On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:15:51 -0700, George Farris
> The latest Linux Journal sure doesn't have much good to say about GIMP
> (Deep Images). Talks about it being a dinosaur and being left behind by
> the likes of Cinepaint, Krita and Pixel.  Sure hope there isn't a GIMP
> 2.6 but rather it moves to GIMP 3.0 based on GEGL with a UI revamp.

As an author, let me disect this a bit.

The author's points are valid with respect to color space support given
the current stable GIMP release (2.2), though not completely valid with
respect to the current developer release (the upcoming 2.4). But he
makes a poor argument for replacing the GIMP with other tools.  For
example, he states how GIMP's lack of 16 bit channels is sufficient
cause not to use GIMP.  Period.  Then goes on to say how CinePaint is a
must-have tool despite a set of "inconveniences" and lack of stability.
Who is he to say which is more important to the reader - 16 bit channels
or stability?   What good is 16 bit channels if the you can't guarantee
the accuracy of saved data, program stability, or processing filters?

He also states that Krita's scripting behaves more like Adobe's Action
scripts.  He makes the (common and misconceived) assumption that being
like Adobe is the right way and not being like Adobe is the wrong way.
They are simply different.  It's not his place to say what the reader
should choose unless he can give a valid technical or end-user reasoning
why one is better than the other.  He didn't even manage to say that
Action Scripts are simply more familiar to Photoshop users trying to
switch, an argument that at least could be held up as a valid end-user

He states that "Krita also is still in the refinement stage, and its
code is not well optimized".  He gives plenty of technical reasons (such
as high resource usage) why you might consider *not* using Krita.  But
the article is about *not* using GIMP for deep images, and use the
alternatives listed instead.  In other words, he's not sold us on
anything.  It's like he's trying to tell us "it all sucks", which is a
pointless article.

He also calls out Krita and CinePaint for not being able to use GIMP's
filters.  If GIMP is as poor as he says, why would they want to do that?
Is the functionality in GIMP's filters so important that it's a "must
have"?  If so, wouldn't that make GIMP, despite its "inconveniences", a
must have as well, most especially because the alternatives don't
support those filters?

His conclusion is that both Krita and CinePaint, despite the negatives
listed, are still better choices than the GIMP.  But he's failed to give
compelling reasons to completely drop the GIMP (or even to use the other
two).  In my professional opinion, it is a very poorly written article.

BTW, he gets some facts wrong (or at least dilutes them).  First, the
GIMP was not written specifically for processing web images.  It was
written *specifically* as a class project that *evolved* to support web
requirements as well as print requirements.  If he's in doubt to the
latter, look at the cover of LJ issue 64 (which I did completely in the
GIMP, and which is not even the first issue I did with the GIMP).
Second, he should check with the people involved with the original
FilmGIMP project to get his facts straight.  I'm fairly certain the
patches were not rejected because "[the developers] didn't know what to
do with [them]" or that they thought that patches "didn't seem important
anyway".  In truth, the patches were rejected because the developers
felt they implemented the right solution the wrong way.  And the
developers chose the right way over the quick way.  Argue that as good
or bad as you like.  But I don't believe they dismissed "the patches out
of hand."  Developers:  feel free to correct me on this.

I really get peeved by these types of articles.  GIMP is GIMP.  Krita is
Krita.  CinePaint is CinePaint.  Each is a tool.  Use the right tool for
the job.  There are lots of hammers.  Some are good for some projects.
Others are good for other projects.  None are good for all projects.  As
an author, he should know that and write accordingly.  In this case, it
looks like he's more interested in publicly bashing one tool (which
would be an opinion piece, which this is not intended to be) instead of
trying to help his readers (a reference piece or review, which this *is*
intended to be).

Michael J. Hammel                                    Senior Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                           http://graphics-muse.org
Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative
on the same night. -- Unknown.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to