Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug · Nov 12, 2003, 12:18 PM

http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?o...0&thold=-1

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Nov 12, 2003, 12:45 PM

I don't see the point to this as any real Graphic Designer would use nothing other then Photoshop.

This is more of a pointless slashdot thing.

clarkgoble · Nov 12, 2003, 01:25 PM

He does have a point that not everyone needs CMYK. Web designers don't care, for instance. I agree that CMYK, among other things, are the big reasons why Gimp isn't ready for prime time. (I'm no designer though)

The one place I thought he was a bit off was in cutting and pasting. While X11 doesn't have a standard for non-textual clipboards, both Gnome and KDE do. Further those are standards and both can read the others clipboard. What the problem is that quartz-wm can't read and conver their formats to the OSX clipboard.

On the Apple mailing list I asked about this and the developers who responded basically said they didn't plan on adding it and it was an excellent "third party opportunity." In theory it shouldn't be that hard. Just have a program running that checks the OSX, Gnome and KDE clipboards and converts between them when they change. However doing this outside of X11.app and quartz-wm seems to requiring polling which is always a bad thing.

So I think laying this one at the feet of Apple is somewhat fair.

KidRed · Nov 12, 2003, 03:21 PM

As I mostly do web design, my same client decided to box their software. So guess what, for the first time in 4 years, I had to do cymk print work. So, it's not a legitimate option for me because it would be a pain to use a program for only some rgb designs, then have to use another program for similar designs but in cymk.

nickm · Nov 12, 2003, 03:53 PM

On the Apple mailing list I asked about this and the developers who responded basically said they didn't plan on adding it and it was an excellent "third party opportunity."

Sounds like a copout to me; The source is there for the taking and Apple's graphics system can do conversions up the wazoo.

tooki · Nov 12, 2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
He does have a point that not everyone needs CMYK. Web designers don't care, for instance.

...which is why Photoshop Elements has been so successful.

tooki

clarkgoble · Nov 12, 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by nickm:
Sounds like a copout to me; The source is there for the taking and Apple's graphics system can do conversions up the wazoo.

I agree. It seems an odd decision since not being able to cut and paste X11 graphics is a royal pain!

Landos Mustache · Nov 12, 2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
He does have a point that not everyone needs CMYK.

That is why they have Photoshop Elements.

CheesePuff · Nov 12, 2003, 11:39 PM

For a graphic designer he sure does suck at proper image compression for the web.

Landos Mustache · Nov 13, 2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
For a graphic designer he sure does suck at proper image compression for the web.

he must have been using GIMP.

theolein · Nov 13, 2003, 10:03 AM

I love the way the GIMP is continually slagged off here on MacNN, the one place where there are many designers (some with questionable attitudes though) who could contibute to making the GIMP a better alternative than it is, just like the guy as osnews did. Other than that he reviewed 1.2.5 of the GIMP although 2.0 should be out soon with more CMYK support and a revised interface (no more need to right click to access menues as they're in every document window, dockable palettes etc).

What I also find somewhat questionable, especially coming from so called designers, is the mentioning of Photoshop Elements, which while a fine programme for home use (probably the best) is not really suited for professional design work as it has no layer masks or paths (did you even know that the GIMP has both or did you just take one look and make an enlightened opinion?)

<rant>
It sometimes irritates the hell out of me when I see so called designers pontificating on software when it seems they have nothing constructive to offer in the way of criticism apart from their own bigoted attitudes and ignorance.

It reminds me of the dotcom days when I was working at a web company who had the chance to develop a client software for a flight booking system. The client was to be a Java application and the benighted braindead designers came up with an interface with almost none of the standard UI elements but dozens of new ones that no OS had yet seen, thus making sure that the target audience on Mac and Windows platforms would not be able to intuitively use the application without UI training and incurring horrendous development costs for the the Java developers and our customer.

In the end the customer dropped my company, brought in a standard Java developer who did the whole thing in AWT in a quarter of the time we would have been able to do it in.

In closing, designers are human as well, and make many mistakes, and it would be nice if they would recognise that on occaision.
</rant>

JKT · Nov 14, 2003, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by theolein:
I love the way the GIMP is continually slagged off here on MacNN, the one place where there are many designers (some with questionable attitudes though) who could contibute to making the GIMP a better alternative than it is, just like the guy as osnews did. Other than that he reviewed 1.2.5 of the GIMP although 2.0 should be out soon with more CMYK support and a revised interface (no more need to right click to access menues as they're in every document window, dockable palettes etc).

What I also find somewhat questionable, especially coming from so called designers, is the mentioning of Photoshop Elements, which while a fine programme for home use (probably the best) is not really suited for professional design work as it has no layer masks or paths (did you even know that the GIMP has both or did you just take one look and make an enlightened opinion?)

It's because they love paying Adobe hundreds of dollars for each new version of Photoshop!

Actually, having something like the GIMP available on MacOS X is hugely beneficial for those of us who can't afford Photoshop or Photoshop Elements. It has faults, yes, but it is a mighty fine effort nonetheless. The thing to realize is that it is only going to get better with time.

Mediaman_12 · Nov 14, 2003, 06:01 AM

GIMP is in the same position as openOffice.org. It has loads of potential but at the moment it's just to underdeveloped to be usable on a daily basis.

Eug · Nov 14, 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by JKT:
It's because they love paying Adobe hundreds of dollars for each new version of Photoshop!

Actually, having something like the GIMP available on MacOS X is hugely beneficial for those of us who can't afford Photoshop or Photoshop Elements.

? You have a Mac OS X computer and you can't afford Photoshop Elements?

The cut and paste issue in would be a deal killer for me, and I'm not even a graphics/web design person. Actually, the problems with installation alone are a deal killer, although I must admit I haven't tried installing MacGIMP (which is free for the next little while).

Mind you I'm biased because I get educational pricing for Photoshop.

JKT · Nov 14, 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Eug:
? You have a Mac OS X computer and you can't afford Photoshop Elements?

The cut and paste issue in would be a deal killer for me, and I'm not even a graphics/web design person. Actually, the problems with installation alone are a deal killer, although I must admit I haven't tried installing MacGIMP (which is free for the next little while).

Mind you I'm biased because I get educational pricing for Photoshop.

<violins>As it happens I currently have no computer at all (other than this iMac at work - I wouldn't even have OSX if it weren't for the fact that I can boot off my own external hard drive).</violins>

I was writing rhetorically.

Cut and paste works within the app so it isn't that huge an issue and installation is relatively simple with fink.