GIMP

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

The point shown *here* (above) is that you don't know how to use it.

While I don't feel like going through that old nugget of human factors
engineering: counting steps, mouse clicks and changes of user operating
contexts to come up with the number of steps for each of photoshop and
gimp for a given operation or a salad bowl of operations, it is clear to
me every time I use gimp that it takes more mouse moves, more keystrokes
and more clicks to do a selection of common tasks.

that's what i've found as well. it's all the handy shortcuts that make
it very efficient and productive.

Blinky the Shark wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

While I don't feel like going through that old nugget of human factors
engineering: counting steps, mouse clicks and changes of user operating
contexts to come up with the number of steps for each of photoshop and
gimp for a given operation or a salad bowl of operations, it is clear to
me every time I use gimp that it takes more mouse moves, more keystrokes
and more clicks to do a selection of common tasks.

In the example above, it takes one click to do something you described as
taking several. That doesn't add a lot of credibility to your
comparisons.

I would like to see you try to do a proper USM of a very large image in
a few clicks. Yes, you can "USM" the image in a few clicks. But
examine it in the detail required in all the places required in Gimp is
foolishly long compared to photoshop.

I never said Gimp couldn't do things or that I couldn't do them; I just
said (short version ahead) it sucks in gimp compared to photoshop.

The problem is with neither interface. The problem is expecting all
applications to work the same, and not taking the time to learn #2 that
has devoted to learning #1. PS would - given a lack of desire to actually
learn it - seem as wrong to non-PS user as a large non-PS image
manipulation program would seem to you.

As I said in an earlier post, I often do a strict minimum of things to
an image. And that is the test I take to gimp.

-open
-set the DPI for print (Nikon scanner sets this to 4000 unfortunately)
-rotate if required (for portrait or small leveling adjustments).
-crop if required
-adjust brightness/contrast or set white point.
-save as working master
-resize for display or print
-USM
-save as JPG or TIFF according to end use

The above steps are very basic. And they take more 'little' steps in
gimp than they do in ps. Esp. USM on a 8800 x 8800 print copy (which is
not common, but 7200 x 7200 // 4500 x 4500 // 3600 x 3600 is common).

I quit this. It was silly, but now beyond silly. I am of course a
photoshop user; that does not make me bound to any software.

I believe the one true faith of Linux users is to say that anything on
Linux is at least as good as anything bought and paid for on Windows or Mac.

Fact is that that is not always so. It's not even often so.

Gimp is free. So one would think that photographers, graphics artists,
p-editors, etc. would flock to the free versions of Gimp for Windows and
the Mac.

But they don't. They'd rather pay for Photoshop CS3 (~$600) and other
professional tools than "save money" by downloading and using gimp for
free. But they don't. And I don't.

For the OP, do as you will. But I suggest you try Elements (for free
for 30 days) before you go too far down the wide inviting path of gimp.

Software loyalty? Not me...

I've already installed Google-Chrome on my WinXP machine and on the iMac
(on WinXP under VMWare Fusion) and it is (in Beta mode) better than
Firefox or Safari (quick, process per tab, etc... see the chrome "comic
book" for details) and so will be happy to one day be rid of Firefox and
Safari. I was an early adopter of Firefox and still prefer it; but
Chrome looks to be the next browser...

Chrome does have a few little bugs that I noticed (download file save
default; photo images look a bit dull, etc) , but I bet it will become
very popular, very fast. (Will certainly kill off Opera and the other
also rans; not sure what dent it will make on IE... but Firefox is in
deep doo-doo).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Blinky the Shark wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Adobe, for reasons peculiar to themselves, have not released a Linux v.
of photoshop. Probably because there are precious few people in
photography, graphics, advertising, web design, etc. who are Linux
based.

That's common reasoning.

So what?

Gimp has been around long enough to sway people. It hasn't. I told a
pro photog about it and he went on about how much -he- hated it (that
was a few years ago...)


