On 6/22/06, Joey Marshall wrote:

Now for my suggestion on the website. I think it would be very helpful for have a section that would be like a cross between an FAQ and a help desk.

I like this idea. I've seen faq-o-matics that have worked well. http://faqomatic.sourceforge.net/fom-serve/cache/1.html

On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 09:39:57PM -0400, Joey Marshall wrote:

I don't know if this would be better going to a different list... so sorry if this is going to the wrong place!

eh, the list isn't being used as often as it used to be and this is more like the gimp-user list of the old days that i used to enjoy so much. out of appreciation, for the sweetness of this letter and for the memory of how wonderful it used to be, i am actually glad to respond.

And the "Gimp vrs photoshop" means that I will be comparing two of the features of the two... not to argue one better than the other.

the success of gimp has been to not compete with Photoshop. when we fail is probably when there is a lot of people pasting things they read or making everyone feel bad because software(TM) doesn't work as well as software(GPL). if you look at how business is run, GIMP doesn't have any to run. on the otherhand, there is a group of people whose life and happiness depend on selling software. that business has actually in the time i have been involved with GIMP congealed into one big group macromedia, adobe and a few others are now all the same. poor gimp has gotten an aqua theme from this merger. dunno how i feel about that.

sometimes, i clear my mind of the noise by considering that it is out of politeness that gimp waits for photoshop to get safely into first place again. like, how big is there web design group and what is the smallest computer they use? when you answer questions like this and consider the people who make gimp, you kinda have to laugh.

so sure, photoshop does a lot that GIMP doesn't. some of those things might actually be useful....

Anyway, I have been a gimp user for quite a while, And I have learned how to harness a lot of the power underneath it's features.

i suggest that you would be able to work with any pixel manipulating application and probably end up chuckling at the different words they use or some of the "we think you are probably retarded" gui decisions they make. after working with me and linux and then upgrading to windows XP, my friend saw that the windows machine that made that thing were comparing her to a teletubbie with that default desktop image.

i remember when i compared gimp-1.2 to photoshop5, i was extremely disappointed with how much photoshop really could not do compared to gimp. the availability of the canned effects only made me chuckle.

BUT, that takes a lot of time! And I'm sure there are a lot of things I don't know how to do (as far as effects go).

I was reading on a forum where this guy was posting that his son is an all out photoshop user, and would often challenge him to do something in gimp that he did in photoshop. He said that he was always able to do it. I know I can't... as well as a lot of other people (especially those just learning it).

personally, i haven't had a human being challenge me, but i have managed to do any tutorial i found. there might be one exception to this -- i cannot remember it specifically. i got bored with a magazine i purchased to try to make the tutorials with.

I had tried out photoshop to see what it was like. And was able to get the hang of it within a few hours because of it's similarities to the gimp (Note: I use Gimp for web development... which is what I was messing around with photoshop with. I did not explore the photo editing of photoshop).

some of their photo effects work but look silly. i saw one where the time of day was changed by a lighting plug-in. occasionally, when i see this used on television, i chuckle.

There are two main differences that stood out to me.

The first is the amount of affects and tools available. Photoshop had far more than the gimp. It's menus are allot longer. I don't like that. Gimp's tools are more flexible. Like I can make a glow by using a white scriptfu shadow with a 0 offset (this concerns my idea for the website).

the developers are trying to keep the menus shorter. i realized when i tried to do something with them a while back that i am too much of a menu nester. logic does not always make the best gui this way.

The second is the way the filters are applied. I like how photoshop does it better. Instead of applying to the image itself... it acts more like a filter. You apply it to the layer. So say you put a shadow on it. When you edit the layer, the shadow updates as well.
They only had this for the simpler effects it seems though (ones that didn't take a lot of time to apply). I found that very nice for designing web designs.
Photoshops snapping was also pretty cool... but not cool enough to want in the gimp.

layer effects. i have heard and heard about these. since photoshop was not written well enough to run on linux without a helper library i am too much of a linux snob to use, i have not tried or seen this yet.

it was explained to me much like you explained it here.

i have seen discussions of guessing how they do this and how they make their previews.

i am going to try to explain gegl. i might fail in accurately explaining it. it should be like a new canvas layer which will work the way that photoshop is doing their magic. it is really difficult for me sometimes to understand this layer or the need for it or that it really exists. i see gimp working on pixels. to me, this is all that happens. photoshop has managed to hide the layers from the users view. to me, when it is explained to me, it is like a very intelligent preview.

heck, for what i understand, it is probably almost the same thing as GIMP's jpeg preview now, only it does more. all the developers will say about that is that it sucks. when they say that, i would like to think they mean it is written poorly. they might actually be steering interested peoples attention from it. or the preview that you get with any of the transformation tools might be a better example. or levels. the levels preview right on the image is really impressive and i think not unlike what is described from the layers effects.

