[artzy65]

Evildave, on 10 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

It usually means it's the only thing they know how to use, and all other things are 'garbage' to them, because they have such a visceral reaction to all the horrors of learning something different in the same way.

That's just foolish.

[linuxrants7xpg]

artzy65, on 10 May 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Surely people can compare products and decide for themselves.

Telling people not to bother with even looking circumvents that process doesn't it? Let them decide for themselves.

artzy65, on 10 May 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Any veteran Photoshop user will come to the same conclusion that I have; while a veteran Gimp user will most likely find the latest version of Gimp encouraging.

Again, making assumptions for other people. There very well may be veteran Photoshop users that find they really like GIMP, and it fulfills all their needs. Equally, there may be veteran GIMP users who decide to pay for Photoshop after they've tried it. Unmentioned by you, not every person is a veteran Photoshop user OR a veteran GIMP user. How about you let other people decide for themselves, and stop encouraging people to move on without looking at their options?

[Evildave]

artzy65, on 10 May 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Evildave, on 10 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

It usually means it's the only thing they know how to use, and all other things are 'garbage' to them, because they have such a visceral reaction to all the horrors of learning something different in the same way.

That's just foolish.

I know, but that's the way most artists are.

The more 'veteran', the higher the mountain looks, when considering trying anything else.

[artzy65]

Evildave, on 11 May 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

artzy65, on 10 May 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Evildave, on 10 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

It usually means it's the only thing they know how to use, and all other things are 'garbage' to them, because they have such a visceral reaction to all the horrors of learning something different in the same way.

That's just foolish.

I know, but that's the way most artists are.

The more 'veteran', the higher the mountain looks, when considering trying anything else.

No, I meant your comment was foolish, because you have to separate professionals from people who don't need top-end pro software. For instance, Gimp is simply not capable of producing a smooth, quick workflow as compared to Photoshop https://wiki.archlin...IMP#Limitations

Pros need the horsepower supplied by high-end tools like Photoshop. I need Dreamweaver, not iWeb. I need QuarkXPress or InDesign, not MSWord or Pages. Photoshop, not Gimp.

Pro artists know what tools are best for them.

This post has been edited by artzy65: 11 May 2012 - 09:51 AM

[artzy65]

linuxrants7xpg, on 10 May 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

artzy65, on 10 May 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Surely people can compare products and decide for themselves.

Telling people not to bother with even looking circumvents that process doesn't it? Let them decide for themselves.

artzy65, on 10 May 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Any veteran Photoshop user will come to the same conclusion that I have; while a veteran Gimp user will most likely find the latest version of Gimp encouraging.

Again, making assumptions for other people. There very well may be veteran Photoshop users that find they really like GIMP, and it fulfills all their needs. Equally, there may be veteran GIMP users who decide to pay for Photoshop after they've tried it. Unmentioned by you, not every person is a veteran Photoshop user OR a veteran GIMP user. How about you let other people decide for themselves, and stop encouraging people to move on without looking at their options?

I didn't tell anyone not to bother with Gimp... I posted to nonseq, not the thread in general... I said I found the line funny. You are putting people down by implying that they would be frightened off by a mere zinger.

Gimp is not an option for a top-end professional. If some Photoshop user is going to switch to Gimp, then he's gong to be disappointed if he is a professional designer. For example:
https://wiki.archlin...IMP#Limitations

This post has been edited by artzy65: 11 May 2012 - 11:52 AM

[linuxrants7xpg]

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

I didn't tell anyone not to bother with Gimp... I posted to nonseq, not the thread in general... I said I found the line funny.

Everything you post to these threads goes to the thread in general. Unless you send a private message, it's read by everybody. What nonseq posted is irrelevant (and I make it a habit to not feed the trolls). You encouraged that response. In a general forum. You absolutely told everyone not to bother with GIMP.

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

You are putting people down by implying that they would be frightened off by a mere zinger.

