Ubuntu.com image edited in photoshop [again]

[stmiller]

This (http://www.ubuntu.com/files/u1/masthead-left-gutsy2.jpg) new Gutsy image from www.ubuntu.com was edited in Photoshop! :-/



$ strings masthead-left-gutsy2.jpg |more

JFIF
Ducky
Adobe
aq2B
*83x
m@W6>
uu&Au`oVT
Gc%dE
TQvbl
mj{D
bdsm
p;#S
sBPL5

[Tomosaur]

Probably outsourcing the work to some freelancer or other design company - no surprise they're using Photoshop really.

Obviously, it would be better if they used open source technology, but Canonical is a for-profit company, sometimes you get little quirks like this.

Maybe next time they should approach the community first.

[ticopelp]

Panic!

[-grubby]

Panic!

we're all gonna die!!RUN!!!

[DoctorMO]

people point and laugh when Microsoft runs apache servers or one of their wipping boys does at any rate.

I'm sure Canonical don't care how their graphics are made, although wouldn't it be nice if they gave each of their business partners a cd.

[23meg]

Related bug:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/118559


Hi -

I have been asked to comment on this bug as I was involved in its creation and selection.

The image was commissioned by and created for Canonical. We encourage use of open source tools and open standards by all of our suppliers and contractors, but we do not insist on it. Philosophically we support and encourage and have a strong preference for open source software, but at the same time we are not "anti-propriety". We do make requirements of our suppliers in terms of the format in which materials are delivered to us (so that we in turn don't have to use proprietary software), but just as you should be allowed to choose the software you want to run, so should our suppliers and contractors (as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on our choices).

The image in question is an open format (jpg), and is used on a website which does not require viewers to run any proprietary software. In no way has the process of commissioning, creating or displaying the image infringed on the rights of the Ubuntu community to make their own choices regarding their use of free and open source software.

I hope this helps - let me know if further questions.

Cheers,
Jane

[PrimoTurbo]

Photoshop is MUCH better than Gimp...

Also this forum uses proprietary software.

[DeadSuperHero]

"Better" isn't necessarily the same as "easy to use"
I find GIMP to be extemely powerful.

[Ireclan]

I feel compelled to comment on this. I was involved the last time this issue was brought up. I was the one to file the bug report on it. At first I was concerned when I learned of this, but the explanation of Jane Silber makes good sound sense, and I have been reassured by it. Basically, this all boils down to "Don't FORCE open source software on people if they are not comfortable using it.". And I whole-heartedly agree.

[PrimoTurbo]

"Better" isn't necessarily the same as "easy to use"
I find GIMP to be extemely powerful.

I would argue that you are wrong, simplicity is often better..However that's not the issue with GIMP, GIMP is generally poorly designed as far as the interface and lacks a number of important features.

Including lack of CMYK/Pantone/RAW support (I don't know if this has changed in the latest version, but I highly doubt it has), lack of Vectors (for professional use you will need to use vectors in raster based graphics to create smooth design elements for example, also there are a number of issues with crappy default brushes.

[Nano Geek]

Photoshop is MUCH better than Gimp...

Also this forum uses proprietary software.


"Better" isn't necessarily the same as "easy to use"
I find GIMP to be extemely powerful.


I would argue that you are wrong, simplicity is often better..However that's not the issue with GIMP, GIMP is generally poorly designed as far as the interface and lacks a number of important features.

Including lack of CMYK/Pantone/RAW support (I don't know if this has changed in the latest version, but I highly doubt it has), lack of Vectors (for professional use you will need to use vectors in raster based graphics to create smooth design elements for example, also there are a number of issues with crappy default brushes.Oh NO! Not again!](*,)

[fuscia]

underground south african slave labor, no doubt.

[osxcapades]

Launchpad is developed by Canonical and it's not open source either.

[Polygon]

there are reasons on why the forum is vbullitin and why launchpad is closed source, go search the forums for em if you want but dont bring them up again as it will just get the topic locked

[PrimoTurbo]

I don't honestly care about open source vs proprietary, while I agree with certain elements of both my real point is that overall Photoshop is much better and anyone who argues otherwise is either:

A) An amateur, has not used both programs to a large extent
C) A fan boy, critical of anything proprietary

But that's just my opinion.

