[Gimp-user] Bit-depth Processing

[gimp_user]

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 23:11:19 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:35:36 David Southwell wrote:
> > IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user".
>
> "Average" can mean "typical" & it can mean numbers (as in
> mean/mode/median), either way, PS fits the bill.

You are right - I should have defined my use of the term more precisely to 
guard against misinterpretation. In this context I used "average" when I 
should have referred to those who are not professional  image makers 
producing high quality/high resolution images for whom a whole range of 
tools, including photoshop become necessary. There area much larger number of 
people whose primary use of a camera is for taking snaps on holiday and do 
not have the time, energy or inclination to devote to image processing or 
becoming familiar with complex applications such as photoshop and gimps. So 
perhaps my perception of "average user" is different to yours. 
>
> So if you want to struggle with an "average" creativity ceiling
> & suffer "average" problems, you would choose CS.
>
I do not see either PS or Gimp creating ceilings on creativity. My experience 
of creative people is that they find ways to be creative no matter what tool 
set they happen to be using at the time. This is rather like the painter who 
will sometimes use an extremely limited pallette to achieve a desired affect. 
Just because s/he has all the colours/media available it does not mean one 
needs to use them on every occasion.

IMaybe I should also have distinquished between issues related to creativity 
and issues that are related to having techniques available to meet the 
demands set by the creative goal. For example the technical requirements for 
projecting an image at 1024x768 resolution or for producing a monster 3x2 
metre high resolution print may make equal demands in the creativity 
department but the technical demands of the media are fantastically 
different. The choice of image capture and processing techniques are IMHO far 
more closely related to what I will call "the exhibiting media".
> A lot of people (can't offer you numbers on this one, have to
> settle for "many") regard "average" as the only reasonable
> alternative to "failure." They won't necessarily _say_ this when
> discussing it, but that's how it operates in Real Life.
>
I hear your sentiment -- some people do have that type of psychological 
framework but I am not certain whether one can generalize from it because 
people approach choices in so many different ways.
> The essence of this approach is that it makes them allergic
> to true success & to attributes like innovation. When "marketing"
> to these users (or their bosses) I suspect you'd have to figure
> out what they're hedging against in specifying PS, then show
> how GIMP clearly offers them better results _in_their_terms_.
>
For some Gimp will meet some or all of their requirements. IMHO it is not 
about "better results" but about appropriate tools for certain tasks. If for 
example the task requires raw and non-destructive editing (for whatever 
reason ranging from artistic to client requirement) then one  chooses an 
appropriate toolset - Critera also frequently limit the range of available 
methods. 


> This is doubly hard because opening discussion on the very topic
> which subtly terrifies them simply raises internal horror & shuts
> down communication. So you have to be subtle about it, &
> probably approach it under the guise of "the fabulous new gadget
> I found which seems to solve X, Y & Z" rather than "this PS
> replacement that we're going to bet the boat on."
>
If they are terrified then perhaps their terror would have been sufficient to 
have destroyed their creativity!! Creative people use many different types of 
tools and brushes and are rarely horrified by having more choices. They are 
also most unlikely to bet on any individual choice! As I see it gimp is a 
valuable tool within my  8 most frequently used digital image manipulation 
programs. I also have numerous tools I use much less frequently. 

IAs a creative artist I do not want to limit my output by seeking replacements 
but widen my potential by adding to my tool sets. I try to ask myself what is 
the best tool for me to achieve this particular result? I often find myself 
using more than one tool set on the same piece of work. I suppose my choices 
come from an approach that prioritizes devotion to the creative output rather 
than to a specific tool or method. Others will choose different priorities.