> --- gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...[GIMP] 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.
> I would disagree with this. I use both PS and GIMP and thanks to PH I
> had no problems learning GIMP's UI. Of course, your millage will vary.
> In fact, there are more similarities than differences:
> o Each has a palette of editing tools on one side of the screen
> o Each has additional tool palettes on the other side (e.g., layers)
> o And each has a main image window
> The UI differences, IMO, are minor:
> o Distinct windows for palettes and image window
> o Options moved from top of window to below editing tools
> o Image window enhanced with its own menu bar.
> Even most of the icons are similar to Photoshop. Unless your brand new
> to Photoshop, I don't see the problem
I came from the other direction. Started with GIMP and occasionally use
PS. I often use PS books or tips from various sites and unless they
invoke a PS specific plugin, I don't have too much trouble translating
the techniques. If you don't understand the concepts and are just
trying to find identical menus and buttons, I can see where you'd get lost.
As for it's professional use, it depends. I've talked to wedding
shooters in PPA meetings who ship nothing but JPG's. Due to the volume
of images they process, they rarely do any more tweaking then bulk
exposure and color balance. For that matter, one of the more successful
ones doesn't even shoot raw. Formal's get a bit more attention, but
nobody ships raw or TIFF's in that market. PJ and sports seem to use
jpg from what limited exposure I've had to them. Landscape/Fine Art
might want to store as 16/48 bit, but no current printing technology is
going to exceed the range of a 8/24 bit representation. alamy.com takes
jpgs as does istockphoto. Generally they seem to be more interested in
image size and what compression level was used. Don't know about
advertising, but I'd assume they want CMYK's for pre pro?
I'd say the real drawback is if you're manipulating your images quite a
bit, and I can see where you'd want to keep as many bits around as
possible till the end of the edit.
BTW, when I said, "a mere $649US" (for PS CS3), I assumed the
<sarcasm></sarcasm> tags were understood
Gimp-user mailing list