On 12/28/2011 11:02 AM, Daniel Smith wrote: > It's just funny! It's a play on the idea that it's the > not-quite-capable version of Photoshop. > At least they didn't name it SIMP!
That IS funny. I started using the GIMP when Tor Lillqvist ported it to Windows many long years ago. At that time, it was not-quite-capable in two senses: It had WAY fewer useful tools and functions than it does today, and it tended to crash a LOT on the OS in question. But I kept it and have been using it ever since. Warning: I have not been on this list long enough to know whether what follows might start a pointless debate or even a flame war. It would be very naive to think that Adobe does not have a PR contractor monitoring this list, armed with focus group tested talking points. So please put on your asbestos gloves... On a couple of occasions I tried Photoshop: Installed the thing, bookmarked a bunch of tutorials and how-to docs, checked out textbooks from the library, etc. And on these occasions I have found no reason to prefer the Adobe beast. The largest differences I saw were an inherently awkward interface paradigm and slower workflow. A lot of familiar tools seemed to be missing. The price tag was the least important factor weighing against Photoshop IMO. Maybe getting used to the GIMP ruined me for life. Maybe all the tutorials, howto docs, and manuals I found for Photoshop suck. Maybe forcing myself to use nothing but Photoshop for a few weeks at a time was not a fair trial of the product. But my working hypothesis is that Photoshop is a not-quite-AS-capable version of the GIMP. Millions of dollars have been spent to make "photoshop" a verb. But the days when sneering, condescending print shop sales reps refused to take any work not submitted in PSD format are over - I watched that change happen between about 2005 and 2007 in my local area. And from what I have seen IRL in the last couple of years, the GIMP is starting to eat Adobe's lunch in terms of mindshare in the "geeky teenager" market that determines the shape of tomorrow's software landscape - only starting, but it's a solid start. Under the hood, Photoshop uses more bits per channel to represent and process images. It also uses the LAB color model, which requires more bits per channel to represent the same color gamut as RGB, so the difference is not as large as it would seem at first glance. Bigger numbers mean smaller rounding errors, this is a Good Thing, and the GIMP will be getting more bits per channel shortly. But way over 95% of those who believe that the GIMP is a "less capable Photoshop" will never process an image for an application where this difference in "bit depth" makes any difference in the finished product. The fact that Adobe Inc. has a "partner" relationship with commercial printer manufacturers is an important difference if you happen to own and operate such a printer. But this has noting to do with producing the source files submitted to the said print shop, Accurately converting a GIIMP-made CMYK TIFF file to PSD for proofing and color adjustment on the computer connected to the production printer is a one click operation. So this is a "difference that makes no difference" unless you do happen to own and operate that printer. In some circles it is an article of faith that the GIMP is "not suitable for professional graphics work." But in recent years over half of my income has come from editing images with the GIMP. And that, not "has a vendor training certificate" or "paid for an expensive product", is the definition of professional graphics work. :o) Steve _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list