The closest *nix v. is for Mac OS X. Which I have. Adobe kindly and
without charge transferred my license from WinXP to Mac.

Why shouldn't they? Do they really earn extra points for that? Serious
question.

Of course they earn extra points for that, or if you prefer a neutral
POV, at least don't 'negatives' for asking for more cash.

As an example, Silverfast charge a separate license for each different
scanner that you have. Change scanners ... new license. (ScanVue is
one license for life across systems and scanners [I assume that's 1
system at a time, of course])


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

While I don't feel like going through that old nugget of human factors
engineering: counting steps, mouse clicks and changes of user operating
contexts to come up with the number of steps for each of photoshop and
gimp for a given operation or a salad bowl of operations, it is clear to
me every time I use gimp that it takes more mouse moves, more keystrokes
and more clicks to do a selection of common tasks.

In the example above, it takes one click to do something you described as
taking several. That doesn't add a lot of credibility to your
comparisons.

I would like to see you try to do a proper USM of a very large image in
a few clicks. Yes, you can "USM" the image in a few clicks. But
examine it in the detail required in all the places required in Gimp is
foolishly long compared to photoshop.

You've tried it the convenient way provided in The GIMP, so you can make
that comparison? I mean, up until a few hours ago you didn't even know
that method existed.

I never said Gimp couldn't do things or that I couldn't do them; I
just said (short version ahead) it sucks in gimp compared to
photoshop.

The problem is with neither interface. The problem is expecting all
applications to work the same, and not taking the time to learn #2 that
has devoted to learning #1. PS would - given a lack of desire to
actually learn it - seem as wrong to non-PS user as a large non-PS
image manipulation program would seem to you.

As I said in an earlier post, I often do a strict minimum of things to
an image. And that is the test I take to gimp.

Taking a test to any software that you don't know is not really a test of
the software.

-open
-set the DPI for print (Nikon scanner sets this to 4000 unfortunately)
-rotate if required (for portrait or small leveling adjustments). -crop
if required
-adjust brightness/contrast or set white point. -save as working master
-resize for display or print
-USM
-save as JPG or TIFF according to end use

I very rarely print, but other than that, hes, I do those things with most
images.

The above steps are very basic. And they take more 'little' steps in
gimp than they do in ps. Esp. USM on a 8800 x 8800 print copy (which is
not common, but 7200 x 7200 // 4500 x 4500 // 3600 x 3600 is common).

I don't know what "USM" is; I suspect it's PS jargon.

I quit this. It was silly, but now beyond silly. I am of course a
photoshop user; that does not make me bound to any software.

I believe the one true faith of Linux users is to say that anything on
Linux is at least as good as anything bought and paid for on Windows or
Mac.

I don't do software religion.

Fact is that that is not always so. It's not even often so.

Nor have I claimed it to be.

Gimp is free. So one would think that photographers, graphics artists,
p-editors, etc. would flock to the free versions of Gimp for Windows and
the Mac.

Ever seen it promoted in all of the Win/Mac photo monthlies?

Ever seen PS promoted there? All over the editorial content, besides the
advertisements? But of course exposure isn't relevant. It's just as easy
to get stuff you've never heard of...

But they don't. They'd rather pay for Photoshop CS3 (~$600) and other
professional tools than "save money" by downloading and using gimp for
free. But they don't. And I don't.

As is your option.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Alan Browne wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Adobe, for reasons peculiar to themselves, have not released a Linux
v. of photoshop. Probably because there are precious few people in
photography, graphics, advertising, web design, etc. who are Linux
based.

That's common reasoning.

So what?

Uh...do you have an issue with me acknowledging your statement as
accurate?

I can avoid that, and only pick at the ones with which I disagree. And
here I thought I was being fair. Silly me. See, I can still learn.

Gimp has been around long enough to sway people. It hasn't. I told a
pro photog about it and he went on about how much -he- hated it (that
was a few years ago...)