First off, it's obvious that you and I don't share the definition of the word "zinger". Second of all, I'm not putting anybody down. What I'm saying is that when someone who has no experience with either application sees people with apparent experience telling them to not even bother with a particular product, they may take that seriously. Are you implying that your opinion is uninformed and should never been taken seriously?

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

Gimp is not an option for a top-end professional. If some Photoshop user is going to switch to Gimp, then he's gong to be disappointed if he is a professional designer.

Again, making assumptions for other people. You're just incapable of letting other people make up their own minds aren't you?

[nonseq]

linuxrants7xpg, on 11 May 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Again, making assumptions for other people. You're just incapable of letting other people make up their own minds aren't you?

Actually he's speaking from experience. He makes his living as a commercial artist. He knows the requirements for top notch work and I'll bet he networks with other commercial artists.

My experience is similar but on a much humbler scale. I do have a great deal of time at the bleeding edge of new media and production technologies. But still I'm no big fish.

Neither of us has said that folks should not use the GIMP or that the GIMP is not for ANYBODY. We have said it's not for everybody.

I made the comment that so riled you after reviewing the posted changes in the GIMP 2.8 and downloading the Windows version and trying it. I stand by my position that there is nothing to see in this upgrade, at least nothing of significant impact to the user (except perhaps 16bit color).

In my opinion, unstated by anyone else, the GIMP suffers from too many personalities in the development team and from the GNU General Public License. Others will disagree and that's their privilege. Some of the opinions will be valid but they will come from folks who have actually used the program and have worked in graphics for some time.

What is your expertise? Have you tried to use the GIMP in commercial applications? I've asked this before but would you pour us a cup of your experience?

[artzy65]

nonseq, on 11 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 11 May 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Again, making assumptions for other people. You're just incapable of letting other people make up their own minds aren't you?

Actually he's speaking from experience. He makes his living as a commercial artist. He knows the requirements for top notch work and I'll bet he networks with other commercial artists.

My experience is similar but on a much humbler scale. I do have a great deal of time at the bleeding edge of new media and production technologies. But still I'm no big fish.

Neither of us has said that folks should not use the GIMP or that the GIMP is not for ANYBODY. We have said it's not for everybody.

I made the comment that so riled you after reviewing the posted changes in the GIMP 2.8 and downloading the Windows version and trying it. I stand by my position that there is nothing to see in this upgrade, at least nothing of significant impact to the user (except perhaps 16bit color).

In my opinion, unstated by anyone else, the GIMP suffers from too many personalities in the development team and from the GNU General Public License. Others will disagree and that's their privilege. Some of the opinions will be valid but they will come from folks who have actually used the program and have worked in graphics for some time.

What is your expertise? Have you tried to use the GIMP in commercial applications? I've asked this before but would you pour us a cup of your experience?

You've pretty much nailed it, as usual.

[artzy65]

linuxrants7xpg, on 11 May 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

I didn't tell anyone not to bother with Gimp... I posted to nonseq, not the thread in general... I said I found the line funny.

Everything you post to these threads goes to the thread in general. Unless you send a private message, it's read by everybody. What nonseq posted is irrelevant (and I make it a habit to not feed the trolls). You encouraged that response. In a general forum. You absolutely told everyone not to bother with GIMP.

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

You are putting people down by implying that they would be frightened off by a mere zinger.

First off, it's obvious that you and I don't share the definition of the word "zinger". Second of all, I'm not putting anybody down. What I'm saying is that when someone who has no experience with either application sees people with apparent experience telling them to not even bother with a particular product, they may take that seriously. Are you implying that your opinion is uninformed and should never been taken seriously?

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

Gimp is not an option for a top-end professional. If some Photoshop user is going to switch to Gimp, then he's gong to be disappointed if he is a professional designer.

Again, making assumptions for other people. You're just incapable of letting other people make up their own minds aren't you?

