[QUOTE=garychencool;49171390][url]http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2294811[/url]
Adobe is making it harder to import PSDs[/QUOTE]
Okay but your own example was a client asking you to send them a PSD, which is not affected by this. GIMP can still export PSDs just fine.
I'm not arguing for GIMP in "the industry", but that's a pretty dumb example.
Not to mention, being unable to open the newer PSDs is a temporary grievance. Adobe just changed the format a bit; GIMP can and will adapt soon enough. In addition, there's no evidence that Adobe is intentionally making PSDs harder to open; it was likely just a new feature that required a slight change.
[editline].[/editline]
Oh would you look at that, the latest version of GIMP has [URL="https://www.gimp.org/news/2015/11/22/20-years-of-gimp-release-of-gimp-2816/"]already fixed the issue[/URL].
[quote]New Releases and The Future
To celebrate the 20th anniversary, we released an update of the current stable version of GIMP. Newly released GIMP 2.8.16 features support for layer groups in OpenRaster files, [B]fixes for layer groups support in PSD[/B], various user interface improvements, OSX build system fixes, translation updates, and more changes.[/quote]
[QUOTE=garychencool;49171390][url]http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2294811[/url]
Adobe is making it harder to import PSDs[/QUOTE]
You'll be working with marginally older PSD standards sure, but it's still something Photoshop can open, and GIMP can usually understand. If your copy of Photoshop can't open a valid PSD because it's a few versions old that says more about the propriety software than it does the OSS.
GIMP does see a fair bit of use in industry. There are plenty of places that are averse to paying licence fees (shit, my employer doesn't use anything that costs money if they can avoid it, despite a paid Java IDE like IntelliJ not sucking a barrel of dicks). Photoshop made it's name as an industry standard because it used to be the only software doing it right. That isn't really the case any more. Other than a few features that are more shortcuts than outright features, you can do most everything in GIMP.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;49171258]Neither can Photoshop - raw images are run through a converter called Adobe Camera RAW before Photoshop can process it.
Such converters also exist for GIMP, such as UFRAW. Many cameras also come with their own software to convert raw images.
Just another case of you all not bothering to learn how to use the program then announcing it as "inferior".[/QUOTE]
No, Photoshop does support RAW. Camera RAW is used an import step because you are interpreting HDR data and it can come in with settings already pre-applied, which you can adjust and then save back out as nondestructive manipulation. This is not a conversion step. It is specifying how the input data being brought in is mapped into a dynamic range of output values. Control over this is necessary in order to work with light in a physical sense. After opening the file in Photoshop you get a 32-bit image that you can then work with and tonemap yourself without ACR, or export back out in any other supported 32-bit format. If this was not possible then you would be completely unable to process images in PS for rendering purposes. It's also often necessary to work between color spaces, in which the gamut of the color needs to be translated properly to fully maximize the data. And I don't even want to get into gamma correction, maximizing SnR, point is I could go on with the need for these kinds of features. Photoshop is one of the most powerful tools for this kind of work.
Please don't demean me by suggesting that I haven't actually used GIMP (or really any other piece of software since you're calling me out like this as if I do this habitually) and that I don't understand HDR. This is my profession. Anything I have to say is measured and based off the best of my understanding. If GIMP has added these features in a robust fashion then good on them, but I couldn't find anything to support that when making that post or now.
I use the word "conversion" loosely, perhaps incorrectly; I simply meant that Photoshop alone cannot interpret raw without Adobe Camera Raw.
Similarly, GIMP alone cannot interpret and manipulate raw data. But it can through the UFRaw plugin. This functionality has been available for GIMP for quite some time (late 2004, early 2005ish).
[editline].[/editline]
There's actually a [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Gimp-Photographers-Editing-Source-Software/dp/1933952032/sr=8-5/qid=1158251480/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-0172004-9212629?ie=UTF8&s=books"]few[/URL] [URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1937538265/ref=pd_aw_sim_sbs_14_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=51Ny%2BJy2Y8L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL100_SR100%2C100_&refRID=0GJSSR3R4TK81J9ZC304"]books[/URL] on GIMP and how it can be used in the photography world (the first one linked does cover UFRaw, the second one covers raw as well but I'm unsure if they use UFRaw specifically) if you're interested in the subject.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;49171878]I use the word "conversion" loosely, perhaps incorrectly; I simply meant that Photoshop alone cannot interpret raw without Adobe Camera Raw.
Similarly, GIMP alone cannot interpret and manipulate raw data. But it can through the UFRaw plugin. This functionality has been available for GIMP for quite some time (late 2004, early 2005ish).
