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

On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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.

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 [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?

On Friday 28 September 2007 04:04:03 gimp_user wrote:

On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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.

FUD your conclusion is only valid for yourself and not others so your statement is false. You can't speak for me and I don't agree with you so... If you can provide hard data that backs this up with numbers well that might be a different story but it would have to be global figures.

Thanks

I would rather you did not chop extracts from the whole of my text and thereby portray a misleading impression of a theme referencing multiple strands. The difficulty that idividuals face in switiching from one software interface to another naturally varies from individual to individual. But that is no way intended to be interpreted as the core of my contribution.

My original posting was intended to draw attention to multiple layers of reality that contribute to professional decision about software choices that go well beyond costs of acquirement. Recruitment is based upon assessment of levels of experience and known skills. Someone who says "Well I know Gimp but I am sure I could adapt to photoshop" is going to face an uphill struggle convincing an agency that he has all the right skills. His statement would be taken as evidence of not understanding the role of an individual contributor in a complex supply chain.

While the absence of a recognised skill transition route (i.e. no skin similar to PS) is a serious obstacle affecting the ability of multiple individuals to collaborate in a supply chain comprising multiple organisations it is far from being the only reason while Gimp is not currently in a position to seriously challenge PS.

By selective quoting you leave out the substance of an argument which was never intended to apply to a lone worker. So your objection that it does not apply to you, as an individual, is totally irrelevant. It also suggest to me that you have not carefully read and understood the theme.

What I would like to see is gimp competing, in the industry supply chain, on at least equal terms with PS and that cannot happen overnight. It would be foolish to suggest that that could be achieved by simply having a GUI that makes for an easy transition. PS has to be considered not just as a tool for for high quality image manipulation but also as an attempt to provide an integrated solution to the requirements of a complete supply chain.

The real world is far more complex than the needs and abilities of individuals and my contribution was only intend to open a crack in the door of examining the impliaction of those wider complexities. Gimp has the potential to be developed to at least equal photoshop but because it can interface with the rich world of open source solutions it could do even better. Whether it will or will not do so is a choice available to the community.

I am not saying Gimp "should" choose to set out to do so. I am saying that while, in its present state it will continue to satisfy the needs of many individuals, such as yourself. It is also my opinion that it has the potential to fulfill the wider expectations of a collaborative industry of high quality image makers. To do that, in my opinion, it will need to make many changes if it is to satisfy the needs of a supply chain accustomed to share resources and skills (including common toolsets). It means providing tools for non-destructive editing to enable more than one individual and organisation to contribute to the creation, manipulation, selection, cataloguing, distribution and promotion of images.

These requirement present a serious challenge and no easy one for an open source project to fulfill.

In response to this
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:

Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing". The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps you can take the time to explain your meaning?

Yes I do object to selective discussion because it means no one else is able to follow the whole thread when bits get cut out so the thread gets chopped into fragmnents - each one then gets followed selectively. Readers then find they have to flip backwards and forwards to follow the discussion.

Your question is a good one and I hope I will be able to explain why non-destructive editing is not ia contradiction.

Before amplifying I do not want to you to have any mistaken impressions about photoshop because one of my irritations with PS is that it does not yet fully achieve fully non-destructive editing. However it is getting there and each version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I have just upgraded to CS3 which now has exposure adjustments available as a non-destructive layer whereas in CS2 exposure was not accomplished non-destructively.)

By this I mean that one starts with loading the original image and that original can remain in the bottom of the stack. In the case of professional digital images that means raw files are sourced and loaded as 16bit images.

Non-destructive editing can, for example, be accomplished by having each edit take place as a layer which can, at any later point, be revisited, either by by the original image manipulator or anyone further down the chain. That layer can therefore be tweaked later in the process. There are some processes in PS that cannot be accomplished non-destructively but as Gimp does not even start with the ability to load a raw image or even an image at 16 bit we cannot begin the process.

