Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Master Megatron, Apr 10, 2006.
I need help. How do you downsize pictures?
I'm not going to use their photo editing just because they are handicapped...
I KNOW!!! Their site is crap and they don't even have FAQS or anything! Their "beginners guide" is even more retarded than GoBots!
Welcome to the world of open-source!
I use GIMP for all my photo editing. Once you have the picture up, go to the menu item "Image->Scale Image" to resize. You can zoom in and out with the plus and minus signs.
The GIMP is actually an excellent program and is an perfect alternative to those who can't afford Photoshop or Photoshop Elements. It's got some great tools there and has a great mix of Photoshop and Painter. It's easily the best free photo editing software out there, in my opinion.
I won't deny that it's useful - but I've seen their site, and their documentation, and compared to the professional-level material I'm used to dealing with, it's crap. User-friendly support has always been a weak point of open-source software.
Actually they have a very detailed user manual, as well as some great tutorials as well as links to other GIMP resources. They also make themselves available via email, newsgroup or through specific mailing lists. I've contacted them on 2 occassions (through regular email) and got responses back within a few days each time. While some, if not most, open source programs aren't user friendly, the developers of GIMP are very conscious of their user base and offer alot of options to get people started using the program.
I deal with some very large design and image corporations on a daily basis. These include Adobe and Canto, and every time I've contacted them for serious support I have gotten the runaround and had to find a real solution eslsewhere. You have a better chance of getting free tickets to the Super Bowl than you do of getting helpful support from either of those companies. And you don't get more professional leve than that.
I've seen the online user manual - it's detailed, but I disagree with some of how it's laid out, and anyway that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about the developer documentation (scripting, plug-ins, and other things) which is simply not as thorough or as user-friendly as such material should be. About the only thing with the level of detail I was accustomed to was the API reference. And never mind that you can't search any of it, like you can with the MSDN website.
We deal with Microsoft, IBM, HP, Dell, Cisco, Intel, and other infrastructure solution providers... our support has been quite satisfactory, except for a few burps from IBM. Perhaps the quality of support one receives depends on the area of computing one is in?
But honestly, how many of the people downloading this software are going to be brave enough to attempt things like scripting for it? People who need those real advanced capabilities are going to go with a professional design software such as Photoshop, Illustrator or Draw. The GIMP is clearly marketed to those who don't have $600 to spend on Photoshop, or those who like to tinker with open source software. I personally never even bothered to look at the scripting or plug-ins page, because I thought addign plug-ins was relatively easy and don't need to go about much scripting. And frankly, I only toy around with it as I do have the Adboe Design Suite for my actual work.
Actualy, in a much more accurate analogy, the company you deal with as well as what division of that company. My questions to Adobe are not design related in any way. I know the software as well as any professional. My queries deal directly with software developement. My comapny (and my department specifically) have been on there ass for the last 4 years about simple implementations into their programs (as have many, many companies in the design industry). Tasks such as batch image conversion, which has finally been implemented, though only half assed. You can't blanket statement the company support of entire companies, or even entire divisions of multiple companies.
The first rule of software documentation is that you don't approach it pragmatically, you approach it comprehensively. You don't apply lopsided quality to your documentation based on what you think people are most likely to be using, you apply the same standard to absolutely every portion of it. It can be a grueling, tedious, joyless task, and no one wants to do it, but it is important to cover your entire user base. Microsoft has sections of their MSDN website that are probably accessed no more than a dozen times a day (as opposed to the billions of hits they get elsewhere) but the documentation there is no less thorough or user-friendly. Some folks interpret open-source software as being exempt from such standards - "hey, it's free, you take what you get" - but I say that's rubbish. In software creation, proper documentation is as important a principle as clean and efficient coding.
Oh, I'm well aware that the quality of support you receive can be woefully inconsistent depending on what sliver of a company you happen to be dealing with at a given point - but your initial statement seemed to refer to design and imaging software corporations in general, so I was wondering if this was something traditionally specific to your industry.
It is your belief that people who create software, be it something that is created during free time or something that is the the foundation of a companies existence, should be held to the same standards. We'll just have to agree to disagree o nthat one.
No, I was just using Adobe and Canto as examples of 2 developers who's support (as I've used them), aren't nearly as helpful as that of some (not all) free developers. I've had very positive meetings and experiences dealing with companies such as Wacom, Canon, Nikon and Epson.
As I see it, software isn't complete when it's written, it's complete when it's written and fully documented, because the program is just half of the equation. The other half is users, meaning users of all kinds: novices looking for a free alternative to Photoshop, or enthusiastic developers that want to exploit the software's programmability and extensibility. To me it's a principle that's totally independent of who's behind the software. Whether it's a huge corporation or an open-source hobbyist, if you're going to do something, do it all the way.
It IS useful, but the way you have to do things can get frustrating.
w00t! I've made 100 posts!
Separate names with a comma.