Re: perl sending Apple events?

It seems to me that the Mac issue might be a red herring...so I present the case for an alternative approach:

Neither Photoshop nor Perl are dependent on this platform. Furthermore, there is a mammoth open source competitor to photoshop, called The Gimp (Gnu image manipulation program). If you look at the list of sources, these include a Gtk+ toolkit. So even if the ready-made CPAN modules (see CPAN:Gimp) miss something, you probably can hand-roll anything you need via CPAN:Gtk+. The Gimp can read all the formats Photoshop is capable of creating (but not vice versa for the Gimp internal formats).

Update: Gtk stands for Gimp Toolkit and is widely used (directly or indirectly) for about all graphics manipulation in the open source community.

-M

Free your mind

Comment on Re: perl sending Apple events?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: perl sending Apple events? by BigLug (Chaplain) on Oct 27, 2005 at 13:04 UTC
It's not a red herring .. the OP asked about Mac. Nor is the GIMP any use to graphics professionals. It may be of use to interface designers, but without a calibrated CMYK mode, it's not much use. This doesn't go near the fact that it's clunky and needs a major overhaul before it's going to rival Photoshop for usability.	[reply]
Multi-coloured herring. by Moron (Curate) on Oct 27, 2005 at 15:02 UTC
To clarify my meaning, none of the software under discussion has platform dependency - there is no compunction to seek a specifically Mac-based solution so the Mac itself is a red herring in this context that the OP and some subsequent posters may or may not have been chasing. We are talking about using perl to do the manipulation, not the gimp or photoshop user interface. By the same token, the issue of presentation on the screen or paper (RGB is the colour scheme for a screen versus CMYK the colour scheme for inks in a colour printer) is also irrelevant to the op - such "calibration" only has meaning in tuning the relevant colour scales for your printing ink, not for manipulation from perl of the foregoing image which may or may not have gone through CYMK calibration phase of the process (as you please). Your suggestion that the Gimp does not support CMYK is in this context misleading: Although the Gimp's own interface may be lacking in CYMK manipulation, as I already made abundantly clear, such gaps can be filled in using cpan gtk+ directly. The OP can still use photoshop to test the final product of his Perl/Gtk+ implementation if he finds the Gimp interface inferior - I never suggested he use Gimp to replace photoshop entirely. Finally, if the requirement were to specifically relate to programmed manipulation of CYMK, perl/Gtk+ could achieve that and as far as I know, there is no obvious way with Photoshop - and that's no CYMK herring. -M Free your mind	[reply]
Off topic: Gimp not useless by Anonymous Monk on Oct 28, 2005 at 06:09 UTC
I know it's not related to the poster's question, but I take issue with your statement that gimp is useless for graphics professionals. The studio I work for uses FilmGimp (for 16bit per channel color) extensively for processing frames for cinema. CMYK isn't an issue if it doesn't go to print.	[reply]
Re: Off topic: Gimp not useless by BigLug (Chaplain) on Oct 30, 2005 at 07:22 UTC
Many appologies: when I referred to Graphics Profesionals I was, of course, refering to print-graphics professional as that's my background. I imagine it is quite useful for other professional uses (despite my annoyances at it's clunkiness). No offense meant, just incorrect broad stereotyping at work :) Cheers! Rick	[reply]