When it gets the media attention that PS does (not that that will happen,
of course), that (time in existance) might mean something). Or not.
Superior does not always win in the marketplace: Betamax versus VHS.

Do you have a cite on that photographer's level of developed skill using
The GIMP? Two hours and "It's not just like PS!" doesn't count.

The closest *nix v. is for Mac OS X. Which I have. Adobe kindly and
without charge transferred my license from WinXP to Mac.

Why shouldn't they? Do they really earn extra points for that? Serious
question.

Of course they earn extra points for that, or if you prefer a neutral
POV, at least don't 'negatives' for asking for more cash.

True.

As an example, Silverfast charge a separate license for each different
scanner that you have. Change scanners ... new license.

That's just a replay of the MS one-copy-one-computer model.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Blinky the Shark wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
While I don't feel like going through that old nugget of human
factors engineering: counting steps, mouse clicks and changes
of user operating contexts to come up with the number of steps
for each of photoshop and gimp for a given operation or a salad
bowl of operations, it is clear to me every time I use gimp
that it takes more mouse moves, more keystrokes and more clicks
to do a selection of common tasks.
In the example above, it takes one click to do something you
described as taking several. That doesn't add a lot of
credibility to your comparisons.
I would like to see you try to do a proper USM of a very large
image in a few clicks. Yes, you can "USM" the image in a few
clicks. But examine it in the detail required in all the places
required in Gimp is foolishly long compared to photoshop.

You've tried it the convenient way provided in The GIMP, so you can
make that comparison? I mean, up until a few hours ago you didn't
even know that method existed.


Ahem. Since in PS the effect of USM is immediately viewable everywhere
that the image is viewable, anything else would be (at least) an
additional step. See?
As I said in an earlier post, I often do a strict minimum of things
to an image. And that is the test I take to gimp.

Taking a test to any software that you don't know is not really a
test of the software.

The series described below is so basic and top level that it has no
excuse to be encumbered.


-open -set the DPI for print (Nikon scanner sets this to 4000
unfortunately) -rotate if required (for portrait or small leveling
adjustments). -crop if required -adjust brightness/contrast or set
white point. -save as working master -resize for display or print
-USM -save as JPG or TIFF according to end use

I very rarely print, but other than that, hes, I do those things with
most images.

The above steps are very basic. And they take more 'little' steps
in gimp than they do in ps. Esp. USM on a 8800 x 8800 print copy
(which is not common, but 7200 x 7200 // 4500 x 4500 // 3600 x 3600
is common).

I don't know what "USM" is; I suspect it's PS jargon.

Ahem. UnSharpMask. Same as in Gimp. It's a method that predates
computer image processing.


Gimp is free. So one would think that photographers, graphics
artists, p-editors, etc. would flock to the free versions of Gimp
for Windows and the Mac.

Ever seen it promoted in all of the Win/Mac photo monthlies?

Ever seen PS promoted there? All over the editorial content, besides
the advertisements? But of course exposure isn't relevant. It's
just as easy to get stuff you've never heard of...

1) The easiest reply is: Google became the most popular search engine
by word of mouth/newsgroups/non-Google web pages/ etc., not advertising.

At the same time Microsoft spent a small fortune advertising their
search. Where did that go? AOL, variation on same theme. Dying.
Yahoo (a bit different) but not in a good place.

2) But, photographers are always looking for cheaper ways to do things.
Freeware is wonderful. If it's really free. And it appears that
Photoshop is less costly than Gimp. Gimp is known amongst
photographers, and those editors you talk about faithfully mention it or
write in detail about it in the magazines whenever they pan imaging s/w.

For the most part photographers and graphics people try it and discard it.

