Gimp vs Photoshop

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Aug 26, 2007.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    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.
     
    measekite, Aug 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. measekite

    babaloo Guest

    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.
     
    babaloo, Aug 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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
     
    Carl Neil Ellwood, Aug 26, 2007
    #3
  4. 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 for the Clueless, Aug 26, 2007
    #4
  5. 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
     
    James Silverton, Aug 26, 2007
    #5
  6. measekite

    Denny B Guest

    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.
     
    Denny B, Aug 26, 2007
    #6
  7. 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)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 26, 2007
    #7
  8. "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)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 26, 2007
    #8
  9. measekite

    Matt Ion Guest

    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...
     
    Matt Ion, Aug 26, 2007
    #9
  10. 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
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 26, 2007
    #10
  11. On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:27:31 +0100, Roger N. Clark (change username to
    rnclark) wrote:


    > Does gimp do 16-bit processing yet? Or better yet, 32-bit?
    >

    Cinepaint - a brach of original gimp - does 16 bit processing in linux.


    --
    gautam
     
    Gautam Majumdar, Aug 26, 2007
    #11
  12. measekite

    ray Guest

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


    That, of course, is total B.S. The Linux desktop is absolutely ready for
    prime time. You would be able to observe this if you took the time to try
    it. You don't even have to do an install, as there are quite a number of
    Live Linux CDs (and DVDs) available.
     
    ray, Aug 26, 2007
    #12
  13. measekite

    frederick Guest

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

    >>

    > Does gimp do 16-bit processing yet? Or better yet, 32-bit?
    >

    No. IMO that is the #1 problem with it as a "complete"
    image editing program. The #2 problem is application
    managed colour using ICC profiles for printing.

    The lack of 16 bit processing workaround is to make colour
    adjustments first using other software - such as raw converter.
    If printing your own using ICC profiles, then QImage can be
    used - but that's not free either, or somehow there will/may
    be a method to get the printer driver to use the ICC profile
    colour lookup table instead of it's own profiles built in to
    the driver software.

    That all has the potential to get very messy. Photoshop
    Elements solves the problems for a much lower cost than PS -
    except lacks full photoshop ability to display a graphic
    gamut warning overlay, with or without soft-proof enabled.

    Do you reckon that there's a "need" for 32 bit?. You do have
    to make quite significant adjustments in order for problems
    to manifest visibly even when adjusting levels and exposure
    using 8 bit. It's not a bad idea in general to take photos
    with the right exposure and white balance setting, in which
    case even the advantage of 16 bit colour can be overstated.
     
    frederick, Aug 26, 2007
    #13
  14. measekite

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    babaloo <> wrote:
    > Elements is available at discounted prices and does far more than Gimp.


    What exactly can Elements do that GIMP cannot? Last I checked Elements had
    no Curves dialog; GIMP does.

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


    Nobody would edit photos on prime time -- too boring.

    Although I admit Photoshop has many useful features that GIMP lacks,
    especially healing brush, I prefer using GIMP. It's a lot easier to set
    values using the up-down arrows in GIMP, than via wretched dialog boxes
    with miniscule sliders in Photoshop. The only thing I prefer about
    Photoshop's interface is the undo-capable history list.

    I've heard, and agree with, the many arguments about color management,
    16-bit channels, colorspaces, etc.

    The fact of the matter is that where I need it -- for JPEG editing --
    Photoshop is seriously broken, whereas GIMP works.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 26, 2007
    #14
  15. measekite

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >
    >> ... 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...
    >> It also needs the print preview (driver) and scale to print
    >> media that PS has.

    >
    > 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.


    Really, GIMP 2.3 or 2.4 have healing brush?
    What about "sport" healing brush? ;-)

    Those are really the most useful features lately in Photoshop.
    Most everything else is creature feep in my book.

    I like the crop tool in GIMP 1.2.3 more than the one in PS CS2
    so WTF is the original poster talking about?

    Qimage remains a better printing tool than Photoshop,
    would everyone agree?
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 26, 2007
    #15
  16. ray wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:47:09 +0000, 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.

    >
    > That, of course, is total B.S. The Linux desktop is absolutely ready for
    > prime time. You would be able to observe this if you took the time to try
    > it. You don't even have to do an install, as there are quite a number of
    > Live Linux CDs (and DVDs) available.
    >


    Linux is for Communists. Use Genuine Microsoft Windows and be like this
    guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE


    C.

    --
    It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Aug 27, 2007
    #16
  17. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >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?


    It does 32 bit arithmetic, but it does not work on 16 bit
    images.

    And I don't think it needs to either. Obviously the
    development team doesn't think so either, but I don't
    know if we share the same reasons.

    My requirements are very well satisfied using UFRAW to
    convert from 12 bit raw data formats into an image file,
    with virtually all of the compression/expansion of
    levels being handled by that process rather than in the
    editor itself. And past that point there simply isn't
    much benefit to more bits. (I don't necessarily do much
    in the way of graphic arts though, where a 16 bit format
    would be significant.)

    >(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.)


    I mostly use just plain old bash shell scripts for
    almost everything related to photography. I use C too,
    but that isn't often needed for photography. But I've
    never bothered with Perl, Python, etc etc, and don't do
    C++ either (which can be a real limitation because many
    of the photography oriented programs are written in C++
    and it is somewhat obnoxious for a C weenie to try
    sorting it out when something doesn't work right).

    Do you do any composites on linux/unix? I'm thinking of
    a couple of scenes that I'd like to print on a 30-40
    inch length of paper with a panoramic made up of several
    shots. So far I haven't looked into what kind of
    software is available for stitching them together, but I
    recall that you've done a lot of that.