If anything, a contrary opinion in relation to any software package can be nothing but helpful, in my opinion. A kind of heads up. Personally, before purchasing any tech stuff, I've always done considerable research. In this case I'd google 'Gimp issues' and 'Gimp reviews.' Right off the bat, the limitations described at this link render Gimp unsuitable for me: https://wiki.archlin...IMP#Limitations

This post has been edited by artzy65: 11 May 2012 - 05:26 PM

[42n81]

linuxrants7xpg, on 09 May 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

artzy65, on 09 May 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

You guys are so defensive... my original post in this thread just related why Gimp would be inadequate for my professional use. A poster immediately took umbrage, going 'balls-to-the-walls' in defense of Gimp and other open source freebies.

I don't care what you use for your own software. What pisses me off is when it's assumed that because it's not for you, it's not for anybody else either. "Nothing to see here." What a load of bullocks.

Hallelujah! He finally understands.

Now, if Linuxrants could only remember this line of reasoning next time he decides to post in Apple related threads, the ambient temperature in PCWorld forums might drop a few degrees.

[HankRearden]

Here we go again...

Anyone who deals with clients such as Warner Bros., MGM, Major League Baseball and studio artists such as Bob Dylan or those whom create graphics, layouts, photo quality images for product design, etc is highly unlikely going to get anything at all done with GIMP. When you work in this industry you have to be able to send your art to printers, layout artists, designers and others. Jobs are seldom a solo event. I've created ideas that costs studios $100,000 just for the concepts. A studio like MGM will want to see three or four, fully baked ideas just to ice one and they may not pick any of them and ask you to start over.

I'm sure the true professionals here will know exactly what I'm talking about. I can't count the number of times I've met someone who claims to have 15 years of experience and yet they can't listen to me dictate to them a specification and run with it. I am constantly creating stupid things like templates for common cases, disc faces, etc. Just tell me the dimensions and I'll have a template created about as fast as you can tell me what they are. Any case. 14mm, 15mm, 22mm, 25mm, 27mm, it doesn't matter. If I know what the front, back is, I just adjust the spine dimension and I'll have a template in two seconds. Others, it seems like it takes a decade to explain the most basic things. And I have a theory on this. My theory is that those that don't understand how to use the tools are the same people pirating the app, playing with it, and thinking they know what real artists and layout people know. They don't. They don't know what a spot color is. They don't know how to look up a color in a color book. They don't know how to let illustrator approximate a spot color into a process color. They don't understand that a real offset press usually has just 4 color ink towers and thus 4c is all you get unless you want to dry your printed sheets and run another pass. They don't understand the concept of deciding if you want to use spot vs process or what I'm talking about in the first place.

How many times have I had to explain to people how to make a custom flood plate using a black and white silhouette? I don't even want to count. Why black on black is a bad idea, and why you will likely have to employ spot UV if you really want that black on black. What is the difference between rich black and just black. What's a knock out. What's an over-print and on and on and on.

Why GIMP without CMYK is a D.O.A. for professionals. What's the difference between conversion and creation within a color space. What is a color space. Two topics I tried to cover a few days ago here, also regarding GIMP.

Seriously, NO ONE IS USING GIMP in a professional environment except maybe in film retouching. In all the years I've been doing this it's never been a question of if you use Photoshop, it's been a question of what version of Photoshop are you using. And it's not just Photoshop. I use Illustrator more than I use Photoshop. Virtually all templates, single page layouts, ads, and virtually any sketch needed to just get the idea across from my brain to someone else's eyes is done in illustrator. Photoshop is making that idea look photo-realistic. Photoshop is for, hey why is there a line right through the art, let's erase it. Lets treat the color for the layout. And then putting it all together in InDesign or Quark. Then showing it off as a PDF preview.

I don't see GIMP fitting any part of my workflows. Yeah, maybe someone who does nothing but web and never has to work with anyone else could get away with something other than Photoshop. But if you want to work in this field, know the tools we use. I'd almost say don't waste your time learning GIMP. It's not going to get you hired. Put GIMP on your résumé. See how far it takes you. Show a prospect you can easily integrate into their business with industry standard applications and that will get you a shot.

