![]() Ich habe eine auf dem HD und eine auf einen USB angegeben. In den Application Preferences kann ich mehrere Library Sources vorgeben. If they could be this issue would have already been fixed long ago.Ob dies ein Feature Request oder ein Bugreport ist weiß ich nicht. If somebody worries that the toolbox is getting crammed, just add a way to remove tools from it.Īll that aside, there is also a larger issue with the lack of those tools, namely that tools can't be plug-ins, so any new tool has to be done directly in Gimp and can't be supplied as an add-on. Name a good reason why Gimp shouldn't have a set of geometry tools. And of course also usability, lack of proper circle tools has been an issue for a decade and yet it is still not fixed and still continues to be an issue and the issue won't go away by pretending its not there. Stroking a selection gives a rather ugly circles compared to a real circle tools, since to much information gets lost along the way. Why create entirely different "line", "rectangle", "polygon", and "ellipse" tools when "stroke selection" and "stroke path" do all of those - and more?įor one reason because they don't. Today, I have it (under Hardy Heron) installed on my non-production workstation, and have no doubt that in years to come, it may very well become a full-fledged alternative to Photoshop. It even plays fairly nicely with RAW files from my cameras. The GIMP has come a long way since I first started playing with Linux about 10 years ago. #DOCK AND UNDOCK MENUS INKSCAPE PROFESSIONAL#Keep in mind that more than half the professional photographers out there are self-employed, and the time required to learn a new toolset can be killer. Generally speaking, some of the resizing plugins and effects plugins that we have come to count on are not available for GIMP, and even if the same thing can be accomplished with a different set of tools, we're disinclined to learn them. typically deployed in, say, advertising post is probably more than can be reasonably handled by the GIMP.Īdmittedly, some of that sentiment may come from my being a lot more comfortable in Photoshop than GIMP. The more advanced layering, color conversions, spot toning, etc. On the commercial, every-photo-is-a-painting side, the GIMP might be a bit of a hindrance. I don't have a whole lot of experience with making multimedia presentations (audio slideshows, etc.) for Web and screen display in the GIMP/Linux, so I'll leave that alone for now. Making stuff screen-ready can easily be accomplished in the GIMP as well. The EXIF/XMP/IPTC stuff hurts bad (please, please, please, please FIX THIS), but the actual post went fine. In fact, for funzies, I just did a complete start-to-finish editorial shoot post in GIMP 2.4. The level of editing (painting) done to editorial photos is minimal by standard ethical practice and so really the tool need only be able to crop, resample, dust spot and adjust the exposure. Pre-press does the CYMK conversion and Web crop, usually. sRGB colorspace and 8 bits-per-pixel are more than enough. Files are then compressed to clock in at betweek 650kb-900kb. There is not a single application I can think of where someone working as a photojournalist would ever need more than what the GIMP offers.įile submission standard for newsprint is still 10 inches on the long axis 200 ppi. Sure, CS3 is still my editor of choice, but the GIMP is moving ever-closer to being a viable option. I am a professional commercial photographer and editorial photojournalist. )Īctually, that's not necessarily the case. and I certainly agree that Ol' Gimpo needs at least 16bpc, but preferable 32bpc, workflow. so yes, I know very *very* well what the advantages are. Oh, and I'm a graphics professional - I work with 32bpc imagery all the time as sometimes that's what you need to run film footage through extensive colorgrading processes without incurring losses. In short, GP's parent poster acts a bit like an audiophile, claiming that every non-goldplated-connector is completely useless for listening to music the moment goldplated-connectors became available. That never stopped anybody from processing photos in the past, why should it now? Clearly it's nice if you -can- work in 16bit, but it's not going to stop hundreds of thousands of people from working with photographs for the sole reason that 16bit is unavailable. and it still doesn't on a ton of commands. Not too long ago, Photoshop didn't do 16bpc itself. Unless you're shooting RAW (DNG, 16-bit TIFF, EXR or whatever your camera supports there), you're not going to get those 12 bits anyway. I think that what GP is getting at is that. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |