Steve, if you don't mind, what kind of work do you do?
Just wondering, you can reply off list if you'd rather,
or on.

On 12/28/11, Steve Kinney <> wrote:
> 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 mailing list

Reply via email to