Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

[Ross Martinek <triarius12 gmail com>]

Frankly, what GIMP needs to make it more “marketable” is better documentation. IF I were going to ask the 
developers to spend more time on anything, that would be it. When I first encountered GIMP, I thought it was 
just like PS … Umm, nope. I think that needs to be addressed in some way. (No, I’m not volunteering. I don’t 
know GIMP well enough, yet.

I realize those who write code hate writing documentation, and I identify and sympathize with that. Further, 
other concerns may take priority. Still, I think GIMP is mature enough that it needs more complete, readily 
available documentation. I certainly think it is more important that a flashy appearance.

Other comments in-line.

Ross


> On Oct 22, 2017, at 7:26 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre prokoudine gmail com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Ross Martinek wrote:
>
> > I disagree completely. I am a “normal” user, and I do not think GIMP
> > is dead. Quite the contrary. Adobe Photoshop is dead to the normal,
> > or average, user. The only people using PS are either corporately
> > supported or students—no one else can afford it.
>
> "No one else" as in "lots and lots of freelancers who make their
> living from illustration, design, digital photography etc.”?

I pulled a marketing ploy—I overstated. ;o) If you can justify the cost as a business expense, and it pays 
for itself. PS is a great program, and as long as I used it, I considered the documentation the best of any 
software, not just graphics.

I think what I should have said is that Adobe is marketing solely to those who use the program daily, or at 
least frequently and profitably enough to justify a faintly outrageous subscription cost. If you are not 
established, the cost can be a burden.

For example, my use of graphics software is not daily any more, though it used to be. I switched to GIMP when 
that was still the case. Now I may use a program intensively for two months, then hardly at all for several 
months. It is a vital accessory to what I am doing, but it is not the primary tool. Admittedly a small 
sampling, but I know several successful creative artists with similar use patterns.

> > Where are the “have nots” going? To GIMP.
>
> There are multiple options. GIMP is just one of them.
>
> Affinity Photo is quickly gaining a dedicated user base for photo
> manipulation. Black Ink, Krita and others are becoming popular options
> for digital painting. And the list goes on.

Perhaps I should investigate these … Nah, I’ll stick with GIMP. =^D
> > I know several successful artists who have abandoned PS for GIMP,
> > and I’m aware of many more. I did two lectures on a particular aspect
> > of fantasy art last March. Of those attending, two used PS because
> > their employers paid for it. Of the rest, about five used GIMP. Everyone
> > else wanted to know where to get it, and one PS user said he was going
> > to recommend it to his employer.
>
> Glad to hear that. Still a very small sampling.

Unfortunately true, but I can only speak of my own experience, likely less than yours.
> > I get the distinct impression from what you say and how you say it that
> > you work in marketing.
>
> Well, I'm not Maurizio, but I do work in marketing, and my role with
> GIMP could be qualified as PR. So I'm guessing that's
> double-propaganda in your book.

Actually, no. I merely point out that associating marketing with propaganda is NOT a good thing. Propaganda, 
by definition, is untrue. Marketing does not have to be. I wish more people in marketing would realize that.

And PR is not necessarily propaganda, especially since “public relations” strongly implies two-way 
communication. Communication is always a good thing.

> > You can’t “tell the whole world,” but you can tell everyone you know, even
> > if they don’t use such software. Someone they know might lament the state
> > (EXPENSE) of Adobe and PS, at which point your non-artistic acquaintance
> > says “Have you tried GIMP? Its free and <insert your name here> loves it!”
> > Been there, done that. Have yet to hear anyone say, “Nah, I’ll stick with
> > Photoshop.”
>
> Your experience, if it's true, is different from lots and lots (and
> lots) of cases I personally witnessed.

Yes, it’s true. And really? I do not understand people who prefer to spend money when they can get a near 
equivalent for free (not equating GIMP and PS). GIMP is neither buggy nor unstable. While there may be some 
PS features not available (yet?) in GIMP, the only advantage of PS I see is its documentation.

Ross
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address:    gimp-user-list gnome org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list