On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:09:30 -0700 (PDT) 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.

In what way is it a serious short coming? You do not say how you intend to use your image.

8 bits is 8 bits per channel, that's 24 bits per pixel.

Your monitor probably has a max of 24 bits per pixel and even then that is a bit of an overkill.

Owem

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.

Probably should be in a FAQ somewhere. 1. I don't know of any current DSLR whose raw file format is more than 14bit per RGB value per pixel or 42bits per pixel. 2. Better flatbed scanners can do 16/48 bit, but there's some debate as to any observable increase in range. I think drum scans are usually 48 bit. 3. Currently, PS CS2/3 are 16/48 bit but not all plugins are. I think Corel PSP11 is also (not that I'd use it) 4. If you are going to use GIMP to do image processing from camera raw, then use the UFRAW plugin to GIMP. Pull the raw image in, and do the first pass at color balance and exposure correction (which is where having the extra bits are the most useful). UFRAW will then pass an 8/24 bit file to GIMP for further processing 5. If you hand GIMP a 16/48 bit file (like a TIFF) it will convert it down to 8/24
6. An upcoming version of GIMP will support 16/48bit and non-destructive editing, but it's not a near term release last I heard 7. There are other FOSS editors such as Krita that support 16/48, but they're not very mature yet

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)

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote:

Even with it's bit depth shortcoming, I'd still take GIMP's mature tool set over anything OTHER than PS CS2/3 (at a mere $649US)

Approximating the $USD-$AUD conversions (http://www.xe.com/ucc/), that's AUD$743, about the cost of a complete system with dual CPU, a couple of GB of RAM, a pair of RAIDed IDE or SATA drives to the tune of about 300GB, a decent 19" flat screen, a graphics tablet & a scanner. So you'd have to spend some time convincing me that PS was worth the extra bananas. (-: Oh, & that spending the AUD$750 extra on a better camera wouldn't be a more effective investment :-)

Oh, yes, & PS requires Windows, so the cost doesn't include AUD$231.70 for Vista (Business OEM, or I could shell out AUD$2167 for 2003 Premium R2), or about AUD$130 for an interfering virus scanner (or about AUD$500 for one that works).

Of course, I'd use OpenOffice for office software (save AUD$332 on MS-Office Small Business OEM), Firefox for a browser, ThunderBird for email & so on, but the real cost is still AUD$1105 plus risks.

I could go for a *pair* of decent 19" flatscreens & bump the drive sizes up to 500GB. So tell me again why I'd jilt Wilbur for PhotoShock rather than wait for GIMP 2.5 releases around close of trade this year? (-:

Cheers; Leon

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:27:06 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote:

Even with it's bit depth shortcoming, I'd still take GIMP's mature tool set over anything OTHER than PS CS2/3 (at a mere $649US)

Approximating the $USD-$AUD conversions (http://www.xe.com/ucc/), that's AUD$743, about the cost of a complete system with dual CPU, a couple of GB of RAM, a pair of RAIDed IDE or SATA drives to the tune of about 300GB, a decent 19" flat screen, a graphics tablet & a scanner. So you'd have to spend some time convincing me that PS was worth the extra bananas. (-: Oh, & that spending the AUD$750 extra on a better camera wouldn't be a more effective investment :-)

Oh, yes, & PS requires Windows, so the cost doesn't include AUD$231.70 for Vista (Business OEM, or I could shell out AUD$2167 for 2003 Premium R2), or about AUD$130 for an interfering virus scanner (or about AUD$500 for one that works).

Of course, I'd use OpenOffice for office software (save AUD$332 on MS-Office Small Business OEM), Firefox for a browser, ThunderBird for email & so on, but the real cost is still AUD$1105 plus risks.

I could go for a *pair* of decent 19" flatscreens & bump the drive sizes up to 500GB. So tell me again why I'd jilt Wilbur for PhotoShock rather than wait for GIMP 2.5 releases around close of trade this year? (-:

Cheers; Leon

Simple

For amateurs you are right BUT professional libraries mostly require 16bit. No 16bit no sale. So one chooses to use a tool whose output satisfies market requirements.

You must remeber that the cost of hardware/software is not a significant consideration for professional photgraphers.Its costs are trivial by comparison with cameras, lenses and other capital costs.

For processing Industry wide compatibility is the over-riding consideration. Because gimp does not support 16 bit per pixel and higher (for high density) and because it does not have an interface that makes for an easy user transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is ready for adoption by high quality image makers.

They all need to facilitate collaboration using a common software interface, so that all users in the supply chain can be mutually supportive and produce compatible output. This requiredment is particularly strong with software which has so many features that no one user will be totally familiar with all of them.

When gimp provides an alternative skin that emulates PS and solves resolution and compatibility issues (including integrated raw handling, exif manipulation and image library management then it is potentially adoptable as an alternative for high quality image makers. Until then, despite all its wonderful features, it remains a beached whale as far as that class of professionals are concered.

On the other hand it is a great tool for web image creation but for anything else with regret I need to use PS.

Solve those two hurdles then maybe

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 02:22:14 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 19:13:48 David at ATF4 wrote:

They all need to facilitate collaboration using a common software interface, so that all users in the supply chain can be mutually supportive and produce compatible output. This requiredment is particularly strong with software which has so many features that no one user will be totally familiar with all of them.

GIMP wins that one simply by being available to everyone.

