I am not very technically minded, I am afraid, but how would adding colour be difficult? Isn't that just a matter of using three 'subpixels' for each coloured 'pixel', one cyan, one magenta and one yellow?
Layers are mainly useful for compositing, which is job that no imaging program (that I know of) performs exclusively. So it could indeed be argued that Paint programs could use a compositing module, as some painters will want to make collages. I still don't see how that makes Photoshop a better paint program than real paint programs.
Do you have lots of free time? There are as many ways to touch up photos as there are ways to take bad photos in the first place.
A very good book, not just for GIMP users, is Grokking the GIMP. You can download it or read it for free at the author's site or buy it in any decent bookstore. The author's site requires Javascript for some weird reason, the GIMP User Group has a scriptless version that works just as well.
"Check out some of the crappy consumer-level paint programs out there. Photoshop is miles ahead in usability."
If you're trying to say that Photoshop is a much more usable photo editor than all the paint programs out there, I can follow you. After all, paint programs are trying to be paint programs and photo editors are trying to be photo editors.
Have you ever used a real paint program for image creation?
Re:Missing the point of CMYK?
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 1
"I've often pondered this short-sighted way of doing business, and wondered how businesses can be talked into contributing to OSS projects."
Probably by opening your mouth with the president of the company present, then using that open mouth to bring forward arguments for using the GIMP.
That's why large companies in the movie industry (Disney, Sony, R&H, ILM) either use a version of the GIMP, or have contemplated doing so; if you've got a 100 people working on cleaning up frames, 1 coder to make these 100 people work more efficiently might just pay off.
You are working from the assumption that large companies with large software needs do not care about FOSS, and that's simply a wrong assumption. SUN probably did not buy StarOffice to compete with Microsoft in the office software market, but because for a large company like SUN, it actually made more sense to pay programmers to maintain their own office software then to pay a third party for licenses. Having Gates and Balmer foam at the mouth and make a few extra bucks through licenses would just have been a nice side-effect.
However, there are several forms in which the GIMP either supports (very simple forms of) CMYK or is made ready to support CMYK:
1) The colour chooser has got a CMYK mode, in which you can set the four values and black reduction (or whatever it's called--I'm running the Dutch version here).
2) There's a Decompose colour filter (this used to be part of the Image menu, now is part of Filters/Color) that will let you split up an image into CMYK separations.
3) Image/Display Filters provide a way to see an RGB image through 'different eyes'. I could not find a CMYK filter in there, but undoubtedly somebody could build it.
"For instance, I frequently draw shapes (you know, circles, squares, rectangles, etc). In Fireworks, Sodipodi, and almost every other image creation/manipulation program I have used, this is a very simple task, and very easy to figure out how to do (click on icon, click on canvas, drag mouse, release button--bingo!).
In GIMP, I still don't know how to do this. I probably never will. Why not? Because this is a task that I use a lot, and if a program is going to make me work for that, then I don't want to use that program."
GIMP does not let you draw shapes with ease for the same reason that your MP3 player and your word processor and the latest game you bought don't: because none of them are image creation programs. If you want to draw, use Illustrator or Sodipodi or MS Paint.
GIMP is a tool for the manipulation of bitmap photos. That's why people compare it to tools like Photoshop.
Yes, see http://bugzilla.gnome.org (which, for some explainable reason now points at the Gnome homepage and the lovely Jonita Prifti... ah, where was I?)
Just to give you folks some info about what's going on at PG.
First of all, PG is not against any other formats than plain vanilla text. However, because of the accessibility and future-proofness of that format, every text that PG will ever produce will also be published as plain vanilla text. It is the one format we will always produce, of many.
XML formats are being discussed. The idea is that we will produce XML files that will be used as storage format, from which at the very least the plain vanilla texts will be produced, and further more any format we care to support (most likely at least HTML and PDF).
The problem with these technologies is that they require volunteers to implement them.
Currently the biggest producer of ebooks for PG is Distributed Proofreaders (DP). This is a web-based, distributed application for the correction and formatting of ebooks. DP has a long list of guidelines of the sort of information that needs to be retained. At the moment, we keep more information than is required by PG, and a lot of this extra information runs the risk of being discarded. One of the solutions to this problem that volunteers have devised is producing their own HTML and XML etexts. Please read our newsletter article The Illustrated Masterpieces of Project Gutenberg to see some recent examples.
The Distributed Proofreaders would love to see a solution for the conservation problem. We want our ebooks to look good. It's the natural effect of putting ten thousand nit-pickers in the same room.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not very technically minded, I am afraid, but how would adding colour be difficult? Isn't that just a matter of using three 'subpixels' for each coloured 'pixel', one cyan, one magenta and one yellow?
