabl
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 23:11:19 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote:
> > IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user".
>
> "Average" can mean "typical" & it can mean numbers (as in
> mean/mode/median), either way, PS fits the bil
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote:
> IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user".
"Average" can mean "typical" & it can mean numbers (as in
mean/mode/median), either way, PS fits the bill.
So if you want to struggle with an "average" creativity ceiling
&
Hi David,
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:35:36 -0700
> From: David Southwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
>
> IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user".
I would like to, respectfully, disagree.
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:38:38 -0400
> From: "carol irvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing
>
> ... The instructors don't
> care about
> anything but the artistic merit o
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:58:47AM -0700, Greg wrote:
> --- Patrick Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for
> > it) and you need to shoot RAW.
>
> I know, but if you can retain your original bit-depth, the lossyness
> isn't as no
--- Patrick Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for
> it) and you need to shoot RAW.
I know, but if you can retain your original bit-depth, the lossyness
isn't as noticeable, especially if you set the compression to the
lowest poss
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:50:44 Elwin Estle wrote:
> I am hardly an expert on this whole issue. I would like to see a side by
> side comparison of prints made from 8 bit vs 16 bit images to see just
> exactly what the difference might be. I think your average person probably
> wouldn't care.
I am hardly an expert on this whole issue. I would like to see a side by side
comparison
of prints made from 8 bit vs 16 bit images to see just exactly what the
difference might
be. I think your average person probably wouldn't care. It has been mentioned
that
monitors are poor venues on whic
> On 10/2/07, gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 01 October 2007 16:09:23 jim feldman wrote:
> > > Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > > > * Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-01-07 13:29]
> > > >
> > > >> In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right
> >
> > tool
> >
> > > >
i used to teach in a college setting but in a non-art dept. the commercial
art courses were all given with adobe products. this was good from one
standpoint, i.e. that the students would be using the programs that an ad
agency or similar would be using. It was bad from the standpoint though
that
On Monday 01 October 2007 16:41:02 carol irvin wrote:
> I've done some photography but usually I end up painting over it and
> converting it to mixed media as I really prefer painting to photography. I
> think for users who are drawn to art and painting, GIMP may satisfy their
> needs more easily.
On Friday 28 September 2007 17:28:36 jim feldman wrote:
> Greg wrote:
> > I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than
> > I expected...and that's a good thing.
> >
> > I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
> > loss if image quality from
On Monday 01 October 2007 16:09:23 jim feldman wrote:
> Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > * Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-01-07 13:29]
> >
> >> In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right tool
> >> for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP
> >> natively suppo
I've done some photography but usually I end up painting over it and
converting it to mixed media as I really prefer painting to photography. I
think for users who are drawn to art and painting, GIMP may satisfy their
needs more easily. The adage "pare it down" typically is a good one for all
art
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-01-07 13:29]
>> In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right tool
>> for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP
>> natively supports 12-bits or higher, I'm gonna have to stick to
>> Photoshop for n
* Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-01-07 13:29]:
> I normally don't shoot in RAW because, from what I've read, it seems
> difficult to work with, but it also sounds interesting, too.
no more so than any other graphic format...
> Also, I've read that not all RAW apps are created equal, that you can
--- jim feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've posted this before, and in case you missed it, you really need
> to do a bit of digital "darkroom" 101. Go to www.normankoren.com and
> read through his site. Really. I'm not trying to be pedantic or
> condescending, but when you finish going thr
On 9/29/07, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than
> I expected...and that's a good thing.
>
> I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
> loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?
>
> Also asked but
Greg wrote:
> I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than
> I expected...and that's a good thing.
>
> I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
> loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?
>
>From prints? no. On your monitor? maybe. Y
Greg wrote:
> I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
> loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?
Loss? Yes. Noticeable? Maybe, maybe not.
> Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original
> bit-depth or as 8-bit?
Everything in Gimp (curren
I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than
I expected...and that's a good thing.
I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable
loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?
Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original
bi
Hi Leon,
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:29 +1000, Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> I must say that as a programming novitiate, sorta, I do find
> the open to- & fro-ing on lists like GIMP's very informative.
I am all for open discussions on this list but if a discussion is based
on false accusations and misi
On 9/27/07, Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to
> > incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken
> > nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Certainly the GIMP developers could have kludged the code to
> incorporate 16-bit or higher bit-depths; and it would not have taken
> nearly as long to do so. But the solution would be only temporary --
> the ultimate necessity to have a se
On Thursday 27 September 2007 03:49:25 Sven Neumann wrote:
> Do you even know what you are talking about? I don't think so.
Oh. Someone seems to have put Sven into Happy Mode. (-:
I must say that as a programming novitiate, sorta, I do find
the open to- & fro-ing on lists like GIMP's very informa
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 05:07 -0700, gimp_user wrote:
> It only received scorn because the GIMP development team ignored the basic
> requirement of development - using MVC in the early days - so the code
> structure does facilitate view customization (or skin development). IMHO
> Gimp has
Quoting gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ... An MVC architecture and user view customisation tools
> would be much more attractive route because it would lay the groundwork for
> emulating other tool sets including any future tools competitve to PS. The
> challenge for gimp is how
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 02:22:14 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 19:13:48 David at ATF4 wrote:
> > They all need to facilitate collaboration using a common
> > software interface, so that all users in the supply chain
> > can be mutually supportive and produce compat
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:27:06 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote:
> > Even with it's bit depth shortcoming, I'd still take GIMP's
> > mature tool set over anything OTHER than PS CS2/3 (at a
> > mere $649US)
>
> Approximating the $USD-$AUD con
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote:
> Even with it's bit depth shortcoming, I'd still take GIMP's
> mature tool set over anything OTHER than PS CS2/3 (at a
> mere $649US)
Approximating the $USD-$AUD conversions (http://www.xe.com/ucc/),
that's AUD$743, about the cost of a c
Greg wrote:
> I've read a few msgs. that talked about how GIMP only does 8-bit
> processing. Does that mean if I load, say, a 16-bit image, Will GIMP
> display and/or save the image as an 8-bit image? If that IS the case,
> that's a rather serious short-coming for photographers and such.
>
Pro
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've read a few msgs. that talked about how GIMP only does 8-bit
> processing. Does that mean if I load, say, a 16-bit image, Will GIMP
> display and/or save the image as an 8-bit image? If that IS the case,
> that's a ra
I've read a few msgs. that talked about how GIMP only does 8-bit
processing. Does that mean if I load, say, a 16-bit image, Will GIMP
display and/or save the image as an 8-bit image? If that IS the case,
that's a rather serious short-coming for photographers and such.
___
36 matches
Mail list logo