 * Nobody uses a machine GIMP won't run on; &

 * Nobody is too poor to use GIMP; oh, & staying up to date    is cheaper, too; &

 * Nobody lives in a country to which GIMP is a forbidden    export; &

 * Nobody lives in a country in which GIMP is capitalistic    exploitation, environmental abuse, racist technology or    whatever; &

 * Any national inspectors can see any part of GIMP they    like, with or without warrants, 24x7; &

 * GIMP is not unclean in any known religion (although in a    few real places, you'd have to replace Wilbur -- which you    could do without copyright/trademark/whatever issues).

These points may be true but for professional there are totally irrelevant. They do not care about what machine it runs on.. they are more concerned about the output than the means. These points are only relevant to those who are NOT faced with the requirements of the professional world. GIMP IMHO needs to address the needs of the real world.

When gimp provides an alternative skin that emulates PS and solves resolution and compatibility issues (including integrated raw handling, exif manipulation and image library management then it is potentially adoptable as an alternative for high quality image makers.

OK;

 * Raw imports are a plugin; &

Inconvenient and how does one deal with the issue of non-destructive editing?

 * Exif manipulation can be done externally -- or, sooner or    later, someone will write a plugin, no doubt with convenient    (semi-)automation facilities; &

Inconvenient and impractical

 * A PhotoShop face has already been done (& was poorly    supported to wide scorn), so it could be done again, only    in a more systematic fashion; &

It only received scorn because the GIMP development team ignored the basic requirement of development - using MVC in the early days - so the  code structure does facilitate view customization (or skin development).  IMHO Gimp has never recovered from that internal structural system design flaw.

 * Image library management can be done externally but I    imagine would be a natural interest for an EXIF plugin.

So... all of this is possible. I think if a PS "face" were done for real, it could only survive as a kind of strap-on rather than a replacement for GIMP.

If there was an MVC architecture there would be no need to consider "replacement" as a necessary choice.

That would also provide a safety buffer for GIMP should Adobe get restless about a percieved imitator, since you can be sure they'd be most uninterested in losing sales due to software- photocopying of their trademarked, copyrighted, etc industrial design (not that it's good, by any means, just that everybody's used to it; sort of parallel to MS-Office like that).

provided the size proportions and designs of the interface are not a copy and is a means of controlling entirely different source code I do not believe this to be hurdle. Maybe some members of the team are unnecessarily scared of rousing adobe's wrath! An MVC architecture and user view customisation tools would be much more attractive route because it would lay the groundwork for emulating other tool sets including any future tools competitve to PS. The challenge for gimp is how to create a long term strategy which may enable it to flexibly meet future needs that cannot be accurately forecast now. MVC architecture provides the flexibility required here. So IMHO the next major version of GIMP requires a total recasting of the code structure in line with an MVC architecture. The current system architectural is the major stumbling block for the long term. Until that is solved I do not see GIMP moving away from the beached whale status as far as its professional high quality image manipulation future.

A down-side of this imitation would be that it effectively acts to support & retain Adobe's market monopoly. People would tend to view it as "the real thing" (tm Coca Cola) & GIMP as a mere copy rather than as an independently architected work of genius.

Cheers; Leon

I am afraid we have to deal with the real world rather than the world as we would wish it to be. I have always thought there has been a lack of grasp of the implications of the real world adverseley affecting the choices that the gimp development team make. There is no doubt that Gimp is a substantial work but its design flaws and most notably the lack of a well designed MVC architecture and its dependency istructure makes me more than uncertain about allocating it a genius tag!

Frankly more concentartion upon the practical needs of high quality image manipulation and less attachment to burnishing its own image would lead to Gimp becoming a much more attractive toolset with real world potential.

Quoting gimp_user :

... An MVC architecture and user view customisation tools would be much more attractive route because it would lay the groundwork for emulating other tool sets including any future tools competitve to PS. The challenge for gimp is how to create a long term strategy which may enable it to flexibly meet future needs that cannot be accurately forecast now. MVC architecture provides the flexibility required here. So IMHO the next major version of GIMP requires a total recasting of the code structure in line with an MVC architecture. The current system architectural is the major stumbling block for the long term. Until that is solved I do not see GIMP moving away from the beached whale status as far as its professional high quality image manipulation future.

This criticism of GIMP development is the complete opposite of my perception. If anything, the speed of GIMP development has historically been hampered by the development team's focus on abstracting the different components of data, controls, and presentation.

Splitting off the GTK and the GDK components as separate libraries certainly took away from GIMP development efforts at the time. The language-agnostic plug-in system was a forerunner in bringing MVC architecture to an application at a level which permitted users to actually redefine the capabilities of the program -- and while 'libgimp' is typically employed by GIMP plug-ins, it is available for any other project to link with as a library entirely separate from the GIMP.

The GIMP developers often choose to enhance the abilities of the tools/libraries upon which it relies, rather than opt for a "quick fix" GIMP-specific solution. They have not only followed, but have contributed to internationalization, menu/dialog functioning, even the underlying GObject system of 'glib'. (Any "scorn" of GIMPshop which may have occurred is owing to its developer NOT wanting to work within the framework of the existing "MVC architecture", and NOT wishing to enhance its capabilities; rather than the GIMP developers shunning MVC.)