[editline].[/editline]
There's actually a [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Gimp-Photographers-Editing-Source-Software/dp/1933952032/sr=8-5/qid=1158251480/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-0172004-9212629?ie=UTF8&s=books"]few[/URL] [URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1937538265/ref=pd_aw_sim_sbs_14_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=51Ny%2BJy2Y8L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL100_SR100%2C100_&refRID=0GJSSR3R4TK81J9ZC304"]books[/URL] on GIMP and how it can be used in the photography world (the first one linked does cover UFRaw, the second one covers raw as well but I'm unsure if they use UFRaw specifically) if you're interested in the subject.[/QUOTE]
But it can. You do this when using methods like Load Files Into Stack or Merge to HDR. It entirely bypasses that step and opens the file straight, with Merge to HDR giving you the option to edit in Camera Raw right here:
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/ge3b8b.png[/img]
If you uncheck the tickbox it changes the button to Ok and skips it.
The critical difference is between being able to manipulate the data as a preprocess versus being able to do it entirely inside the application. If I open up a linear HDR render, or HDR data being used as a skybox, or whatever usage you imagine, in Photoshop then I know exactly how that data is being utilized. I have a complete pipeline with which to do any necessary work. If I want to work with data in a physically meaningful sense this is absolutely necessary. By working without native integration for these types of data you have to preprocess your data down to a low dynamic range that loses any tangible basis. This makes GIMP totally useless for anyone needing to do complex work with floating point images.
I am not a shit flinging fanatic that just wants to call something inferior. Everything has its place. And ultimately that's the core of what I'm explaining. Without certain features a program can not have a place in certain fields of work (this is a no brainer, right?) On their FAQ they state that it will eventually be added though so at that point it may become viable.
[editline]23rd November 2015[/editline]
Also Camera Raw, as the name implies, only operates on the RAW type HDR formats afaik. You can trivially convert between the two by just resaving with a new extension though. Non RAW type HDR formats are generally for more intensive purposes where it assumes you know what the data is and what to do with it (hence being called Radiance files in the save menu as radiance is the physical concept at play)
[QUOTE=Map in a box;49169569]Overv made this.
:science101:
[editline]23rd November 2015[/editline]
The BMP format stores colors in green, red, blue
:sex101:[/QUOTE]
I should've known this because I did a project with this
[editline]23rd November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Medevila;49171086]if all I wanted to use GIMP for was light-moderate image manipulation I'd save the headache and use Paint.NET but that's not the niche GIMP is trying to fill[/QUOTE]
Well the issue is that if you're on linux there is not Paint.net
[editline]23rd November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49170413]I had no idea Facepunch was filled with people that use inferior software.
Yeah no guys it's totally viable in industry!!!
Let's take a look at the industry shall we?
Oh wait,
nobody uses it[/QUOTE]
Well I think that's because graphic designers and other humanities people are generally inept with technology (hence why macbooks exist)
[QUOTE=Medevila;49172904]lol
[editline]23rd November 2015[/editline]
what about MacBooks existing implies "humanities people" are "generally inept with technology"?[/QUOTE]
"I'm not good with computers and I need one for work/studying. Oh hey, here's a simple computer with simple UI and one place to get applications from! Oh hey it's only 1000% more than what i should be paying for a personal computer of the same class! Oh hey I can spend hundreds of dollars on a program to edit images!"
I think humanities people just want to buy a complete package rather than learn the technology. Otherwise they wouldn't default to what everybody else does
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49173066]"I'm not good with computers and I need one for work/studying. Oh hey, here's a simple computer with simple UI and one place to get applications from! Oh hey it's only 1000% more than what i should be paying for a personal computer of the same class! Oh hey I can spend hundreds of dollars on a program to edit images!"
I think humanities people just want to buy a complete package rather than learn the technology. Otherwise they wouldn't default to what everybody else does[/QUOTE]
what an elitist post
All I need to be productive is GIMP, Photoshop might be nice and all that, but I see no reason to get such an expensive tool when there's a free one that I know how to use and does all the same things.
Been wanting to try Krita more, but don't own any tablet and it feels rather like something you want for that.
As an indie game developer who has to wear a lot of different hats, from programmer to 3d modeller to graphic designer, Blender and GIMP are perfect for my needs. I'm by no stretch of the imagination wanting to be a professional 3d modeller or graphic designer, so of course I'm not going to be familiar with all the intricate details of either field. As a result, I'm mostly blind to the inadequacies of both Blender and GIMP that a professional would be able to clearly see because they know what the hell they are doing. I'm over here just trying to make something look halfway passable using my limited knowledge and the awesome free tools provided to me. Is that so wrong?
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;49169318]
it suffers from engineer design syndrome[/QUOTE]
wtf is this
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
