<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:42 AM, James Freer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jessejazza3@aol.co.uk">jessejazza3@aol.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Pasi Lallinaho <<a href="mailto:pasi@shimmerproject.org" target="_blank">pasi@shimmerproject.org</a>><br>
To: Xubuntu Development Discussion <<a href="mailto:xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com" target="_blank">xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.<u></u>com</a>><br>
Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:18<br>
Subject: Re: Replacing GIMP<br>
<br>
<br></div><div class="im">
On 07/25/2011 08:23 PM, Bruno Benitez wrote:<br>
I do know that there is no such "standard image editor" but if we never start finding one, or adding one to our apps then we will never have one, I think there should be a "standard image editor" (pinta/gpaint/nathive/other) a "professional image editor" (GIMP/others) and then we could have "Image viewers" whit some "editing capabilities" (gpicview/gthumb). I do not propose Pinta directly, It looks awesome in my opinion, but it does depend a lot on Mono, so if its choosen it wont ment a huge space saver either...<br>
<br>
--<br>
Bruno.-<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jarno and Bruno,<br>
<br>
please focus your energy in creating the application comparison. A few good points to include would be:<br>
<br>
1. What features do we expect an image editor to have, at least?<br>
2. What do you think is the learning curve for the different editors?<br>
3. How light are the applications?<br>
4. How mature are they in development?<br>
<br>
Looking at the history of application comparisons and proposals in Xubuntu, it seems that there is a high possibility to get change in the defaults, as long as you are willing to work for it, and the rationalizing is sufficient.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Pasi<br>
<br></div>
In response to the above request here's my views. I like the graphics for photo processing... i'd consider myself an average user 'processing' to reduce size, watermark and occasionally add special effects. I use Bulk Rename to rename in my own system - date with number so the camera numbering like DCFN05674 doesn't end up overwriting. I use eog to view [better than gpicview and other lightweights], and then ImageMagick to reduce size and watermark all a convenient one liner [used to use picasa but that didn't seem to like xubuntu and i didn't discover why]. Imagemagick appears to have sophistication that Gimp doesn't have and yet is also great for the intermediate level user who doesn't want the 'bells and whistles' - thus clearly fitting with the xubuntu user's ethos 'MINIMAL, FAST, FIT-FOR -PURPOSE'. Gimp for processing i found quite hard work to learn and read into. Imagemagick also goes nicely with llgal for one's albums. Both commandline apps which for processing a directory of hundreds of pics is the way to go. perhaps shortly i should write a wiki for xubuntu on Imagemagick and llgal to shorten the learning curve.<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
1. What features do we expect an image editor to have, at least?<br></div>
I think we need to define it clearly - Viewer and editor [i don't feel the two are the same]. The viewer should be simple like eog capable of screenshow, rotating images, saving to desktop (we all like our favourite pics in front of us). Separate app for 'processing' Imagemagick and llgal.<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
2. What do you think is the learning curve for the different editors?<br></div>
For most users it should be a day or two (couple of evenings) - with a nice straight forward wiki even less.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
3. How light are the applications?<br></div>
On the minimal side quite light and yet Imagemagick on the sophisticated side light as it's commandline.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
4. How mature are they in development?<br></div>
eog, Imagemagick, llgal - all well established and polished apps. When considering the 'minimal' approach i think it is important to have sound well tested apps. One thing which puts me off an app even if it's good is how polished it is. I use Mousepad as an editor, it does just what i want [i can always use gedit if i need to]. Similarly with Bulk Rename - it does all i need is nice an simple whereas Krename has more 'eye candy' but i don't think does the job better.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Pasi's request wasn't to answer those questions here in short on the mailinglist, but to make a detailed comparison of all viable options using these questions as guidelines, on the Ubuntu wiki. See the links he attached for examples.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
--james<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br></font><div><div></div><div class="h5">
xubuntu-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com" target="_blank">xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Vincent<br>