[Polygon]

well i must agree that a program that is developed by a huge software company will be better and more feature rich then a free open source program developed by mostly volunteers.

but reporting bugs on what is missing in gimp is a good way to at least get these ideas jump started

[misfitpierce]

"Better" isn't necessarily the same as "easy to use"
I find GIMP to be extemely powerful.

Could not have said it better :)

[saulgoode]

I don't honestly care about open source vs proprietary, while I agree with certain elements of both my real point is that overall Photoshop is much better and anyone who argues otherwise is either:

A) An amateur, has not used both programs to a large extent
C) A fan boy, critical of anything proprietary

But that's just my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong. The GIMP has a different feature set than Photoshop and for me the GIMP's features far outweigh those provided by PS. Just because Photoshop may meet your needs better, you shouldn't assume that it would satisfy others.

[frup]

Your opinion is wrong. The GIMP has a different feature set than Photoshop and for me the GIMP's features far outweigh those provided by PS. Just because Photoshop may meet your needs better, you shouldn't assume that it would satisfy others.

I fully agree. Since using GIMP my design work has improved, mainly becuase gimp made me think about how I edit an image in a way photoshop never encouraged me to do.

[PrimoTurbo]

Your opinion is wrong. The GIMP has a different feature set than Photoshop and for me the GIMP's features far outweigh those provided by PS. Just because Photoshop may meet your needs better, you shouldn't assume that it would satisfy others.

What features are you talking about now? What features outweigh Photoshops? I've used both programs quite intensive, photoshop from 1998 and gimp from around 2000. I don't need to consider others needs, the program suffers in features. Sure it will meet the needs of someone simply resizing pictures or doing something simple, most graphics programs do, but if there are things which I simply CANNOT do with the default GIMP that I can with Photoshop and not the other way around. Furthermore how can you assert that my opinion is wrong when you have not defended yours,
GIMP's features far outweigh those provided by PS Give me some examples?...

I'm not talking about the difference in the way the programs work, I think GIMP has a somewhat illogical design in general because of the fact that it was trying to be a photoshop clone while NOT copying Photoshop when it was first created and they chose an illogical structure to a certain degree, they then backtracked and tried to fulfill certain design structures which are based on old studies and don't hold much light nowadays.

[regomodo]

What features are you talking about now? What features outweigh Photoshops? I've used both programs quite intensive, photoshop from 1998 and gimp from around 2000. I don't need to consider others needs, the program suffers in features. Sure it will meet the needs of someone simply resizing pictures or doing something simple, most graphics programs do, but if there are things which I simply CANNOT do with the default GIMP that I can with Photoshop and not the other way around. Furthermore how can you assert that my opinion is wrong when you have not defended yours, Give me some examples?...

I'm not talking about the difference in the way the programs work, I think GIMP has a somewhat illogical design in general because of the fact that it was trying to be a photoshop clone while NOT copying Photoshop when it was first created and they chose an illogical structure to a certain degree, they then backtracked and tried to fulfill certain design structures which are based on old studies and don't hold much light nowadays.

Mate don't try and fight it, the thread will probably get locked for another gimp versus photoshop thread. I'm with you on this one.

[PartisanEntity]

"Better" isn't necessarily the same as "easy to use"
I find GIMP to be extemely powerful.

I would disagree there a little, I do use GIMP, but Photoshop is still more powerful, I will give you some examples:

1. Text editing and text effects?
2. Layer styles and effects? (example: Drop Shadow, in Photoshop it's a click of a button, in GIMP you have to look up tutorials to achieve this).

These are the most prominent things that I have run into personally.

Concerning the image on ubuntu.com, I don't see a problem, we are not out on a crussade to kill non open-source companies and projects are we? Everyone should be free to choose a model that they feel suits them and their product, we on the other support open-source. But let us not make enemies, let us instead embrace the best tools for each job.

