On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:15:51 -0700, George Farris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 choice. 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 Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user