On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:50:44 Elwin Estle wrote:
> I am hardly an expert on this whole issue.  I would like to see a side by
> side comparison of prints made from 8 bit vs 16 bit images to see just
> exactly what the difference might be.  I think your average person probably
> wouldn't care.  It has been mentioned that monitors are poor venues on
> which to view digital photographic images as far as bit depth is concerned.
>  However, I am curious to know what your opinion is of this:
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
> I do know that for me, Gimp makes the difference between no image editing
> program at all and having an image editing program.   Photoshop is simply
> out of the question for me for a number of reasons.  Cost is, of course,
> one reason (but it is interesting the number of people I have run across
> who feel that acquiring a bootleg version of PS is an acceptable thing to
> do).  Part of it is that I use Windows under duress.   So, if I wanted to
> seriously consider PS, then I would have to look at a Mac.
> If they ever bothered to port PS to Linux/Unix, it might be more of a
> consideration. However, I still feel that 
First I think you are right in suggesting that
>the sticker price for PS is
> utterly ridiculous for the average user.
IMHO photoshop is NOT a tool designed for the "average user". If I was only 
interested in collecting and taking images for my own use (which is by and 
large waht the average user does) I would not use photoshop. However when I 
need to produce images for professional use then I must have raw files  - I 
must for some clients be able to prove their authenticity  (i.e. the file I 
make available is just as it was taken). So for professional uses I need 
photoshop and I keep it constantly up to date.. no "average user" would be 
able to afford that but I create well over 10,000 digital images a year 
(mostly using my two Canon 5D bodies as well as countless images on film in 
formats that include 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm and 5"x4".

However I do not use photoshop for preparing images for the web or 
projection.. In that context I find it to be a sledgehammer  for cracking 
nuts. In this context I use a number of different tools with gimp being a 
natural starting point but I also use Corel draw, fireworks, and a whole host 
of other images for manipulating images. For operating systems I use five 
different computers.  Apple (photoshop), Windows XP 64 bit on a quad 
processor Intel system (photoshop and  premiere) Windows Xp 32 bit on an AMD 
64 processor (photoshop) system, Freebsd (Gimp and network management) and 
linux (gimp and other image manipulation programmes). They all have a part to 
play in my image creation & manipulation endeavours. As a professional one 
picks the right tool for the task and one cannot afford prejudices.

It sounds to me like you do not need photoshop so stick with gimp and begin to 
ask questions when you run into limitation. If you were disatissfied you 
would be looking at your work, be discontent with some part of it and be 
asking about things you cannot achieve with the tools you already have.

My two pennorth

The article you link to is reflects the sentiments of the writer.
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to