[artzy65]

HankRearden, on 11 May 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

I don't see GIMP fitting any part of my workflows. Yeah, maybe someone who does nothing but web and never has to work with anyone else could get away with something other than Photoshop. But if you want to work in this field, know the tools we use. I'd almost say don't waste your time learning GIMP. It's not going to get you hired. Put GIMP on your résumé. See how far it takes you. Show a prospect you can easily integrate into their business with industry standard applications and that will get you a shot.

Yep. Job postings in the industry always require expertise in Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXPress and/or InDesign, and Acrobat Pro.

This post has been edited by artzy65: 11 May 2012 - 07:24 PM

[linuxrants7xpg]

HankRearden, on 11 May 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Here we go again...

Anyone...

Sheesh, why is it that you can't just let people decide for themselves? Here, I'm going to rewrite your statement as it should be, and if you agree with it, we can just move on to something more consructive.

HankRearden -- Edited by Linux Rants, on 11 May 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

As someone who works with clients such as Warner Bros., MGM, Major League Baseball and studio artists such as Bob Dylan or those whom create graphics, layouts, photo quality images for product design, etc, it is highly unlikely I'm going to get anything at all done with GIMP. I have to be able to send my art to printers, layout artists, designers and others, and these jobs are seldom a solo event. I've created ideas that costs studios $100,000 just for the concepts. A studio like MGM will want to see three or four, fully baked ideas just to ice one and they may not pick any of them and ask you to start over.

I am constantly creating stupid things like templates for common cases, disc faces, etc. Just tell me the dimensions and I'll have a template created about as fast as you can tell me what they are. Any case. 14mm, 15mm, 22mm, 25mm, 27mm, it doesn't matter. If I know what the front, back is, I just adjust the spine dimension and I'll have a template in two seconds.

This is why, for me, GIMP without CMYK is a D.O.A.

I use Illustrator more than I use Photoshop. Virtually all templates, single page layouts, ads, and virtually any sketch needed to just get the idea across from my brain to someone else's eyes is done in Illustrator. Photoshop is making that idea look photo-realistic. Photoshop is for, hey why is there a line right through the art, let's erase it. Lets treat the color for the layout. And then putting it all together in InDesign or Quark. Then showing it off as a PDF preview.

I don't see GIMP fitting any part of my workflows, which is why GIMP is not for me, and may not be for others whose needs are similar to my own.

Personally speaking, that sounds much more appropriate. I could agree with that statement.

This post has been edited by linuxrants7xpg: 11 May 2012 - 08:13 PM

[linuxrants7xpg]

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

If anything, a contrary opinion in relation to any software package can be nothing but helpful, in my opinion. A kind of heads up.

There's a difference between contrary opinion, and telling people to not even try it. Say something more like, hey, this is why it doesn't work for me. If your needs are similar, it may not work for you either.

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Personally, before purchasing any tech stuff, I've always done considerable research. In this case I'd google 'Gimp issues' and 'Gimp reviews.' Right off the bat, the limitations described at this link render Gimp unsuitable for me: https://wiki.archlin...IMP#Limitations

Good for you! And if you had said something like that to begin with, I'd have been behind you all the way. So GIMP is unsuitable for you. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't even bother looking at it. Their needs could very well be different from yours, and GIMP may very well be suitable for them.

[artzy65]

linuxrants7xpg, on 11 May 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

If anything, a contrary opinion in relation to any software package can be nothing but helpful, in my opinion. A kind of heads up.

There's a difference between contrary opinion, and telling people to not even try it. Say something more like, hey, this is why it doesn't work for me. If your needs are similar, it may not work for you either.

artzy65, on 11 May 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Personally, before purchasing any tech stuff, I've always done considerable research. In this case I'd google 'Gimp issues' and 'Gimp reviews.' Right off the bat, the limitations described at this link render Gimp unsuitable for me: https://wiki.archlin...IMP#Limitations

Good for you! And if you had said something like that to begin with, I'd have been behind you all the way. So GIMP is unsuitable for you. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't even bother looking at it. Their needs could very well be different from yours, and GIMP may very well be suitable for them.

But I did say something like that right away.. a poster had said there was 'no reason' to not have Gimp on hand. I responded with the reasons why I need nothing more than Photoshop. I didn't say that no one should bother with Gimp. In fact, it wasn't even until post #21 that the 'nothing to see here' remark appeared. I responded positively to that remark because it made me LOL.

This post has been edited by artzy65: 11 May 2012 - 09:02 PM

[42n81]

linuxrants7xpg, on 11 May 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

HankRearden, on 11 May 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Here we go again...

Anyone...

Sheesh, why is it that you can't just let people decide for themselves? Here, I'm going to rewrite your statement as it should be, and if you agree with it, we can just move on to something more consructive.

Hey 'rants. What makes you so high and mighty that you can accuse people of not being able to "decide for themselves" after having read one, two or even ten professional opinions.

I am NOT a professional graphic designer, hardly even an amateur. The fact that these professionals even mention GIMP in the same sentence and take the trouble to state many of the reasons why it doesn't suit THEIR situation, gives me reason to try out the new version. In all likelihood I don't need to do many of the things which are extremely important to THEM.

I would rather have knowledgeable people tell me a THOUSAND reasons why they don't like something and be able to decide for MYSELF whether any of those reasons matter to ME. If you want to live in a world where nobody is allowed to say anything which conflicts with YOUR beliefs, you can wear ear plugs and a blindfold or simply "ignore" them. As for me, I learn more about myself and about them from people who disagree with me and challenge my beliefs than from a roomful of sycophants who nod in agreement to anything I say. Thankfully, the latter doesn't happen very often.

So when I finally choose whether I will spend a thousand bucks to have the tool professionals use or whether I simply download the free tool which will probably do everything I need, I will do so from a educated perspective.

I hope that your repressive stance is not representative of the "open" source community as it would cast a dark shadow upon what many perceive to be a noble pursuit.

[artzy65]

42n81, on 12 May 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

I am NOT a professional graphic designer, hardly even an amateur. The fact that these professionals even mention GIMP in the same sentence and take the trouble to state many of the reasons why it doesn't suit THEIR situation, gives me reason to try out the new version. In all likelihood I don't need to do many of the things which are extremely important to THEM.

If you have a Mac, you might want to try GraphicConverter, which is rated above Gimp in photo-editing functionality and available support. It's not free, but is only $40.00 in a slew of similar products which average $175.00 http://digital-photo...side-comparison

Also another big advantage is that GC has a CMYK color space, needed if you need to output to a commercial printer. Gimp does not supply that out-of-the box.

If you try these progs and find that you want to move beyond them at some point, you could get Photoshop Elements, which is only $99, has many of the features of its big brother, and of course the elegant, smooth UI of Adobe products. You can also get awesome Adobe 'Classroom in a Book' workbooks.
http://success.adobe...|S|b|8526162074

This post has been edited by artzy65: 12 May 2012 - 09:18 AM

[Evildave]

OMFG!

Yet another obscure and meaningless feature! No 'CMYK' mode, as if you can't export/convert to CMYK compatible images when you need to (seldom to never). As if RGB isn't converted to CMYK when you print. OMG, 'inaccurate'? WTF do you think emulating CMYK would be on your uncalibrated RGB display?

As if the plugins COST ANY MONEY.

More desperate grasping at obscure feature straws like all the other slaves to paid commercial software who heap scorn and hatred on top of all that is FREE and GOOD in the world.

BTW, the main reason not to use the GIMP 2.8 with the Mac is that it hasn't been ported to the Mac, yet. 2.6.12 is the latest version available.

The next most compelling reason is, clicking in the multiple window UI of current/earlier versions is annoying, because you have to click twice - once to give the window focus, once to make it happen in X11, as configured.

There's a convenient fix for that:

Under the 'X11' menu, pick 'Preferences...', go to the 'Windows' tab, and pick 'Click-through Inactive Windows'. You can use 'Focus Follows Mouse', too, if you want to see the buttons track while the mouse passes over them. These don't affect settings in 'native' OS X apps, just the ports from X11 (mostly originally Linux) apps.