On Thursday 21 June 2007 21:17, Brendan wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Eric P wrote:
> > > 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).
In the Open Source world Gimp is the best (most mature, fastest, most
fully featured etc.) replacement for Photoshop. That said, for print
use it needs to be able to work in the cmyk world and also be able to
use icc profiles. If Krita, Scribus etc. can add these features then
Gimp should be able to also.
The reason why people want to have Gimp tools transferred to Krita is
that Krita can work in cmyk, and Gimp's progress in this regard seems
to be asymptotic, closer and closer but it never seems to get there.
Krita is however dead slow.
I use nothing but Open Source, and Gimp is one of my favorites. But my
business is publishing and I need cmyk.
Able Indexing and Typesetting
Precision typesetting (tm) at reasonable cost.
Gimp-user mailing list