Regarding the 8-bit color model being discussed and a call for the "total recasting of the code structure", that is precisely the decision that was made about six years ago: to factor out the image storage model and abstract the access and manipulation of that storage. The approach chosen was to make such functionality a separate library (GEGL) and continue with the GIMP's development until such time as the library was ready for incorporation into the GIMP code.

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 separate library would still exist -- and would only apply to the GIMP project.

Far from "burnishing its own image", the GIMP developers opt for the best approach and the long-term solutions, often to the cost of short-term expectations. They unselfishly aim to factor their code in a way that benefits all free software projects, not just the GIMP. There should be great pride in doing things "right", even if it may take longer[1].

[1] Personally, I don't think it does take longer. When one looks at the big picture, the short-term solutions ultimately lead to greater amounts of development effort and such projects eventually need to adapt to the more generalized approach or they bog down. For a commercial company (such as Adobe), expending developer resources to produce short-term kludges can be justified if their is compensation from their customer base and if it maintains a marketplace edge over their competitors. In the "real world" of Free Software development, such efforts amount to nothing more than inefficiency in developer resources.

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 never recovered from that internal structural system design flaw.

So you have obviously not even taken the time to look at the code before you started to write your mostly pointless accusations. Someone told you that MVC design is the solution for everything and now you are spreading the word? Do you even know what you are talking about? I don't think so.

So... all of this is possible. I think if a PS "face" were done for real, it could only survive as a kind of strap-on rather than a replacement for GIMP.

If there was an MVC architecture there would be no need to consider "replacement" as a necessary choice.

Such an architecture is already in place (as you would know if you had taken the time to look at the code). The point is just that about 70% of the code is UI code (and a lot of that code uses model-view-controller concepts, yeah). So, if you are willing to rewrite those 70% then you can build a different UI on top of the GIMP core.

This thread is not appropriate for the gimp-user list, please stop it here. Questions about the code and the short and long-term plans for GIMP development can be brought up and discussed on the gimp-developer list.

To the anonymous poster who started it, can you now please unsubscribe yourself from this list and take your pointless ramblings elsewhere? Thank you.

Sven

On Wednesday 26 September 2007, saulgoode@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com 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 separate library would still exist -- and would only apply to the GIMP project.

Yikes, you had a good argument until this bit... Yes, what you say is true, but with 16-bit color, all of those professional graphics houses would have been eyeing Gimp for the last 6 years, instead of shunning it. They don't care about what code is maintainable. From an engineering standpoint, doing what the devels did was "right", but holding it up as the only choice that could have benefitted people is not accurate.

On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Greg wrote:

--- gimp_user 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.

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 informative.

Cheers; Leon

On 9/27/07, Brendan wrote:

On Wednesday 26 September 2007, saulgoode@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com 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 separate library would still exist -- and would only apply to the GIMP project.

Yikes, you had a good argument until this bit... Yes, what you say is true, but with 16-bit color, all of those professional graphics houses would have been eyeing Gimp for the last 6 years, instead of shunning it. They don't care about what code is maintainable. From an engineering standpoint, doing what the devels did was "right", but holding it up as the only choice that could have benefitted people is not accurate.

'best approach' does not imply that, and I see no other part you could be referring to here.

Of course CinePaint (the hack/fork of Gimp 1.04 to support high bitdepth and alt colorspaces) filled a need -- and the people who are commercially using that are rather likely to switch to GIMP when GIMP supports those things, as CinePaint then changes in perception from being a superpowered cripple next to GIMP, to just being a cripple. I believe this demonstrates both the good points and problems of the quick-hack approach.

Greg wrote:

--- gimp_user 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

On 9/27/07, Greg wrote:

--- gimp_user 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.

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 misinformation about the GIMP development process, then it simply doesn't belong here. In general we would appreciate if people with complaints about the GIMP development process would choose the proper mailing-list and post to gimp-developer.

Sven

Greg wrote:

I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than I expected...and that's a good thing.

I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?
From prints? no. On your monitor? maybe. You will notice it when you

try and correct for under or over exposure or gamma, and you'll notice it more in the underexposed areas where sensor noise will be more visible. Much of this would be done in the UFRAW converter which DOES use all the bits, so you can argue it's less of an impact.

Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original bit-depth or as 8-bit?

Once the image is pulled into GIMP, it's 8/24 bit for processing and display.

Here's a reasonably quick experiment.

Gather a few images that represent your typical shooting

Download UFRAW and the GIMP (maybe not so quick depending on your download speeds). Pull your 12/36bit image into UFRAW and make whatever exposure/balance tweaks needed and then have it hand it off to GIMP. Have both images up at the same time. What do your eyes tell you?

I've posted this before, and in case you missed it, you really need to do a bit of digital "darkroom" 101. Go to www.normankoren.com and read through his site. Really.
I'm not trying to be pedantic or condescending, but when you finish going through his tutorial, you'll be asking questions that will get you more targeted answers. You might drop him a little paypal gelt when you're done because people charge $500 for one day seminars to present similar material.

jim

On 9/29/07, 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?

Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original bit-depth or as 8-bit?

All mainstream displays only support 8bits/component, so while further levels could be simulated with dithering while zoomed in, the display will only be 8bit in the foreseeable future. In most cases the 12bit range is just a more precise version of the 8bit range, so you will not see any difference.

using >8 bits per channel is mainly useful for manipulation and HDR purposes; it's not directly relevant to the quality of the display.

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 (currently) is 8 bits per channel.