With non-destructive editing every individual edit can be selectively applied to the output (to screen, printer etc). Each edit is not applied to the original which remains intact. For example it means I could apply two alternative exposure corrections. At a very much later stage, and after much subsequent editing, either I or someone on some other machine, could print 4 copies namely the original without either correction, with the first correction only, the second correction, or the sum of both corrections.

Non-destructive editing also implies the ability to transfer files between people and organization in a form that they can amend the edits applied by previous manipulators.

This is not a complete answer because there is more to it but I hope I have geven enough information to help explain why non-destructive editing is not a contradiction.

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: carol irvin
Date: Sep 28, 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP vs Photoshop UI To: gimp_user

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 wrote:

On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris 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.

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

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 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 who wrote:

Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing". The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps you can take the time to explain your meaning?

Yes I do object to selective discussion because it means no one else is able to follow the whole thread when bits get cut out so the thread gets chopped into fragmnents - each one then gets followed selectively. Readers then find they have to flip backwards and forwards to follow the discussion.

Your question is a good one and I hope I will be able to explain why non-destructive editing is not ia contradiction.

Before amplifying I do not want to you to have any mistaken impressions about photoshop because one of my irritations with PS is that it does not yet fully achieve fully non-destructive editing. However it is getting there and each version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I have just upgraded to CS3 which now has exposure adjustments available as a non-destructive layer whereas in CS2 exposure was not accomplished non-destructively.)

By this I mean that one starts with loading the original image and that original can remain in the bottom of the stack. In the case of professional digital images that means raw files are sourced and loaded as 16bit images.

Non-destructive editing can, for example, be accomplished by having each edit take place as a layer which can, at any later point, be revisited, either by by the original image manipulator or anyone further down the chain. That layer can therefore be tweaked later in the process. There are some processes in PS that cannot be accomplished non-destructively but as Gimp does not even start with the ability to load a raw image or even an image at 16 bit we cannot begin the process.

With non-destructive editing every individual edit can be selectively applied to the output (to screen, printer etc). Each edit is not applied to the original which remains intact. For example it means I could apply two alternative exposure corrections. At a very much later stage, and after much subsequent editing, either I or someone on some other machine, could print 4 copies namely the original without either correction, with the first correction only, the second correction, or the sum of both corrections.

Non-destructive editing also implies the ability to transfer files between people and organization in a form that they can amend the edits applied by previous manipulators.

This is not a complete answer because there is more to it but I hope I have geven enough information to help explain why non-destructive editing is not a contradiction.

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

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 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 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 who wrote:

Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing". The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps you can take the time to explain your meaning?

Yes I do object to selective discussion because it means no one else is able to follow the whole thread when bits get cut out so the thread gets chopped into fragmnents - each one then gets followed selectively. Readers then find they have to flip backwards and forwards to follow the discussion.

Your question is a good one and I hope I will be able to explain why non-destructive editing is not ia contradiction.

Before amplifying I do not want to you to have any mistaken impressions about photoshop because one of my irritations with PS is that it does not yet fully achieve fully non-destructive editing. However it is getting there and each version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I have just upgraded to CS3 which now has exposure adjustments available as a non-destructive layer whereas in CS2 exposure was not accomplished non-destructively.)

By this I mean that one starts with loading the original image and that original can remain in the bottom of the stack. In the case of professional digital images that means raw files are sourced and loaded as 16bit images.

Non-destructive editing can, for example, be accomplished by having each edit take place as a layer which can, at any later point, be revisited, either by by the original image manipulator or anyone further down the chain. That layer can therefore be tweaked later in the process. There are some processes in PS that cannot be accomplished non-destructively but as Gimp does not even start with the ability to load a raw image or even an image at 16 bit we cannot begin the process.

