It's really interesting how professionals pretty much ignore the GIMP in favor of Photoshop.
Both toolkits have plenty of features, and GIMP certainly has many of the necessary features the Photoshop has provided for a while. Layers, filters, etc, GIMP has many of them. And support for plug-ins also helps make the case for the image editor.
But in the end, professionals use Photoshop. It would be a pleasant surprise to hear that the last chapter of the book "Beginning GIMP: From Novice to Professional" was de
Just like the legal community is pretty much still using WordPerfect. It has little basis in merit or features.
The GIMP does the work of 80% of the worlds photoshop users, with about the same learning curve. The other 20% would run into a limitation and need to use some feature that is Adobe specific.
The choice of Photoshop over GIMP has a huge basis in merit and features. It's not just crotchety old geezers too narrowminded to try somethign new. GIMP is an acceptable basic image editor--but as anything more than that, it falls short. By a LOT:
Lack of high bit depth, lack of adjustment layers, lack of 4 color/spot color, lack of sophisticated tools (ala the automated HDR and Focus stacking in PS or 3D in PS Extended), lack of plug-ins, and the lack of an integrated design suite (Inkscape/Gimp/Scribus
"lack of sophisticated tools (ala the automated HDR and Focus stacking in PS or 3D in PS Extended)"
Features that have ruined landscape shots. Most everyones digital landscapes all look like fantasy pictures and the are all the same. Same tools, same sensors and same colors. Boring.
Who gives a fuck about HDR landscapes? What if I want to shoot architectural interiors without having the windows turn into big blown out blocks of white? Don't make assumptions about how I want to use certain features.
Such a useful tool (Score:3, Informative)
It's really interesting how professionals pretty much ignore the GIMP in favor of Photoshop.
Both toolkits have plenty of features, and GIMP certainly has many of the necessary features the Photoshop has provided for a while. Layers, filters, etc, GIMP has many of them. And support for plug-ins also helps make the case for the image editor.
But in the end, professionals use Photoshop. It would be a pleasant surprise to hear that the last chapter of the book "Beginning GIMP: From Novice to Professional" was de
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But in the end, professionals use Photoshop.
Just like the legal community is pretty much still using WordPerfect. It has little basis in merit or features.
The GIMP does the work of 80% of the worlds photoshop users, with about the same learning curve. The other 20% would run into a limitation and need to use some feature that is Adobe specific.
Re: (Score:0)
The choice of Photoshop over GIMP has a huge basis in merit and features. It's not just crotchety old geezers too narrowminded to try somethign new. GIMP is an acceptable basic image editor--but as anything more than that, it falls short. By a LOT:
Lack of high bit depth, lack of adjustment layers, lack of 4 color/spot color, lack of sophisticated tools (ala the automated HDR and Focus stacking in PS or 3D in PS Extended), lack of plug-ins, and the lack of an integrated design suite (Inkscape/Gimp/Scribus
Re:Such a useful tool (Score:2)
"lack of sophisticated tools (ala the automated HDR and Focus stacking in PS or 3D in PS Extended)"
Features that have ruined landscape shots. Most everyones digital landscapes all look like fantasy pictures and the are all the same. Same tools, same sensors and same colors. Boring.
Re: (Score:0)
Who gives a fuck about HDR landscapes? What if I want to shoot architectural interiors without having the windows turn into big blown out blocks of white? Don't make assumptions about how I want to use certain features.