* Greg [10-01-07 13:29]:

I normally don't shoot in RAW because, from what I've read, it seems difficult to work with, but it also sounds interesting, too.

no more so than any other graphic format...

Also, I've read that not all RAW apps are created equal, that you can get different results from one to another.

aiui, *most*, not from the mfgr, are based on the same code which is developed and provided by Dave Coffin's dcraw, http://cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right tool for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP natively supports 12-bits or higher, I'm gonna have to stick to Photoshop for now.

Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW.

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Greg [10-01-07 13:29]

In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right tool for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP natively supports 12-bits or higher, I'm gonna have to stick to Photoshop for now.

Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW.

True for all DSLR's (I think), but some better P&S's also can produce TIFF's which uses a lossless compression (actually being pedantic) as sort of pseudo raw format.

For me at least, the big reasons for PS CS over gimp are the following: - The plugins. For the pro/semi pro shooter, there are just way too many very cool plugins for PS. Everything from Noise-Ninja to lens distortion corrections to some very interesting portrait tools to virtual view camera adjustments (more than just perspective correction). - Integration with the color "spiders" and CMS - 8/24 vs 16/48 - This is at least on the horizon for GIMP

In GIMP's defense, many (if not the vast majority) of digital photographers will have no need of these features. Even if by some magic they were available, few would use them because of the cost or complexity. It's a good tool. I use it a great deal myself, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it to teach an "into to digital darkroom" course. The exception would be, for students who were on a professional photographer track.

jim

I've done some photography but usually I end up painting over it and converting it to mixed media as I really prefer painting to photography. I think for users who are drawn to art and painting, GIMP may satisfy their needs more easily. The adage "pare it down" typically is a good one for all artists to keep in mind and Photoshop can lead one in exactly the opposite direction. I know it is terribly easy for me to end up with mud after i overdo it with all the plug-ins, styles, custom shapes and so forth that i've amassed in the PS program.

carol

On 10/1/07, jim feldman wrote:

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Greg [10-01-07 13:29]

In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right tool for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP natively supports 12-bits or higher, I'm gonna have to stick to Photoshop for now.

Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW.

True for all DSLR's (I think), but some better P&S's also can produce TIFF's which uses a lossless compression (actually being pedantic) as sort of pseudo raw format.

For me at least, the big reasons for PS CS over gimp are the following: - The plugins. For the pro/semi pro shooter, there are just way too many very cool plugins for PS. Everything from Noise-Ninja to lens distortion corrections to some very interesting portrait tools to virtual view camera adjustments (more than just perspective correction). - Integration with the color "spiders" and CMS - 8/24 vs 16/48 - This is at least on the horizon for GIMP

In GIMP's defense, many (if not the vast majority) of digital photographers will have no need of these features. Even if by some magic they were available, few would use them because of the cost or complexity. It's a good tool. I use it a great deal myself, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it to teach an "into to digital darkroom" course. The exception would be, for students who were on a professional photographer track.

jim

_______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

On Monday 01 October 2007 16:09:23 jim feldman wrote:

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Greg [10-01-07 13:29]

In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right tool for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP natively supports 12-bits or higher, I'm gonna have to stick to Photoshop for now.

Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW.

True for all DSLR's (I think), but some better P&S's also can produce TIFF's which uses a lossless compression (actually being pedantic) as sort of pseudo raw format.

For me at least, the big reasons for PS CS over gimp are the following: - The plugins. For the pro/semi pro shooter, there are just way too many very cool plugins for PS. Everything from Noise-Ninja to lens distortion corrections to some very interesting portrait tools to virtual view camera adjustments (more than just perspective correction). - Integration with the color "spiders" and CMS - 8/24 vs 16/48 - This is at least on the horizon for GIMP

In GIMP's defense, many (if not the vast majority) of digital photographers will have no need of these features. Even if by some magic they were available, few would use them because of the cost or complexity. It's a good tool. I use it a great deal myself, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it to teach an "into to digital darkroom" course. The exception would be, for students who were on a professional photographer track.

jim

I think this approach is a sound one because using gimp students can, given a computer and internet access, get to know about digital processes without committing themselves to the expense of purchasing PS. They can find out whether they feel able to assimilate and use digital imaging processes because so many of the techniques remain the same. However there is no way, given the gimnps currently available tools set one I would feel confident recomending it to students for professional processing or for working collaboratively with other professionals in the industry. I wish this were not the case but until Gimp development reaches reaches the right level that is the way it is.

There is also the problem of non-destructive editing which cannot be advanced until Gimp has the tools to handles raw files rather than relying upon conversions using an external tool set..

On Friday 28 September 2007 17:28:36 jim feldman wrote:

Greg wrote:

I appreciate all the info and discussion on this. It's a lot more than I expected...and that's a good thing.

I guess what I really want to know is, am I going to see any noticeable loss if image quality from my 12-bit images?

From prints? no. On your monitor? maybe. You will notice it when you try and correct for under or over exposure or gamma, and you'll notice it more in the underexposed areas where sensor noise will be more visible. Much of this would be done in the UFRAW converter which DOES use all the bits, so you can argue it's less of an impact.

Also asked but not answered, are imaged displayed in their original bit-depth or as 8-bit?

Once the image is pulled into GIMP, it's 8/24 bit for processing and display.

Here's a reasonably quick experiment.

