Sorry no, but in your dreams. GIMP is not a professional tool -- very far from it. It's has little more functionality than Elements. It lacks essential professional tools. It's worthless to a professional.
Perhaps the subtitle should be "From Novice to Enthusiastic Amateur".
I can understand a professional pooh-poohing GIMP, because I've taught Photoshop to professional photographers now for a couple of years, and they love to try GIMP out for a couple of days and then add it to their software sh** list.
Overly flexible use of the word "professional" is the problem. Out of all of my students who can be considered professionals, I've noticed that my students who started out with GIMP and keep using it alongside Photoshop after they learn Photoshop are, as a rule far more profe
It's nice to hear corroboration of the idea that competent and happy GIMP users are generally smarter and more capable graphics editors than their gripey counterparts, but I should beware my own confirmation bias. How many students are we talking about here? How many classes? Over what span of time? You mention bit depth and "pixels" -- are there more evidentiary details you can share to clarify your claim of their greater skill? Have you seen this greater skill tendency beyond your classes and student
20-25 per class, 10 classes per year, over 2 years so far, yes (they would still be more or less anecdotal if you really want to pursue that path), and yes. (WHY did I just answer your essay in my spare time? not sure)
I think you may be misunderstanding the power of the TANSTAAFL culture, looking at the rest of your comment. From my POV, people like to verify their consumer DNA from time to time; having a Photoshop box on your shelf and a subscription to an overpriced graphics magazine actually does count for something when all the friends come over.
The most impressively-professional student I had so far was also one of the most ridiculously impressive examples of TANSTAAFL ignorance that I've ever met. He also couldn't figure out how I could design websites with a free text editor and get around paying for Dreamweaver somehow. It felt cheap to him.
Subtitle is misleading. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry no, but in your dreams. GIMP is not a professional tool -- very far from it. It's has little more functionality than Elements. It lacks essential professional tools. It's worthless to a professional.
Perhaps the subtitle should be "From Novice to Enthusiastic Amateur".
Re: (Score:2)
Overly flexible use of the word "professional" is the problem. Out of all of my students who can be considered professionals, I've noticed that my students who started out with GIMP and keep using it alongside Photoshop after they learn Photoshop are, as a rule far more profe
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice to hear corroboration of the idea that competent and happy GIMP users are generally smarter and more capable graphics editors than their gripey counterparts, but I should beware my own confirmation bias. How many students are we talking about here? How many classes? Over what span of time? You mention bit depth and "pixels" -- are there more evidentiary details you can share to clarify your claim of their greater skill? Have you seen this greater skill tendency beyond your classes and student
Re:Subtitle is misleading. (Score:2)
I think you may be misunderstanding the power of the TANSTAAFL culture, looking at the rest of your comment. From my POV, people like to verify their consumer DNA from time to time; having a Photoshop box on your shelf and a subscription to an overpriced graphics magazine actually does count for something when all the friends come over.
The most impressively-professional student I had so far was also one of the most ridiculously impressive examples of TANSTAAFL ignorance that I've ever met. He also couldn't figure out how I could design websites with a free text editor and get around paying for Dreamweaver somehow. It felt cheap to him.