On Wed, 11 May 2005, Olivier Ripoll wrote:
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:50:34 +0200
> From: Olivier Ripoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [Gimp-user] Re: Nobody does it better [was Re: when even free
> advertising fails]
> Alan Horkan wrote:
> > [please trim the subject line in your responses]
> > What can the GNU Image Manipulation Program do that Adobe Photoshop cannot
> > do? Please do tell. I have recently pointed out that the gimp allows you
> > to have files with multiple layers in Indexed Mode and photoshop does not.
> > I would like to be able to expand on this list of things I know the gimp
> > can do better.
> Hi Alan,
> * There is the possibility to use Gimp as a server like for
> I guess this will not be considered a big plus untill google introduces
> some similar tool.
Running the gimp headless is definately a big deal, thanks for reminding
me of this functionality.
> * The availability of three scripting languages, one of them being
> actually easy to understand (guess which ;) )
I recognise how usefult this functionality is and I make use of it myself
but sorry to be pessimistic, compared to using command line tool or the
automation tools in Photoshop and the ability to record
Actions/Macros/Scripts in Photoshop I cannot consider this an outstanding
feature of the gimp. I had to learn the various scripting languages but
even to people who already know the languages I cannot imagine that is
easier than saving a list of actions from the Undo history or any similar
> * I seem to remember that it was mentionned that Gimp can load some
> pictures with large dimensions (like 1*N N being very large) while PS
> fails (I am not talking about N*M, where N and M are big here). I think
> a scientific person add raised this point last year.
Good point. With the right configuration the tile based architecture
allows user to manipulate some very large files.
> * The recent possibility to use gimp without interface.
This seems almost the same as running it as server.
> * The possibility to use it on *nix systems. This is useful for
> companies using linux farms.
This is already well known and I was hoping people would concentrate on
user level features and maybe try and make direct comparisons and give
reasons to use the gimp on platforms that also have Photoshop available.
> * 64 bits ready !
Based on comments Sven has made I am not sure how much difference it would
really make, but again with the source code freely available there is a
lot more potential.
> Sure, some of the points apply to niche markets. But CYMK is mostly
> useless for most personal use (web, home printing) and so also relates
> to some small market share (same for 16bits per channels and floating
With the recent take-over of Macromedia by Adobe I took a closer look at
Macromedia Fireworks. The gimp makes many things possible but fireworks
deliberately focusses on particularly tasks and streamlines the
process of creating certain types of graphics.
There is not much a talented artists cannot do with mspaint, what is
important is how convenient and easy a program makes it achieve common
tasks, at least in my not so humble opinion.
> Best regards,
Thanks for the information, sometimes it is all too easy to forget exactly
what the strengths of the gimp are.
Gimp-user mailing list