«

While to day it is no contest I wonder if someday Gimp will catch up.
However, for about $700 less Gimp is a very enticing product. Gimp
needs to support profiles, adjustment layers, a Photoshop like crop tool
and have the healing (and sport healing brush) and a few other of the
CS3 tools and it would possibly be the choice. It also needs the print
preview (driver) and scale to print media that PS has.

One thing is that when you print the same thing with Gimp and PS you do
see differences in color. PS is more pleasing most of the time but I
think that lack of profiles causes these problems.

While the price of Photoshop is insane it is a product that Adobe has
invested considerable time and money in developing,
Elements is available at very discounted prices and does far more than Gimp
and can even be used in ways to get around what it lacks that Photoshop has
for personal digital image processing.
Otherwise all I can say is that Gimp imay be the most aptly named program
ever.
The Linux desktop and installation routines may have improved but otherwise
Linux is stuck exactly where it was at least 5 years ago. It is useful as a
server for IT types and as a gimped/crippled system for propellerheads on a
mission.
Linux is even less ready for prime time than Vista.
And Vista is unusable.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:47:09 +0000, babaloo wrote:

> Linux is even less ready for prime time than Vista.
> And Vista is unusable.

If you had actually used an up to date linux distro in that time you would
have known just how wrong you are.

--
Neil

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:32:25 -0700, measekite <> wrote:

>While to day it is no contest

You're right in only one regard. PhotoShop is one of the least capable editors
out there these days. It's no contest that there are much better ones for the
last 8 years. There are many editors that have much more advanced features. The
best and most easily proven example, PhotoShop is still relying on last
century's bicubic algorithm for the core process of all its resampling tools --
resizing, leveling, perspective corrections, lens corrections, etc., etc. Every
time you shift or resample any portion of your photo you are introducing
blurring and softness to any fine details and edges. You spend thousands of
dollars on photography equipment to get the best possible image, priding
yourself on having found the ultimate camera and optics to achieve the highest
details possible, and then you spend another $700 to ruin them with one mouse
click in an editor? Just because the mindless following herds don't know any
better and tell you which one to use?

That's really smart.

I wouldn't use PhotoShop even if Adobe paid me $10,000 a month to do so. It fell
on the wayside in my "best editors" lists all the way back to v5.5. The only
reason anyone still considers it is due to how many mindless people keep using
it. I would never touch an editor like PhotoShop that is well known to ruin any
photo that passes through it.

Think for yourself for once in your life. If you can.

Notes wrote on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:24:21 GMT:

??>> While to day it is no contest

Nft> You're right in only one regard. PhotoShop is one of the
Nft> least capable editors out there these days. It's no
Nft> contest that there are much better

Without arguing with you, and I have never owned Photoshop and
am not currently using the Gimp but simply Photoshop Elements 3,
Printshop and Irfanview, what are the best photoediting programs
in your opinion? Cost is a factor to me but let's leave that
out.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Notes for the Clueless wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:32:25 -0700, measekite <> wrote:
>
>> While to day it is no contest
>
> You're right in only one regard. PhotoShop is one of the least capable editors
> out there these days. It's no contest that there are much better ones for the
> last 8 years. There are many editors that have much more advanced features. The
> best and most easily proven example, PhotoShop is still relying on last
> century's bicubic algorithm for the core process of all its resampling tools --
> resizing, leveling, perspective corrections, lens corrections, etc., etc. Every
> time you shift or resample any portion of your photo you are introducing
> blurring and softness to any fine details and edges. You spend thousands of
> dollars on photography equipment to get the best possible image, priding
> yourself on having found the ultimate camera and optics to achieve the highest
> details possible, and then you spend another $700 to ruin them with one mouse
> click in an editor? Just because the mindless following herds don't know any
> better and tell you which one to use?
>
> That's really smart.
>
> I wouldn't use PhotoShop even if Adobe paid me $10,000 a month to do so. It fell
> on the wayside in my "best editors" lists all the way back to v5.5. The only
> reason anyone still considers it is due to how many mindless people keep using
> it. I would never touch an editor like PhotoShop that is well known to ruin any
> photo that passes through it.
>
> Think for yourself for once in your life. If you can.


I have RawShooter Essentials ( last free version )
also Paintshop Pro 9 also Nikon Capture NX.

My camera is a Nikon D70s, 18-70 lens. ( also have 70-300 )
I use RAW all the time, a 2 Gig card
allows me 558 pictures which 99.999% of the
time is twice as much as I need. I try to set up
my camera best as I can depending on place I am at and lighting
( eg f.3 or f.7 over exposure ) I do not want to alter
the pictures I have taken if I don't have to.