Everyone wants a freelunch, believe me.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
While I don't feel like going through that old nugget of human
factors engineering: counting steps, mouse clicks and changes
of user operating contexts to come up with the number of steps
for each of photoshop and gimp for a given operation or a salad
bowl of operations, it is clear to me every time I use gimp
that it takes more mouse moves, more keystrokes and more clicks
to do a selection of common tasks.
In the example above, it takes one click to do something you
described as taking several. That doesn't add a lot of
credibility to your comparisons.
I would like to see you try to do a proper USM of a very large
image in a few clicks. Yes, you can "USM" the image in a few
clicks. But examine it in the detail required in all the places
required in Gimp is foolishly long compared to photoshop.

You've tried it the convenient way provided in The GIMP, so you can
make that comparison? I mean, up until a few hours ago you didn't
even know that method existed.


Ahem. Since in PS the effect of USM is immediately viewable everywhere
that the image is viewable, anything else would be (at least) an
additional step. See?
As I said in an earlier post, I often do a strict minimum of things
to an image. And that is the test I take to gimp.

Taking a test to any software that you don't know is not really a
test of the software.

The series described below is so basic and top level that it has no
excuse to be encumbered.


-open -set the DPI for print (Nikon scanner sets this to 4000
unfortunately) -rotate if required (for portrait or small leveling
adjustments). -crop if required -adjust brightness/contrast or set
white point. -save as working master -resize for display or print
-USM -save as JPG or TIFF according to end use

I very rarely print, but other than that, hes, I do those things with
most images.

The above steps are very basic. And they take more 'little' steps
in gimp than they do in ps. Esp. USM on a 8800 x 8800 print copy
(which is not common, but 7200 x 7200 // 4500 x 4500 // 3600 x 3600
is common).

I don't know what "USM" is; I suspect it's PS jargon.

Ahem. UnSharpMask. Same as in Gimp. It's a method that predates
computer image processing.

Oh. Yeah. I'm not used to the abbreviation.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

"Alan Browne" wrote:

Ahem. Since in PS the effect of USM is immediately viewable everywhere
that the image is viewable, anything else would be (at least) an
additional step. See?

It's even better than that. When you scroll the image, the new part of the
image brought into view doesn't have USM applied. When you let go of the
scroll handle, USM gets applied. Seriously convenient.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

* David J. Littleboy wrote :
"Alan Browne" wrote:

Ahem. Since in PS the effect of USM is immediately viewable everywhere
that the image is viewable, anything else would be (at least) an
additional step. See?

It's even better than that. When you scroll the image, the new part of the
image brought into view doesn't have USM applied. When you let go of the
scroll handle, USM gets applied. Seriously convenient.

Even cooler - Instead of using the basic USM supplied with GIMP
there's a (free of course) plugin called "sharpen (smart redux)"
where it adds the smart sharpening to another layer so you can
adjust the opacity to increase or decrease the effect. It only
targets edges so noise, bokeh etc isnt' sharpened.

This plugin can also use the "refocus" plugin to supplement the
above.

No idea if there's similar plugins for PS, and don't care. Just
letting you know there are better options than just USM for GIMP.

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

* Troy Piggins wrote :
* David J. Littleboy wrote :
"Alan Browne" wrote:

Ahem. Since in PS the effect of USM is immediately viewable everywhere
that the image is viewable, anything else would be (at least) an
additional step. See?

It's even better than that. When you scroll the image, the new part of the
image brought into view doesn't have USM applied. When you let go of the
scroll handle, USM gets applied. Seriously convenient.

Even cooler - Instead of using the basic USM supplied with GIMP
there's a (free of course) plugin called "sharpen (smart redux)"
where it adds the smart sharpening to another layer so you can
adjust the opacity to increase or decrease the effect. It only
targets edges so noise, bokeh etc isnt' sharpened.

This plugin can also use the "refocus" plugin to supplement the
above.

No idea if there's similar plugins for PS, and don't care. Just
letting you know there are better options than just USM for GIMP.

Dammit - forgot to change the Subject header.

shakes fist at Alan Browne /

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.