On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Natarajan V <raja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Arun Venkataswamy <arun...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Swapnil <swapnil.bhart...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 01/30/2011 03:37 AM, Girish Venkatachalam wrote: > >> > Even by a long mile I don't think gimp will match Photoshop. > >> What made you think so? What's in PS that's not in GIMP? We use GIMP for > >> all of our graphics. Please state the reasons. > > > > IMHO the difference between GIMP and Photoshop is just the difference > > between Linux and Windows. Geeks will use GIMP and an non geek graphics > > > I am a Linux User from the days of RedHat 6.0, having nothing but > Linux on my PC and Laptop. I am also an amateur photographer, heading > my company's Photography Club. Though not a pro, I do some amount of > photo editing for in-house online publications and corporate blogs. > > With this premise: The following are my observations: > "The Gimp" is great. I have been able to script it and customize it > for my use. I have been using it for about 7 years now. Its good > enough for most of the work that people use PS for. > > But, a little searching on the net would tell you what Gimp lacks from > a PRO point of view. > > 1. 32 bit processing is just about in it's infancy in Gimp. The GEGL > library is still not complete. > 2. because of (1) above, the processing done by Gimp are not loss-less. > 3. Support for CMYK has just now been introduced. - I remember a > conversation in iLUGc, regarding printing something from Gimp. The > professional printers wanted something in CMYK, which wasn't available > in Gimp then. > 4. Adjustment layers - is still not found in The Gimp as yet. - I > missed this feature a lot, when I had to isolate a child's photo from > the background, particularly around his hair. > > I repeat, if you are not a PRO, you wouldn't need any of the above. If > you are using it for some, less serious stuff or initial learnings, > its enough. > > There are times, (just search in the internet, you will find), where > people suggest that you should use Krita (from erstwhile K-Office), > instead of Gimp for CMYK and lossless processing. I still love the > Gimp, but it has a long way to go before it becomes a serious > competitor to PS. Its way ahead. > > I am eagerly waiting for Gimp 3.0, which promises to have most of > > Pretty sensible reply.. I dont know why such aversion to photoshop? Are we becoming intolerant? We should learn photoshop and excel in it. Only then we will understand the extensive features in it and then try to bring GIMP on par with it. Secondly, how many in india actually contribute to GIMP? We can count.. We are mostly consumers of open source product, and we dont have any control over its feature set. So when people in the industry wants quick turn around, they always seek for the product that meets their requirement. The pragmatic way of dealing with such situation is that we would learn photoshop, and if we are committed towards GIMP, we sould strive to bring those Photoshop features in to GIMP.. Opposing people to learn Photoshop, is like preventing our wife/girl friend from talking to other boys.. LOL... :) Regards, Senthil _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
