[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-08-06 at 1343.02 +0800):
> Having said that, there are a couple of negative points to add (I
> haven't used Photoshop much at all, so these may not be as favourable to
> PS as I think): there seem to many more filters available for the Adobe
> product than the GIMP. Often, the books I referred to above will say

Default GIMP distribution does not come with all the avaliable plugins
/ scripts. Sometimes you have to download and install them (maybe
compile too). With PS you have to buy them sometimes, get them free
other times. I remember the famous Alien or Kai plugins, you get
equivalent ones default in GIMP, but not the Refract one. Also, some
effects can be optained with a bit of imagination, and a script if you
want to reuse them, inner shadow can be obtained with drop shadow, for

> Secondly, from all the screenshots and descriptions of Photoshop I have
> seen, they seem to have more standard shortcuts than the GIMP. Now, I

Give menu paths, that way everyone can see what the operation
does. Saying "hit key x" does not help, saying "use this operation of
menu foo" does. Then the user will hit the keys (whatever they are) if
he wants.

> - GIMP does not and cannot really ever have colour separation. This is
>   dues to patent issues.

If somebody workarounds the problem, GIMP will be able to do that
jobs. I think that plugins could be propietary if done properly
(taking care of what libs are used), so someone could pay the fees, do
the prepress routines as a plugin and then sell it.

> - My understanding is that GIMP has better scripting capabilities.

I think the real things is that in GIMP you can program scripts, in PS
you can record them. That means different levels of complexity, both
to create them and what the script will be able to do.

I have not played much with PS, so I can be wrong too in the points
about PS. ;]

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to