After trying the three above editors I use RawShooter
99% of the time because all I ever need to do is tweak the
exposure compensation, little more or less light on a few
shots I take.

I can't imagine spending hours and hours after every shoot
doctoring the pictures.

I have retired my three Pentax 35 mm bodies, seven 35mm lenses
two spotmeters, three incident meters.

I just want to enjoy my D70s by taking pictures and not spoil
it all by having to deal with elaborate time consuming editors.
Particularly PhotoShop.

Denny B.

measekite <> wrote:
>While to day it is no contest I wonder if someday Gimp
>will catch up. However, for about $700 less Gimp is a
>very enticing product. Gimp needs to support profiles,
>adjustment layers, a Photoshop like crop tool and have
>the healing (and sport healing brush) and a few other of
>the CS3 tools and it would possibly be the choice. It
>also needs the print preview (driver) and scale to print
>media that PS has.

GIMP does not need to try to be PhotoShop.

However, most of the items you mention have been
available in GIMP for some time. Some of them in the
stable 2.2 version, but virtually all are in the 2.3
development version and the 2.4rc1 release that is
currently available.

>One thing is that when you print the same thing with
>Gimp and PS you do see differences in color. PS is more
>pleasing most of the time but I think that lack of
>profiles causes these problems.

The use of profiles is an interesting topic, and yes it
has been in the 2.3 version of GIMP for some time.

I personally do not agree with the way it has been
implemented, mostly because they attempt to use the same
basic system that is available with Windows. On a Linux
box that is (in theory at least) not the right way, and
even with the GIMP 2.2 it was easily possible to use
color management. (It was difficult to preview
different profiles though, within GIMP, with v2.2.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"babaloo" <> wrote:
>While the price of Photoshop is insane it is a product that Adobe has
>invested considerable time and money in developing,
>Elements is available at very discounted prices and does far more than Gimp
>and can even be used in ways to get around what it lacks that Photoshop has
>for personal digital image processing.
>Otherwise all I can say is that Gimp imay be the most aptly named program
>ever.
>The Linux desktop and installation routines may have improved but otherwise
>Linux is stuck exactly where it was at least 5 years ago. It is useful as a
>server for IT types and as a gimped/crippled system for propellerheads on a
>mission.
>Linux is even less ready for prime time than Vista.

You've been listening to FUD from western Washington.

>And Vista is unusable.

And so is XP. Linux has been far better than anything from
Microsoft for years now.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

babaloo wrote:
> While the price of Photoshop is insane it is a product that Adobe has
> invested considerable time and money in developing,
> Elements is available at very discounted prices and does far more than Gimp
> and can even be used in ways to get around what it lacks that Photoshop has
> for personal digital image processing.
> Otherwise all I can say is that Gimp imay be the most aptly named program
> ever.
> The Linux desktop and installation routines may have improved but otherwise
> Linux is stuck exactly where it was at least 5 years ago. It is useful as a
> server for IT types and as a gimped/crippled system for propellerheads on a
> mission.
> Linux is even less ready for prime time than Vista.
> And Vista is unusable.

Considering GIMP is available for numerous platforms INCLUDING Windows,
I don't see what the Linux rant has to do with this...

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> measekite <> wrote:
>> While to day it is no contest I wonder if someday Gimp
>> will catch up. However, for about $700 less Gimp is a
>> very enticing product. Gimp needs to support profiles,
>> adjustment layers, a Photoshop like crop tool and have
>> the healing (and sport healing brush) and a few other of
>> the CS3 tools and it would possibly be the choice. It
>> also needs the print preview (driver) and scale to print
>> media that PS has.
>
> GIMP does not need to try to be PhotoShop.
>
> However, most of the items you mention have been
> available in GIMP for some time. Some of them in the
> stable 2.2 version, but virtually all are in the 2.3
> development version and the 2.4rc1 release that is
> currently available.
>
>> One thing is that when you print the same thing with
>> Gimp and PS you do see differences in color. PS is more
>> pleasing most of the time but I think that lack of
>> profiles causes these problems.
>
> The use of profiles is an interesting topic, and yes it
> has been in the 2.3 version of GIMP for some time.
>
> I personally do not agree with the way it has been
> implemented, mostly because they attempt to use the same
> basic system that is available with Windows. On a Linux
> box that is (in theory at least) not the right way, and
> even with the GIMP 2.2 it was easily possible to use
> color management. (It was difficult to preview
> different profiles though, within GIMP, with v2.2.)
>
Does gimp do 16-bit processing yet? Or better yet, 32-bit?

(I use photoshop and imagesplus on windows, custom software
on linux/unix, including dsvinci,
free at: http://davinci.asu.edu/index.php/Main_Page
with my own scripts.)
No one image processing system does what I want/need, thus
I use multiple systems.

Roger