James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
Nevertheless, I would say that the overwhelming majority of the features
/I/ want are adequate in gimp. I think it provides a lot of
photo-editing power. But that's me. In all fairness, I have heard
someone say that gimp isn't even up to PaintShopPro (an inexpensive
Windows prog -- used to be <= $100, and you could even get a trial/nag
version free). For me, I still think gimp is grreat! Others may have
specific needs --maybe even simple ones-- that gimp misses the boat on. YMMV
Well, Gimp vs. Photoshop is, IMO, just Linux vs. Windows writ small.
First, I see a lot of people reach for Photoshop when something like
Corel Painter X is a *much* better matchup. I have watched some of
those Photoshop tutorials for creating an illustration or an effect, and
then watched someone using Painter X just *destroy* the Photoshop user.
It's the old "Why learn something new?" rearing its ugly head. You
really need to be aware of the tools you should be using for maximum
productivity. If you aren't using a photo, you probably shouldn't be
using Photoshop.
Second, since everybody that a graphics artist cares about uses
Photoshop, they have someone to ask "How do I do X?" right nearby. This
includes tutorials, plugins, etc.
Third, since the artist been using Photoshop, he has already climbed
some amount of the learning curve. And, let's face it, these tools have
a not insignificant learning curve. Gimp is one of the few open source
applications that I actually bought a book about and actually keep on my
"active" bookshelf. I use Gimp enough that I need to be able to move
around, but not enough that it burns itself into my brain. Thus, the book.
Fourth, there is some subset of artists for whom Gimp really doesn't
have the feature set they need. Last I heard, Gimp just above the level
of Photoshop 5 is features. I could believe that from what I remember
of using Photoshop 5 (very briefly).
And a good part of the things I wish for will probably come "next year"
(or so). I would guestimate gimp is probably 5-years behind photoshop in
the higher-end features.
That's probably a pretty reasonable assumption. The other thing is that
Gimp's extension languages are becoming much better. The old Scheme
dialect they used really sucked. The new one is a full-blown Scheme.
I do believe there will be significant improvements in 2.6. They are
doing serious UI analysis using real UI experts; they are eliminating a
bunch of annoyances; and they are making things more consistent. I
haven't run a beta (2.5) but have seen demos that satisfy me as
impressive. We shall see.
Just like people who use Windows claim about Unix: "It's so complicated"
when they really mean "It's not Windows.". So, too, do people who use
Photoshop claim "It's so complicated" when they mean "It's not Photoshop".
I wish them luck, but the analysis is unlikely to do them any good.
Most people want "exactly Photoshop", not something better.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
