On Sunday 17 January 2010 15:54:20 Robert L Cochran wrote: > My suggestion is to use Gimp for what you need, and work with a higher > end camera that produces raw format images. Get Akkana Peck's book and > start with that. Post emails to this list when you need some help. It > also doesn't hurt to have a website where you can post your photos to. > > I take technical photos (as a not very good amateur!) and edit them in > the Gimp. I feel no need for Photoshop. The choice of either software > title is really a personal preference. > > I myself have not seen a photographer using film in quite some time. > They all seem to be digital now. For example, the photographer for my > daughter's wedding is a professional and he used a Nikon digital. >
> > * GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo > > on a web page. Otherwise forget it because: > > > > ** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is); > > ** Just 8 bit/channel; > > ** No CMYK. > > > > Even though answers on this list may be biased, I have to ear them. > > So, are this statements true? > > > > TIA! > > Can't let this one go by. Those of us who work with print books have been asking for CMYK output from Gimp for many years. Scribus, a much newer product, already has it, along with ICC profiles and pdf x/1-a output and so on. Krita, a not very well- known drawing program that is part of KDE, has had CMYK color model for years. The developers of Gimp have never given the needs of print media a high priority. As a result most people in the world of print media don't use Gimp. The usual response from the developers of Gimp is that there is little demand for CMYK. But the facts are that those of us who work in print media don't use Gimp very much precisely because it won't deal in CMYK. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When Gimp is used on images intended for print then another program such as Scribus or ImageMagick is used after the Gimp work is complete to do the conversion. Inkscape, an Illustrator-like product also lacks the internal CMYK model. Its base output is svg, which is inherently RGB. But it is making moves toward CMYK output. Colors can be defined in (limited) CMYK terms. The problem with RGB to CMYK output is the difference between the gamuts of the two models. So it is possible in Inkscape to define a color that falls in the CMYK gamut. Bitmap images such as photos are a different matter. Krita will use the CMYK model and also import specific "raw" formats for various cameras. So it has potential for being both a frontend and/or a backend to Gimp in a workflow without resorting to plugins etc. The feature set of Krita is nowhere near as complete as that of Gimp, so it is not a full replacement. And it is limited to machines that have the KDE software available. I use it on my Slackware 13.0 Linux box even though I use XFCE instead of KDE 4 for my user interface. -- John Culleton Able Indexers and Typesetters http://wexfordpress.com _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