Ubuntu is the best tool as an OS (IMO)
Photoshop is the best tool for professional photo editin and manipulation
GIMP is the best tool for the average photo editing and manipulation
etc..

[saulgoode]

What features are you talking about now? What features outweigh Photoshops?

The ability to call the GIMP from other programs or shell scripts and pass it lists of commands to execute. The ability to write GIMP scripts or plug-ins in languages such C, C#, Scheme, Perl, Python, Lua, and Ruby; all interoperating seamlessly in an agnostic manner. The ability to modify or render images based upon mathematic formula using the Mathmap plugin. The ability to read, edit, and encode video or animations using the GAP plugin. And, of course, the ability to view the source code, learn from it, and make customized changes to the program.


Furthermore how can you assert that my opinion is wrong when you have not defended yours,

The opinion you stated was that only inexperienced amateurs and anti-proprietary fanboys might find the GIMP more useful. The only example I need for that opinion to be asserted wrong is myself.

EDITED: Fixed quoting problem.

[proalan]

Baited into another ps and gimp argument. As usual self centered rage of words between the preachers.

Shame for being reeled in.

[damianvila]

Most professional graphic designers agree that Linux is not ready yet for professional graphic design. Improvements are being made at a very fast pace, but a similar effort to that of OpenOffice is needed in order to create a graphic suite that can replace the Adobe suite.
Inkscape could be a good starting point to create that suite, since of all the alternatives (GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus), it's the only one with great possibilities and with a correct focus of it's target.
I agree mostly with PrimoTurbo: while GIMP is good for casual design, it's fundamentally flawed in it's interface. Most supporters of the program are programmers or casual designers. Get into the design "scene" and ask what are the tools of the trade.
It's sad to admit that, specially if, like me, you're a FLOSS conscious designer, but that's the reality for most of the designers I know.
But I belive, in turn, the time for free, open source design will come eventually. Until blender arrived, 3D was out of the Linux league, and now it's a reality.
I think we should not argue about this matter, we just have to accept reality: professional designers don't use GIMP, don't know much about FLOSS and that needs to be changed. I try to do my bit promoting a different mentality among designers. And the rest of the community should do it's part, if interested, to change that.
But I also belive that, unless a big "name" (Corel maybe?) backs a project to create a suitable free/open design suite for designers to use in Linux and a bunch of high-quality professional-level unicode fonts are released under the Open Font License, the issue will remain the same.

[damianvila]

The ability to call the GIMP from other programs or shell scripts and pass it lists of commands to execute. The ability to write GIMP scripts or plug-ins in languages such C, C#, Scheme, Perl, Python, Lua, and Ruby; all interoperating seamlessly in an agnostic manner. The ability to modify or render images based upon mathematic formula using the Mathmap plugin. The ability to read, edit, and encode video or animations using the GAP plugin. And, of course, the ability to view the source code, learn from it, and make customized changes to the program.

Yeah!, that's exactly what we designer would like to do everyday with Photoshop... :p
:lolflag:

[SunnyRabbiera]

I would argue that you are wrong, simplicity is often better..However that's not the issue with GIMP, GIMP is generally poorly designed as far as the interface and lacks a number of important features.

Including lack of CMYK/Pantone/RAW support (I don't know if this has changed in the latest version, but I highly doubt it has), lack of Vectors (for professional use you will need to use vectors in raster based graphics to create smooth design elements for example, also there are a number of issues with crappy default brushes.

Yeh but photoshop costs like $800 like some versions of it, free beats $800 any day plus photoshop doesnt like linux...

[asimon]

At first I was concerned when I learned of this, but the explanation of Jane Silber makes good sound sense, and I have been reassured by it. Basically, this all boils down to "Don't FORCE open source software on people if they are not comfortable using it.". And I whole-heartedly agree.
The same here. At first when I read about this I was disappointed, but Canonical's policy is right: people should not be forced to use Free Software. The desire to use Free Software should come from the people themselves. Educating people about the advantages of Free Software and of course making the software as good as possible are surely better ways then going by force.