Gather a few images that represent your typical shooting

Download UFRAW and the GIMP (maybe not so quick depending on your download speeds). Pull your 12/36bit image into UFRAW and make whatever exposure/balance tweaks needed and then have it hand it off to GIMP. Have both images up at the same time. What do your eyes tell you?

The problem is this is not the way to test the difference between differing bit depth. Monitors have their own limitations is display and gamut which result in an inability to portray differences between 8 bit and 16 bit images.. Professionals need to supply images which are for presentation on many grades of alternative media. IF a professional were to say "well I cannot see the difference on my monitor" his statement would be interpreted as a dec;aration of an inability to understand the basics.

There is no way that 8bit images can complete with 16 bit images -- the vision of the screen is a very impure and lossy projection of any image and the greater the bit depth the greater the loss of image quality and gamut. So basically this approach tells you nothing but the fact a screen display has very limited capabilities.

I've posted this before, and in case you missed it, you really need to do a bit of digital "darkroom" 101. Go to www.normankoren.com and read through his site. Really.
I'm not trying to be pedantic or condescending, but when you finish going through his tutorial, you'll be asking questions that will get you more targeted answers. You might drop him a little paypal gelt when you're done because people charge $500 for one day seminars to present similar material.

jim

On Monday 01 October 2007 16:41:02 carol irvin wrote:

I've done some photography but usually I end up painting over it and converting it to mixed media as I really prefer painting to photography. I think for users who are drawn to art and painting, GIMP may satisfy their needs more easily. The adage "pare it down" typically is a good one for all artists to keep in mind and Photoshop can lead one in exactly the opposite direction. I know it is terribly easy for me to end up with mud after i overdo it with all the plug-ins, styles, custom shapes and so forth that i've amassed in the PS program.

Certainly if you are into painting and using photographs as inspiration then an 8bit jpg image projected at 1024x768 resolution is probably all you needs beacuse your subletirs are going to appear with brush magic rather than PS magic!!

The two art forms are soooooooooooo distinctly different. However if you are in to photography and want to produce high resolution digital images then with great regret n I see no alternative but getting your head around using raw & PS.

However if you only want to project images using an overhead projector at 1024x768 then gimp will do everything you need.. there is no way that either a screen or a projector can show the different between an 8 bit and a 16 boit image.. the media limits the message!!

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 most of the students could not afford all of these adobe products on their own. This meant that as they were taking these courses, they had to get all their work done on either their classroom computers or the library's computers. They could not work on their projects at home. These projects were very time consuming. Ideally, they were also the logical jumping off point for the student to do a great deal of experimentation. However, you weren't going to do much experimenting in the classroom or library if you'd already put in hours and hours of work in fairly uncomfortable circumstances of sitting in the typical classroom or library chair. If you are a student with a fair amount of discretionary income for school supplies, you can solve this problem by buying the student versions of the adobe programs. If you are a student who is financially hard pressed from semester to semester, the GIMP gives you a creative experimenting opportunity otherwise not available to you. I should add that the instructors cannot tell, when looking at your completed project, what program you did it on. They are looking at the end result only. If your end result is A material, it doesn't matter what you did it on. This is also where originality of idea pays off more than flexing your muscles with the hardest techniques. It is NOT GOOD if your work looks like everyone else's and that is the great weakness of digital art straight across the board (largely because of the overemphasis on technique over idea). The instructors don't care about anything but the artistic merit of the results. If I were the student, I'd just go home and do the art work on the Gimp where I could have all my comforts around me for the days and days of long hours needed to produce the art work. you could do some of the art work in the classroom in photoshop and then store it online before you left so you could pick it up at home.

carol

On 10/2/07, gimp_user wrote:

On Monday 01 October 2007 16:09:23 jim feldman wrote:

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Greg [10-01-07 13:29]

In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right

tool

for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP natively supports 12-bits or higher, I'm gonna have to stick to Photoshop for now.

Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW.

True for all DSLR's (I think), but some better P&S's also can produce TIFF's which uses a lossless compression (actually being pedantic) as sort of pseudo raw format.

For me at least, the big reasons for PS CS over gimp are the following: - The plugins. For the pro/semi pro shooter, there are just way too many very cool plugins for PS. Everything from Noise-Ninja to lens distortion corrections to some very interesting portrait tools to virtual view camera adjustments (more than just perspective correction). - Integration with the color "spiders" and CMS - 8/24 vs 16/48 - This is at least on the horizon for GIMP

In GIMP's defense, many (if not the vast majority) of digital photographers will have no need of these features. Even if by some magic they were available, few would use them because of the cost or complexity. It's a good tool. I use it a great deal myself, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it to teach an "into to digital darkroom" course. The exception would be, for students who were on a professional photographer track.

jim

I think this approach is a sound one because using gimp students can, given a
computer and internet access, get to know about digital processes without committing themselves to the expense of purchasing PS. They can find out whether they feel able to assimilate and use digital imaging processes because so many of the techniques remain the same. However there is no way,
given the gimnps currently available tools set one I would feel confident recomending it to students for professional processing or for working collaboratively with other professionals in the industry. I wish this were not the case but until Gimp development reaches reaches the right level that
is the way it is.

There is also the problem of non-destructive editing which cannot be advanced
until Gimp has the tools to handles raw files rather than relying upon conversions using an external tool set..

_______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

On 10/2/07, gimp_user wrote:

On Monday 01 October 2007 16:09:23 jim feldman wrote:

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Greg [10-01-07 13:29]

In any event, from what you've told me, GIMP may not be the right

tool

for me at this time. I want to retain all my bits. So until GIMP natively supports 12-bits or higher, I'm gonna have to stick to Photoshop for now.

Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW.

True for all DSLR's (I think), but some better P&S's also can produce TIFF's which uses a lossless compression (actually being pedantic) as sort of pseudo raw format.

For me at least, the big reasons for PS CS over gimp are the following: - The plugins. For the pro/semi pro shooter, there are just way too many very cool plugins for PS. Everything from Noise-Ninja to lens distortion corrections to some very interesting portrait tools to virtual view camera adjustments (more than just perspective correction). - Integration with the color "spiders" and CMS - 8/24 vs 16/48 - This is at least on the horizon for GIMP

In GIMP's defense, many (if not the vast majority) of digital photographers will have no need of these features. Even if by some magic they were available, few would use them because of the cost or complexity. It's a good tool. I use it a great deal myself, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it to teach an "into to digital darkroom" course. The exception would be, for students who were on a professional photographer track.

jim

I think this approach is a sound one because using gimp students can, given a
computer and internet access, get to know about digital processes without committing themselves to the expense of purchasing PS. They can find out whether they feel able to assimilate and use digital imaging processes because so many of the techniques remain the same. However there is no way,
given the gimnps currently available tools set one I would feel confident recomending it to students for professional processing or for working collaboratively with other professionals in the industry. I wish this were not the case but until Gimp development reaches reaches the right level that
is the way it is.

There is also the problem of non-destructive editing which cannot be advanced
until Gimp has the tools to handles raw files rather than relying upon conversions using an external tool set..

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 09:38:38 carol irvin wrote:

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 most of the students could not afford all of these adobe products on their own. This meant that as they were taking these courses, they had to get all their work done on either their classroom computers or the library's computers. They could not work on their projects at home. These projects were very time consuming. Ideally, they were also the logical jumping off point for the student to do a great deal of experimentation. However, you weren't going to do much experimenting in the classroom or library if you'd already put in hours and hours of work in fairly uncomfortable circumstances of sitting in the typical classroom or library chair. If you are a student with a fair amount of discretionary income for school supplies, you can solve this problem by buying the student versions of the adobe programs. If you are a student who is financially hard pressed from semester to semester, the GIMP gives you a creative experimenting opportunity otherwise not available to you. I should add that the instructors cannot tell, when looking at your completed project, what program you did it on. They are looking at the end result only. If your end result is A material, it doesn't matter what you did it on. This is also where originality of idea pays off more than flexing your muscles with the hardest techniques. It is NOT GOOD if your work looks like everyone else's and that is the great weakness of digital art straight across the board (largely because of the overemphasis on technique over idea). The instructors don't care about anything but the artistic merit of the results. If I were the student, I'd just go home and do the art work on the Gimp where I could have all my comforts around me for the days and days of long hours needed to produce the art work. you could do some of the art work in the classroom in photoshop and then store it online before you left so you could pick it up at home.

What you say makes a lot of sense. Your approach is one that focusses on matching the tool to the need. That makes good sense both technically and artistically.

My only caution is that each student needs to appraciate both the merits and demerits of each tool and that is extremely hard to convey because there can be no hard and fast rules.

As I think I have said elsewhere, if the medium is a projected or screen jpg image then it makes no real difference whether the image is 8 bit or 16 bit or whether it was created as a raw image or a jpg. Frankly the same result can be achieved in either gimp or photoshop. But if the student is going on to professional high quality digital image making then Gimp (at its present standard of development) is unlikely to provide provide the answer when s/he makes that move.

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 which to view digital photographic images as far as bit depth is concerned. However, I am curious to know what your opinion is of this:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I do know that for me, Gimp makes the difference between no image editing program at all and having an image editing program. Photoshop is simply out of the question for me for a number of reasons. Cost is, of course, one reason (but it is interesting the number of people I have run across who feel that acquiring a bootleg version of PS is an acceptable thing to do). Part of it is that I use Windows under duress. So, if I wanted to seriously consider PS, then I would have to look at a Mac.

If they ever bothered to port PS to Linux/Unix, it might be more of a consideration. However, I still feel that the sticker price for PS is utterly ridiculous for the average user.

_____________________________________

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:50:44 Elwin Estle wrote:

I am hardly an expert on this whole issue. I would like to see a side by side comparison of prints made from 8 bit vs 16 bit images to see just exactly what the difference might be. I think your average person probably wouldn't care. It has been mentioned that monitors are poor venues on which to view digital photographic images as far as bit depth is concerned. However, I am curious to know what your opinion is of this:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I do know that for me, Gimp makes the difference between no image editing program at all and having an image editing program. Photoshop is simply out of the question for me for a number of reasons. Cost is, of course, one reason (but it is interesting the number of people I have run across who feel that acquiring a bootleg version of PS is an acceptable thing to do). Part of it is that I use Windows under duress. So, if I wanted to seriously consider PS, then I would have to look at a Mac.

If they ever bothered to port PS to Linux/Unix, it might be more of a consideration. However, I still feel that

First I think you are right in suggesting that

the sticker price for PS is
utterly ridiculous for the average user.

IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user". If I was only interested in collecting and taking images for my own use (which is by and large waht the average user does) I would not use photoshop. However when I need to produce images for professional use then I must have raw files - I must for some clients be able to prove their authenticity (i.e. the file I make available is just as it was taken). So for professional uses I need photoshop and I keep it constantly up to date.. no "average user" would be able to afford that but I create well over 10,000 digital images a year (mostly using my two Canon 5D bodies as well as countless images on film in formats that include 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm and 5"x4".

However I do not use photoshop for preparing images for the web or projection.. In that context I find it to be a sledgehammer for cracking nuts. In this context I use a number of different tools with gimp being a natural starting point but I also use Corel draw, fireworks, and a whole host of other images for manipulating images. For operating systems I use five different computers. Apple (photoshop), Windows XP 64 bit on a quad processor Intel system (photoshop and premiere) Windows Xp 32 bit on an AMD 64 processor (photoshop) system, Freebsd (Gimp and network management) and linux (gimp and other image manipulation programmes). They all have a part to play in my image creation & manipulation endeavours. As a professional one picks the right tool for the task and one cannot afford prejudices.

It sounds to me like you do not need photoshop so stick with gimp and begin to ask questions when you run into limitation. If you were disatissfied you would be looking at your work, be discontent with some part of it and be asking about things you cannot achieve with the tools you already have.

My two pennorth

The article you link to is reflects the sentiments of the writer.

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:58:47AM -0700, Greg wrote:

--- Patrick Shanahan wrote:

Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW.

I know, but if you can retain your original bit-depth, the lossyness isn't as noticeable, especially if you set the compression to the lowest possible. At least, that's my understanding.

But, JPEG is only 8 bit (well technically it isn't even that, but I digress), so you aren't retainnig your original bit-depth

Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:38:38 -0400 From: "carol irvin"
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

................................................... The instructors don't care about anything but the artistic merit of the results. If I were the student, I'd just go home and do the art work on the Gimp where I could have all my comforts around me for the days and days of long hours needed to produce the art work. you could do some of the art work in the classroom in photoshop and then store it online before you left so you could pick it up at home.

I did lots of portraits, sketches and paintings (until I got into computing!). I selected Gimp to learn photo-retouching and mouse-drawing myself - I was a complete beginner to photo-editing programs - Gimp or PS. However, I learned a LOT! from the book "Grokking the Gimp" (available from www.gimp-savvy.com) and the tutorials available from gimp.org, gug and gimpguru. Particularly, I increased my understanding about color theory from "Grokking the Gimp". Also, one or more tutorials taught me masking extremely well. Later, when I used PS, I was surprised to see the masking feature was integrated in PS in a very easy sort of way which wouldn't have helped me in actually "learning" about the masking. In Gimp, you do masking knowing the way it (masking) actually "is" really. So, with my knowledge of Gimp, I was easily able to do masking in PS as well - the same way I did in Gimp - "without" using the masking option of the menu - I did it simply from the layers dialog just I did it using Gimp.

Same way, I learned about selections/masks/channels a lot from Gimp because Gimp didn't try to hide anything and nothing was made easy to the point of obscurity.

So, as far as learning is concerned, I would recommend Gimp to everybody - because it made me understand things better and empowered me to use PS with ease. As far as its functionality is concerned, I think newer features/functions will be included as we get newer Gimp versions. Primarily I enjoyed using Gimp because I was able to do my sketches and retouching very easily and I was more interested in "learning" the ins and outs of this new re-touching stuff and Gimp helped me a LOT! - particularly the tutorials at gug, gimpguru and elsewhere on the Internet.

--
Best regards,

Asif

Hi David,

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:35:36 -0700 From: David Southwell
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user".

I would like to, respectfully, disagree. Photoshop IS meant for an "average user". Just look at the whole plethora of point-and-click tools it offers - it's all to ease your work and make it faster. However, you loose the depth that an experienced Gimp user has when all you know is PS simply because Gimp gives you lots of options/parameters to play with. You can do the same stuff with Gimp but with some extra steps and in the process of working with Gimp you increase your understanding of Photoshop as well. I am just saying that you really get to understand layer modes, color theory, masking, channels if you really read the valuable Gimp tutorials. Mostly when I go through PS tutorials, all I see is the usage of filters - which is good in that it enables you to do your work faster. However, PS hides much under-the-hood stuff from the PS users and makes users habitual to using the facilities it offers. Using Gimp, however, you get to learn the concepts as they really are - instead of just using the nice PS filters - simply because you simply have to do many steps yourself to achieve your desired result. While I am not opposing the use of PS, I think the fact is just the opposite as far as your above statement is concerned. As for the number of extra steps in Gimp, you can always write a script to speed up your work - and, FYI, PS started to offer scripting facilities much _much_ later than Gimp. As far as "non-destructive editing" facilities are concerned, you're probably talking about Layer Effects and I think this was probably discussed on this list before and is on the development Roadmap. Just search the archives.

--
Best regards,

Asif

On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote:

IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user".

"Average" can mean "typical" & it can mean numbers (as in mean/mode/median), either way, PS fits the bill.

So if you want to struggle with an "average" creativity ceiling & suffer "average" problems, you would choose CS.

A lot of people (can't offer you numbers on this one, have to settle for "many") regard "average" as the only reasonable alternative to "failure." They won't necessarily _say_ this when discussing it, but that's how it operates in Real Life.

The essence of this approach is that it makes them allergic to true success & to attributes like innovation. When "marketing" to these users (or their bosses) I suspect you'd have to figure out what they're hedging against in specifying PS, then show how GIMP clearly offers them better results _in_their_terms_.

