On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:27:06 Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 10:17:50 jim feldman wrote:
> > Even with it's bit depth shortcoming, I'd still take GIMP's
> > mature tool set over anything OTHER than PS CS2/3 (at a
> > mere $649US)
> Approximating the $USD-$AUD conversions (http://www.xe.com/ucc/),
> that's AUD$743, about the cost of a complete system with dual
> CPU, a couple of GB of RAM, a pair of RAIDed IDE or SATA drives
> to the tune of about 300GB, a decent 19" flat screen, a graphics
> tablet & a scanner. So you'd have to spend some time convincing
> me that PS was worth the extra bananas. (-: Oh, & that spending
> the AUD$750 extra on a better camera wouldn't be a more effective
> investment :-)
> Oh, yes, & PS requires Windows, so the cost doesn't include
> AUD$231.70 for Vista (Business OEM, or I could shell out
> AUD$2167 for 2003 Premium R2), or about AUD$130 for an
> interfering virus scanner (or about AUD$500 for one that works).
> Of course, I'd use OpenOffice for office software (save AUD$332
> on MS-Office Small Business OEM), Firefox for a browser,
> ThunderBird for email & so on, but the real cost is still
> AUD$1105 plus risks.
> I could go for a *pair* of decent 19" flatscreens & bump the
> drive sizes up to 500GB. So tell me again why I'd jilt Wilbur
> for PhotoShock rather than wait for GIMP 2.5 releases around
> close of trade this year? (-:
> Cheers; Leon

For amateurs you are right BUT professional libraries mostly require 16bit. 
No 16bit no sale. So one chooses to use a tool whose output satisfies market 

You must remeber that the cost of hardware/software is not a significant 
consideration for professional photgraphers.Its costs are trivial by 
comparison with cameras, lenses and other capital costs.

For processing  Industry wide compatibility is the over-riding consideration. 
Because gimp does not support 16 bit per pixel and higher (for high density) 
and because it does not have an interface that makes for an easy user 
transition from the industry PS standard it is not a tool that is ready for 
adoption by high quality image makers. 

They all need to facilitate collaboration using a common software interface, 
so that all users in the supply chain can be  mutually supportive and produce 
compatible output. This requiredment is particularly strong with software 
which has so many features that no one user will be totally familiar with all 
of them.

When gimp provides an alternative skin that emulates PS and solves resolution 
and compatibility issues (including integrated raw handling, exif 
manipulation and image library management then it is potentially adoptable as 
an alternative for high quality image makers. Until then, despite all its 
wonderful features, it remains a beached whale as far as that class of 
professionals are concered.

On the other hand it is a great tool for web image creation but for anything 
else with regret I need to use PS.

Solve those two hurdles then maybe

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to