Now I guess those two things are just my opinion. So you may disagree with me on that.

my experience with the snapping is that if photoshop users do not snap their work when they are finished, they might have a near sighted linux friend who will see this.

i had to expand the view to 400% and circle it to show her. i am not perfect, but it is too easy to make pixels be perfect.

what i saw was that if photoshop had gimp guides, an extra step that is sometimes forgotten will not be taken. looks cool is only that.

the gimp guides work much more reliably to accomplish the same thing.

Now for my suggestion on the website. I think it would be very helpful for have a section that would be like a cross between an FAQ and a help desk.

when they attempted to collect a FAQ, everyone was so excited that the rules of the mailing were violated almost from the beginning and i actually cannot remember how that turned out.

probably tempers flared. gimp has a way of attracting 1)passionate users and 2)"usability experts"

Basically, people could post their questions on how to get a desired effect on an image. Then other people who know how could answer these questions in the form of an example. Then all the questions and answers would be indexed (maybe according to rating) in an FAQ format. That way, if someone who was new to gimp wanted to know how to put a white glow around their image, they could look their. If no one has asked that question, they could. And then it would be answered once and for all, for all people!

gimptalk and the gimp user group attempted this: http://gug.sunsite.dk/
http://www.gimptalk.com/

to me, it takes a lot of strength and other things to filter for quality. i thought for a little while about how to do this and started to work on my own website instead. where i am the only person who needs to be filtered and checked for quality. that in itself can be such a handful of problems.

i said no to one single tutorial one time. i still am sorry for doing that and having to do that.

and, i am trying to be in charge of the web sites on wilber, the gimp computer. perhaps i should step down. on the otherhand, the same thing has happened to me and the site i was instrumental in making that happened to the web site that adrian and jtl made: http://classic.gimp.org
upgrade and change will not necessarily make things better.

i have scheduled a tutorial review. okay, using the word scheduled is probably misleading in that i have no idea of a date it is scheduled for. i am sort of a team person. there has been a definate lack of team players for a while with the people i am/havebeen/intendto keep working with.

my fallback will always be that novell and adobe need catch up time in order to stay commercially viable. sad that they needed to hire gimp and gtk+ people. my faith lies in the fact that federico@novell.com and jimmac@novell.com (and others) will not screw up gimp too much while they are working for the "enemy". obviously, the corporation was in need of great help and support that they had to hire people from this development environment to help them.

pathetic if you think it through with a business sense. and sad.

Anyone else think this would be a good idea? I think it would be quite helpful.

at the end, the collection would be helpful. getting it though, that seems really ugly. the web is very anonymous. people take advantage of things like this to paste crap that was written years and years ago just to make trouble or be a pain. just to feel like a ripple or something.

BTW, does anyone know how to make an 'inner glow' on a shape?

tigert can do this. also, he no longer works for the enemy so you can probably trust the images he makes.

a thought about inner glow tho' are all joe created equally?

carol

BTW, does anyone know how to make an 'inner glow' on a shape?

I posted a tutorial on GIMPtalk which covers shadows and glows. It doesn't cover 'inner glows' specifically (that is left as an exercise for the user) but it might give you a nudge in the right direction. It might not even be the best approach, I was trying to come up with a methodology which was easy to describe and to remember while still being flexible. The easiest solution to shadows and glows is probably Iicci's "Layer Effects" plug-in but I wanted some visual feedback of what I was doing (as opposed to just enterring numbers). Like most of the tutorials (and scripts) that I've written, since writing it I have learned so much that I feel I should rewrite it incorporating what I have learned.

Tutorial link:

http://www.gimptalk.com/forum/topic/Shadows-And-Glows-3-d-Effects-4624-1.html

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Joey Marshall wrote:

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:39:57 -0400 From: Joey Marshall
To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: [Gimp-user] Website idea and comments on Gimp vrs photoshop

I don't know if this would be better going to a different list... so sorry if this is going to the wrong place!

And the "Gimp vrs photoshop" means that I will be comparing two of the features of the two... not to argue one better than the other.

It doesn't have to be *versus*, both can be useful for different things.

I was reading on a forum where this guy was posting that his son is an all out photoshop user, and would often challenge him to do something in gimp that he did in photoshop.

Depends on what you ask and how well you know your software. It all comes down to changing the colour of pixels and I've seen some amazing work created using only mspaint. Different software might allow you to get more work done faster

There are two main differences that stood out to me.

The first is the amount of affects and tools available.

Adobe have provided limited support to third party developers over the years allowing them to create PSD files and third party plugins. Using the PSPI plugin* by Tor Lillqvist you will be able to use some of these plugins with the GNU Image Manipulation program if you want.

The second is the way the filters are applied. I like how photoshop does it better. Instead of applying to the image itself... it acts more like a filter. You apply it to the layer.

There is a request for these kinds of live layer filters in bugzilla. (Photoshop has normal filters too.)

Now for my suggestion on the website. I think it would be very helpful for have a section that would be like a cross between an FAQ and a help desk.

It might be appropriate to use the Wiki for that kind of information but it depends what you have in mind and the developers want.

Basically, people could post their questions on how to get a desired effect on an image.

People use the lists for this kind of thing, also places like Deviant Art and the GUG
http://gug.sunsite.dk/

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:18:35PM -0400, Joey Marshall wrote:

On 6/24/06, Alan Horkan wrote:

It doesn't have to be *versus*, both can be useful for different things.

no, I'm not arguing one better than the other...

that actually could be funny though.

actually i have seen so many web sites and opinions tauting photoshops superiority that i think it is about time for gimp to make such a web site.

it could be a two sided tutorial. photoshop on the left, gimp on the right. show how easy it is to do things with photoshop and how difficult it is to do with gimp.

maybe we could even work out a deal with amazon where we get some of the proceeds for selling photoshop.

we could actually make money keeping them alive.

There are two main differences that stood out to me.

The first is the amount of affects and tools available.

hmm, maybe someone should ask Sven Neumann and/or Mitch Natterer to refresh our memories about the differences between what is considered a tool and what is considered a plug-in.

The second is the way the filters are applied. I like how photoshop does it better. Instead of applying to the image itself... it acts more like a filter. You apply it to the layer.

There is a request for these kinds of live layer filters in bugzilla. (Photoshop has normal filters too.)

Now for my suggestion on the website. I think it would be very helpful for have a section that would be like a cross between an FAQ and a help desk.

It might be appropriate to use the Wiki for that kind of information but it depends what you have in mind and the developers want.

I'm a web developer. And could quickly create a website to do it. :) I just wouldn't want to if noone would be interested in something like it.

do not mention the acronym php.

Basically, people could post their questions on how to get a desired effect on an image.

People use the lists for this kind of thing, also places like Deviant Art and the GUG
http://gug.sunsite.dk/

There are two problems with the these three methods that I can see. The number 1 reason is that a lot of people won't use them. A lot of people don't even know what mailing lists are. Or won't want to register on a forum just to ask a question. The next big reason I don't think those methods are good enough, is that not everyone will find them... I sure didn't with google.

"good enough" is a some what relative phrase.

i think it would be more fun and interesting to write tutorials about how gimp sucks compared to photoshop and sell copies of photoshop there. if google doesn't work to find things, whose fault is it?

if you search for "gimp" with googles moderately safe search filter, you will find both of those things.

Also, the same things get asked over and over. The idea behind an FAQ is to answer those questions asked over and over again once and for all... so to speak.

if we did something completely interesting like selling photoshop and write tutorials demonstrating photoshops superiority; we would not have to figure out how to get google or those other sites to work the way you expect.

I think it should also be located (or linked to) on the official gimp website. People will find it a lot faster that way.

the site needs a redesign. i make all web sites look like gtk or gimp widgets lately. i don't know if that is such a good thing for the main page at www.gimp.org. the apparatus for remaking the web site is almost there. the site now needs an html and css redesign.

i am actually frightened to ask drc to do this since i kicked him in Norway.

any thoughts?

You may see things differently than that, and that's ok. We all are entitled to our own opinions :)

this is where gimp gets stuck.

carol

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 01:13:56PM -0400, Joey Marshall wrote:

do not mention the acronym php.

Is 'py' better? :)
I use django and turbogears. They make web development a lot easier. I came from php about 7 or 8 months ago... never to return.

if py means python, it seems to be easier to get that installed on gimps computer.

But PS isn't better than GIMP... that's the problem! lol

the people who disagree with you will go away though, if we write the tutorials that way.

i am actually frightened to ask drc to do this since i kicked him in Norway.

any thoughts?

not everyone uses the default gtk theme... I personally think it looks ugly (the one thing I don't like about gimp under KDE)

well, the web site is not going to be like kde vs gtk.

is it now? i didn't mean to kick him. i was making a joke actually.

the theme that is being used on all of the gimp web sites right now is fine. is it old though. or is it?

at what point did we start to speak about the toolkit icons?

carol

Quoting Joey Marshall :

Thanks, but for an outer glow, I much preffer to use the scriptfu shadow; Make the color white and change the x and y offset to 0. This works very will for me.... and it is quick :)

On 6/23/06, saulgoode@brickfilms.com wrote:

BTW, does anyone know how to make an 'inner glow' on a shape?

I posted a tutorial on GIMPtalk which covers shadows and glows.

Ahh, I thought you wished to learn *how* to make an inner glow whereas what you really wanted to know is how to select options on a particular user interface ;-).

Personally, I hope GIMP doesn't ever become the "GNU Dialog Box Manipulation Program".