Layers are mainly useful for compositing, which is job that no imaging program (that I know of) performs exclusively. So it could indeed be argued that Paint programs could use a compositing module, as some painters will want to make collages. I still don't see how that makes Photoshop a better paint program than real paint programs.
Do you have lots of free time? There are as many ways to touch up photos as there are ways to take bad photos in the first place.
A very good book, not just for GIMP users, is Grokking the GIMP. You can download it or read it for free at the author's site or buy it in any decent bookstore. The author's site requires Javascript for some weird reason, the GIMP User Group has a scriptless version that works just as well.
"Check out some of the crappy consumer-level paint programs out there. Photoshop is miles ahead in usability."
If you're trying to say that Photoshop is a much more usable photo editor than all the paint programs out there, I can follow you. After all, paint programs are trying to be paint programs and photo editors are trying to be photo editors.
Have you ever used a real paint program for image creation?
"I've often pondered this short-sighted way of doing business, and wondered how businesses can be talked into contributing to OSS projects."
Probably by opening your mouth with the president of the company present, then using that open mouth to bring forward arguments for using the GIMP.
That's why large companies in the movie industry (Disney, Sony, R&H, ILM) either use a version of the GIMP, or have contemplated doing so; if you've got a 100 people working on cleaning up frames, 1 coder to make these 100 people work more efficiently might just pay off.
You are working from the assumption that large companies with large software needs do not care about FOSS, and that's simply a wrong assumption. SUN probably did not buy StarOffice to compete with Microsoft in the office software market, but because for a large company like SUN, it actually made more sense to pay programmers to maintain their own office software then to pay a third party for licenses. Having Gates and Balmer foam at the mouth and make a few extra bucks through licenses would just have been a nice side-effect.
I am not sure what that button should do.
However, there are several forms in which the GIMP either supports (very simple forms of) CMYK or is made ready to support CMYK:
1) The colour chooser has got a CMYK mode, in which you can set the four values and black reduction (or whatever it's called--I'm running the Dutch version here).
2) There's a Decompose colour filter (this used to be part of the Image menu, now is part of Filters/Color) that will let you split up an image into CMYK separations.
3) Image/Display Filters provide a way to see an RGB image through 'different eyes'. I could not find a CMYK filter in there, but undoubtedly somebody could build it.
Preferences/Display Windows/Appearance:
deselect Show Menu Bar
"For instance, I frequently draw shapes (you know, circles, squares, rectangles, etc). In Fireworks, Sodipodi, and almost every other image creation/manipulation program I have used, this is a very simple task, and very easy to figure out how to do (click on icon, click on canvas, drag mouse, release button--bingo!).
In GIMP, I still don't know how to do this. I probably never will. Why not? Because this is a task that I use a lot, and if a program is going to make me work for that, then I don't want to use that program."
GIMP does not let you draw shapes with ease for the same reason that your MP3 player and your word processor and the latest game you bought don't: because none of them are image creation programs. If you want to draw, use Illustrator or Sodipodi or MS Paint.
GIMP is a tool for the manipulation of bitmap photos. That's why people compare it to tools like Photoshop.
"After I hit Print Scrn I don't see any way to paste it into GIMP. After creating a new image the Paste option is not enabled."
<Image>/Edit/Paste from Clipboard
The internal GIMP clipboard is incompatible with that of the operating system, that's why.
This looks like the problem discussed in the Usenet newsgroup comp.graphics.apps.gimp. Does that discussion help you solve your problem?
Yes, see http://bugzilla.gnome.org (which, for some explainable reason now points at the Gnome homepage and the lovely Jonita Prifti... ah, where was I?)
Just to give you folks some info about what's going on at PG.
First of all, PG is not against any other formats than plain vanilla text. However, because of the accessibility and future-proofness of that format, every text that PG will ever produce will also be published as plain vanilla text. It is the one format we will always produce, of many.
XML formats are being discussed. The idea is that we will produce XML files that will be used as storage format, from which at the very least the plain vanilla texts will be produced, and further more any format we care to support (most likely at least HTML and PDF).
The problem with these technologies is that they require volunteers to implement them.
Currently the biggest producer of ebooks for PG is Distributed Proofreaders (DP). This is a web-based, distributed application for the correction and formatting of ebooks. DP has a long list of guidelines of the sort of information that needs to be retained. At the moment, we keep more information than is required by PG, and a lot of this extra information runs the risk of being discarded. One of the solutions to this problem that volunteers have devised is producing their own HTML and XML etexts. Please read our newsletter article The Illustrated Masterpieces of Project Gutenberg to see some recent examples.
The Distributed Proofreaders would love to see a solution for the conservation problem. We want our ebooks to look good. It's the natural effect of putting ten thousand nit-pickers in the same room.
--Branko Collin
Harley did not patet the sound their motors produce, they did not patent it either, IIRC. They probably trademarked it.