In response to an excellent suggestion from Carol I have reposted this item under the above title. Should anyone wish to continue this discussion then please do so here rather than under the Bit-depth Processing title as it gets a bit confusing when discussions drift off topic.

Thanks Carol

ORIGINAL Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing Date: Wednesday 03 October 2007
From: gimp_user
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu

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.