    >No one image processing system does what I want/need, thus
    >I use multiple systems.


    Isn't that the truth! I do a lot of things using
    bash scripts and the various programs supplied with
    ImageMagick. I've also been known to draw with TeX,
    with xfig and even with xpaint (which takes courage).

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 27, 2007
    #17
  18. Gautam Majumdar <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:27:31 +0100, Roger N. Clark (change username to
    >rnclark) wrote:
    >
    >> Does gimp do 16-bit processing yet? Or better yet, 32-bit?
    >>

    >Cinepaint - a brach of original gimp - does 16 bit processing in linux.


    I took a look at it a few years ago, and found it
    interesting but not quite useful for still photography
    at that time. However, I really would like to get a
    look at what it does now... but it won't compile on my
    system.

    I use something based on Slackware, except I'm always
    adding whatever it takes to use the lastest releases of
    The GIMP, UFRAW, CUPS, and ghostscript (plus maybe some
    others that I'm not remembering), so it isn't an out of
    the box Slackware system. Cinepaint is written in C++,
    and I'm a C weenie to the core.

    I haven't put a huge amount of effort into figuring out
    why the compile bombs, but I went far enough to know
    that is requires being familiar with C++ development,
    which leaves me out.

    Whatever, the documentation for installing Cinepaint
    sucks. There is no indication of what libraries they
    use with version pre-requisites, or that sort of thing.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 27, 2007
    #18
  19. frederick <> wrote:
    >Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    >
    >>>

    >> Does gimp do 16-bit processing yet? Or better yet, 32-bit?
    >>

    >No. IMO that is the #1 problem with it as a "complete"
    >image editing program. The #2 problem is application
    >managed colour using ICC profiles for printing.


    The 2.3 version (and the lastest 2.4rc1 release) have had
    color management facilities for quite some time now.

    ....
    > somehow there
    >will/may be a method to get the printer driver to use
    >the ICC profile colour lookup table instead of it's own
    >profiles built in to the driver software.


    CUPS can deal with ICC profiles (assuming you are using
    Linux). Though, to be honest I would not recommend it
    unless you can generate _accurate_ profiles for your
    printer and paper combinations (which requires expensive
    equipment).

    I use the Gutenprint drivers for an Epson R1800, which
    allows individual ink density and gamma adjustments.
    Instead of using a profile to adjust the image to the
    printer, I adjust the printer to match the image (or,
    actually to match the image's color space). In that
    respect I end up with one or more different virtual
    printers (named printers each with a different driver
    configuration) for each type of paper that I use.

    >That all has the potential to get very messy.


    Heh, working out a color profile (or adjusting print
    drivers) can eat a lot of paper and ink...

    >Photoshop
    >Elements solves the problems for a much lower cost than
    >PS -
    >except lacks full photoshop ability to display a graphic
    >gamut warning overlay, with or without soft-proof
    >enabled.
    >
    >Do you reckon that there's a "need" for 32 bit?. You do
    >have to make quite significant adjustments in order for
    >problems to manifest visibly even when adjusting levels
    >and exposure using 8 bit. It's not a bad idea in
    >general to take photos with the right exposure and white
    >balance setting, in which case even the advantage of 16
    >bit colour can be overstated.


    I agree with that. For my purposes (but not necessarily
    for everyone's) it is just as easy to use a 12 bit raw
    file from the camera and make the adjustments which require
    more than 8 bits with the 12 bit data before saving it to
    an 8 bit file for editing.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 27, 2007
    #19
  20. Bill Tuthill <> wrote:
    >babaloo <> wrote:
    >> Elements is available at discounted prices and does far more than Gimp.

    >
    >What exactly can Elements do that GIMP cannot? Last I checked Elements had
    >no Curves dialog; GIMP does.
    >
    >> Linux is even less ready for prime time than Vista.

    >
    >Nobody would edit photos on prime time -- too boring.
    >
    >Although I admit Photoshop has many useful features that GIMP lacks,
    >especially healing brush, I prefer using GIMP.


    I don't know how they compare to each other, but GIMP
    2.3 and the current 2.4rc1 releases have had a "healing"
    tool for some time now.

    >It's a lot easier to set
    >values using the up-down arrows in GIMP, than via wretched dialog boxes
    >with miniscule sliders in Photoshop. The only thing I prefer about
    >Photoshop's interface is the undo-capable history list.


    I don't understand that. What does Photoshop's
    undo/history do that GIMP doesn't do?

    >I've heard, and agree with, the many arguments about color management,
    >16-bit channels, colorspaces, etc.


    Which, except for a 16 bit editing format, have
    virtually all been in the 2.3 and the current release of
    2.4rc1 for sometime now...

    >The fact of the matter is that where I need it -- for JPEG editing --
    >Photoshop is seriously broken, whereas GIMP works.


    Interesting statement.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 27, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Michael

    Alternative to PhotoShop. The GIMP

    Michael, Nov 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    288
    Jim Townsend
    Nov 15, 2004
  2. Robert11
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,171
    Gautam Majumdar
    Mar 7, 2005
  3. Karen Hill

    Apple releases Photoshop killer: Aperture. Where's GIMP?

    Karen Hill, Oct 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    1,341
    CRCoupons.com
    Nov 3, 2005
  4. PGPS

    What does Gamma value mean in Photoshop/GIMP?

    PGPS, Jun 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,026
    Marvin
    Jun 13, 2007
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    A Comparison of the Gimp and Photoshop Mindsets

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 31, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    394
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 31, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page