This is doubly hard because opening discussion on the very topic which subtly terrifies them simply raises internal horror & shuts down communication. So you have to be subtle about it, & probably approach it under the guise of "the fabulous new gadget I found which seems to solve X, Y & Z" rather than "this PS replacement that we're going to bet the boat on."

Cheers; Leon

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 23:11:19 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:

On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote:

IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user".

"Average" can mean "typical" & it can mean numbers (as in mean/mode/median), either way, PS fits the bill.

You are right - I should have defined my use of the term more precisely to guard against misinterpretation. In this context I used "average" when I should have referred to those who are not professional image makers producing high quality/high resolution images for whom a whole range of tools, including photoshop become necessary. There area much larger number of people whose primary use of a camera is for taking snaps on holiday and do not have the time, energy or inclination to devote to image processing or becoming familiar with complex applications such as photoshop and gimps. So perhaps my perception of "average user" is different to yours.

So if you want to struggle with an "average" creativity ceiling & suffer "average" problems, you would choose CS.

I do not see either PS or Gimp creating ceilings on creativity. My experience of creative people is that they find ways to be creative no matter what tool set they happen to be using at the time. This is rather like the painter who will sometimes use an extremely limited pallette to achieve a desired affect. Just because s/he has all the colours/media available it does not mean one needs to use them on every occasion.

IMaybe I should also have distinquished between issues related to creativity and issues that are related to having techniques available to meet the demands set by the creative goal. For example the technical requirements for projecting an image at 1024x768 resolution or for producing a monster 3x2 metre high resolution print may make equal demands in the creativity department but the technical demands of the media are fantastically different. The choice of image capture and processing techniques are IMHO far more closely related to what I will call "the exhibiting media".

A lot of people (can't offer you numbers on this one, have to settle for "many") regard "average" as the only reasonable alternative to "failure." They won't necessarily _say_ this when discussing it, but that's how it operates in Real Life.

I hear your sentiment -- some people do have that type of psychological framework but I am not certain whether one can generalize from it because people approach choices in so many different ways.

The essence of this approach is that it makes them allergic to true success & to attributes like innovation. When "marketing" to these users (or their bosses) I suspect you'd have to figure out what they're hedging against in specifying PS, then show how GIMP clearly offers them better results _in_their_terms_.

For some Gimp will meet some or all of their requirements. IMHO it is not about "better results" but about appropriate tools for certain tasks. If for example the task requires raw and non-destructive editing (for whatever reason ranging from artistic to client requirement) then one chooses an appropriate toolset - Critera also frequently limit the range of available methods.

This is doubly hard because opening discussion on the very topic which subtly terrifies them simply raises internal horror & shuts down communication. So you have to be subtle about it, & probably approach it under the guise of "the fabulous new gadget I found which seems to solve X, Y & Z" rather than "this PS replacement that we're going to bet the boat on."

If they are terrified then perhaps their terror would have been sufficient to have destroyed their creativity!! Creative people use many different types of tools and brushes and are rarely horrified by having more choices. They are also most unlikely to bet on any individual choice! As I see it gimp is a valuable tool within my 8 most frequently used digital image manipulation programs. I also have numerous tools I use much less frequently.

IAs a creative artist I do not want to limit my output by seeking replacements but widen my potential by adding to my tool sets. I try to ask myself what is the best tool for me to achieve this particular result? I often find myself using more than one tool set on the same piece of work. I suppose my choices come from an approach that prioritizes devotion to the creative output rather than to a specific tool or method. Others will choose different priorities.

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 11:58:47 Greg wrote:

--- Patrick Shanahan wrote:

Then you need to abandon the jpeg format as it is lossey (google for it) and you need to shoot RAW.

I know, but if you can retain your original bit-depth, the lossyness isn't as noticeable, especially if you set the compression to the lowest possible. At least, that's my understanding.

This is true for the first iteration. Unfortunately intermediate saves work rather like sound recordings.. there is some additional loss at each stage and the effect of the lossyness of the format is therefore multiplied. The effect of lossyness can reduce the effectiveness of some editing and image manipulation algorythms.

Even at minimum compression there is lossyness. On the other hand lossyness of a reasonably high resolution digital image does not matter of you are using an overhead projector at 1024x768. You can increase the degree of compression quite substantiallly before the difference is really noticeable. In fact OHP can make images which would be panned, or even appear unsharp when printed as a large print, can appear really attractive when projected at 1024x768.

But try to create a large high resolution image (or apply substantial enlargment to a portion of an image), then the results of lossyness are quickly all too apparent.

I practise trying to define my target final output from a sourced image. However I cannot always accurately predict how an image will finally be used so I tend to opt for working with a raw image unless I know the the final media will be in a comparatively low resolution and with a constrained gamut. After all the problems of scaling an image to a lower reolution/gamut are minimal by comparison with the limitation inherent in trying to scale up.

My two pennorth

On 10/3/07, gimp_user wrote:

[lots of stuff]

David,
I've read all your posts. Carol has shared some of her "art" images with us so I know what she's after, and although this isn't directly relevant to GIMP, can you point us towards a website with some of your images? I understand they will have been modified using PS, just curious what kind of work you are doing so I have a better sense of where your comments are coming from. i.e. A landscape photographer has a different perspective than a commercial photographer. I tried, but the http://www.atf4.com site is really boring. Thanks.