With non-destructive editing every individual edit can be selectively applied to the output (to screen, printer etc). Each edit is not applied to the original which remains intact. For example it means I could apply two alternative exposure corrections. At a very much later stage, and after much subsequent editing, either I or someone on some other machine, could print 4 copies namely the original without either correction, with the first correction only, the second correction, or the sum of both corrections.

Non-destructive editing also implies the ability to transfer files between people and organization in a form that they can amend the edits applied by previous manipulators.

This is not a complete answer because there is more to it but I hope I have geven enough information to help explain why non-destructive editing is not a contradiction.

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.

IMHO This issue that needs to be discussed in collaboration with users

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 :-)

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

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 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 interjected at this point: "Thank you for saying eloquently what I would have stated rudely :-)"

To which my response is: Those who have something valuable to say do not need to be rude. Sven's response was both pertinent and helpful.

I had previously said there was no suggestion on my part that Gimp "should" move in any specific direction. However IMHO users need to understand the imp[lications of varying opportunities so they can influence the direction of development. I therefore look forward tot Sven helping users understand the implications of his vision.

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 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 who wrote:

Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing". The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps you can take the time to explain your meaning?

Yes I do object to selective discussion because it means no one else is able to follow the whole thread when bits get cut out so the thread gets chopped into fragmnents - each one then gets followed selectively. Readers then find they have to flip backwards and forwards to follow the discussion.

Your question is a good one and I hope I will be able to explain why non-destructive editing is not ia contradiction.

Before amplifying I do not want to you to have any mistaken impressions about photoshop because one of my irritations with PS is that it does not yet fully achieve fully non-destructive editing. However it is getting there and each version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I have just upgraded to CS3 which now has exposure adjustments available as a non-destructive layer whereas in CS2 exposure was not accomplished non-destructively.)

By this I mean that one starts with loading the original image and that original can remain in the bottom of the stack. In the case of professional digital images that means raw files are sourced and loaded as 16bit images.

Non-destructive editing can, for example, be accomplished by having each edit take place as a layer which can, at any later point, be revisited, either by by the original image manipulator or anyone further down the chain. That layer can therefore be tweaked later in the process. There are some processes in PS that cannot be accomplished non-destructively but as Gimp does not even start with the ability to load a raw image or even an image at 16 bit we cannot begin the process.

With non-destructive editing every individual edit can be selectively applied to the output (to screen, printer etc). Each edit is not applied to the original which remains intact. For example it means I could apply two alternative exposure corrections. At a very much later stage, and after much subsequent editing, either I or someone on some other machine, could print 4 copies namely the original without either correction, with the first correction only, the second correction, or the sum of both corrections.

Non-destructive editing also implies the ability to transfer files between people and organization in a form that they can amend the edits applied by previous manipulators.

This is not a complete answer because there is more to it but I hope I have geven enough information to help explain why non-destructive editing is not a contradiction.

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.

IMHO This issue that needs to be discussed in collaboration with users

* gimp_user [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 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!

On Saturday 29 September 2007 07:46:37 Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* gimp_user [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 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

On Saturday 29 September 2007 07:46:37 Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* gimp_user [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 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

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

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

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 version....and 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 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

On Monday 01 October 2007 08:48:09 you wrote:

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 [self] would use both versions as layers and run the two through the modes (multiple, burn, dodge, etc.,) until finding his own version....and so on down the line. each person would explain what he did in GIMP to get to his phase as well.

Since my skills as an artist are kind of regrettable, I very much like this idea & would like to second it, or whatever.

Doing something by degrees makes it a lot less daunting, & if I managed to muck something up, it would be my own copy only, (a feature difficult to replicate with physical artworks :-).

Besides that, mucking something up is a lesson in itself, both to warn others & because someone else might be able to imagine a way to make the original idea work.

I think dumping the results on a Wiki would be helpful, also, both to make fetching a starting-point relatively simple, & to keep a kind of history of what various people have tried. The history is also useful for both inspiration & correction. (-:

Cheers; Leon

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