If you are doing a lot of repetitive work and you dont mind a little coding, GIMP can be nice. Everything can be scripted in Scheme which is pretty much an encarnation of LISP as many on this list may remember when Artificial Intelligence was a hot topic.
I enjoy it when I have used it. Admittedly adobe will have more features and be more modern, but GIMP does keep up well and in many cases comparable tools have more or more granular options. Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Louise Power <power_lou...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ted, > > The reason you get more than you want is that generally the printing > companies who do our big dox use the most up-to-date software so that they > can do anything that comes in. They have to stay ahead, so we have to stay > up. Granted, some of the older editions were easier to use and most times > gave satisfactory if not excellent results. I've published many dox with the > older versions of the software. And I agree with you about editing GIS maps. > I always had mine sent to be blank and did text with AI. Hated the ARCMAP > text. If it had to go too big, it got all pixely. > > But aren't you out of the game? If so, the subject is moot. > > Happy summer! > > Louise > > > Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:23:57 -0500 > From: t.b.sam...@gmail.com > To: caver...@hot.rr.com > CC: texascavers@texascavers.com > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Photoshop > > GIMP is free (from GNU). http://www.gimp.org/ > > Instructions are less cryptic than Adobe's. One could try that. > > At USGS I used Photoshop from 1995 to 2011. The CS packages were overkill. > WTF does one need? and Adobe Illustrator from 1998 to 2011. PS 3.0 was fine > by me. Digital wanking gets old. <snork> > > I used Adobe Illustrator to edit ESRI GIS (ARCMAP) compositions as registered > layers. It was easier to do text with AI than with ESRI which kept changing > the underlying SW. We kept hearing ESRI and ORACLE were going to merge. even > in 1987. Still hasn't happened. > > Ted > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Jasek <caver...@hot.rr.com> wrote: > Yes, I wanted it to go out to everyone. The important part is the link to > Adobe. They have a Q&A that answers all the questions and clears up > misconceptions. > > I started with Adobe Photoshop when it was only written for the Mac,version > 2.0, an never paid more than $199 for an upgrade. To me, being unemployed is > an outrage. > > I am currently using CS3 as it is the only version I am able to use on my Mac > G5, I bought CS6 last year, for $199, and will use it when I upgrade to a new > Mac Pro Desktop. Apple keeps promising a new Mac Pro. > > I am running CS6 on my wife's Macbook Pro and there are NO problems. > > You are out of luck as Adobe cut off an upgrade from CS3 to CS6. You will > have to go to the cloud or buy the full version of CS6 as a new customer. > This was why I bought CS6 upgrade as I knew Adobe was about to cut it off. > For once I got lucky :) > > Those jerks that download pirated versions of Photoshop is one of the main > reasons Adobe moved to rental. They are making all of us pay for steeling > software. > > Jim > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Mixon Bill <bmixon...@austin.rr.com> > Date: May 13, 2013 2:02:22 PM CDT > To: James Jasek <caver...@hot.rr.com> > Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Photoshop > > James (only) -- Not sure whether you meant to send that link about the Adobe > Creating Suite rental scheme to the whole Texas Cavers list or not. If > there's been an inquiry about it there, I didn't see it. (Sometimes I think I > don't get quite all the posts.) > > Seems like not such a bad deal, really. I bought CS3 for over $2100 back in > 2007 (would have been more if I'd bought a more complete suite of programs, > including the web stuff). True, I've used it for 5.5 years, but I'm still > stuck with CS3, not the latest versions. And it would have taken me almost 4 > years to pay that amount at the rate of $50 a month, so I'm not terribly far > ahead of where I'd have been had I been paying subscription all this time. > (No doubt the list price of the more recent versions has gone up, too, and I > doubt there's much of an upgrade discount from CS3 for CS7.) > > And since I've been stuck with CS3, I haven't upgraded my Mac system to OS > 10.6 (Lion) because I heard that some of the CS3 programs have at least > cosmetic problems with the newer operating system. That sort of thing > wouldn't arise with a subscription that allows one to upgrade at no extra > cost. > > But then I know people who have the whole latest version for nothing. Not > hard to find on the web programs that will unlock pirated versions from disk. > I imagine people will figure out how to patch subscription versions so that > they'll continue to run after you stop paying, too. > > If there has been a significant thread about this on Texas Cavers, feel free > to post this if you want to. -- Bill Mixon > ---------------------------------------- > Nothing is better than complete happiness in life. A ham sandwich is better > than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than complete happiness in > life. > ---------------------------------------- > You may "reply" to the address this message > came from, but for long-term use, save: > Personal: bmi...@alumni.uchicago.edu > AMCS: a...@amcs-pubs.org or sa...@amcs-pubs.org > > >
