Steve, I had meant to ask you about the Gimp vs Pshop
discussion you were having, before all the "name calling" began.
I'm glad I found the original topic.
What I wanted to ask you, goes to what you were saying about the
benefits of Photoshop being basically in bit depth etc.
I used to work with Photoshop every day for 10 years, and I think that
people who truly have a preference merely like the interface better
because they're used to it. I haven't been in graphics for a while
now, and I find Gimp every bit as good as the old(er) Photoshop I used
to use, especially for print or web pages. Of course, the last versions I
ever even opened was CS or CS2 of pshop. It does seem support for
RAW in Gimp is rather problematic.
A few other things I'd like to ask you though, since you seem very
"graphics friendly" so to speak, speaking in SVG speak, etc.
(I used to be on the old svg dev site on yahoogroups, I think I joined
that group around post 1860 or so. Heady days those were about xml etc.)
But, my interest lately for graphics is in/about things like mobile development,
android or iphone/pad development. There's an android group here in
Houston that recently formed. Very interesting stuff.
At one of the meetings there was actually a game developer guy who
had made games for android, and used solely gimp! I thought that was cool.
But one of the areas that I think Photoshop and Adobe has as a benefit,
is the inclusion of the programs in the entire suite of other programs that
are included with the CS suites or other programs that Adobe has since
they purchased Macromedia. Flash, Dreamweaver, etc. I haven't really used
these since I got out of graphics, but I would think that's a big draw for a lot
of designers. Though, Flash is a big no-no for a lot of people, standards gurus,
But, an example of something which I was really surprised about was the
connection of Dreamweaver to PhoneGap, here:
I wonder your thoughts about that. Would you think that Gimp could
work in a similar
way with phonegap or has anyone heard of using/modifying Gimp for
mobile dev purposes?
On 12/28/11, Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> 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.
> gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list mailing list