DJA wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >> Christoph Maier wrote: >>>... > From some reading I did a couple of years ago as research for how > professional artists thought The Gimp fared against Photoshop (PS), it > turns out (according to those discussions) that the main reason so many > features, tools, and a specific color space capability (I don't remember > which one - HSV?) are missing from The Gimp is fundamentally because of > software patents: > > It turns out that Adobe's biggest asset is patents. Lots of them > practically applied in PS. Most of the really cool tools in PS depend on > very complex algorithms - on which Adobe has patents. It's not that FOSS > devs don't know /how/ to code those features, they legally /can't/. > > That also applies to the missing color space support - it also has legal > encumbrances on its use.
Interesting. Do you remember how to find those discussions? I can't help asking how algorithms can be patented. I guess this comes up again and again, but I have some kind of mental block about accepting the concept, I suppose. > Yes, The Gimp seems to be an adequate lighter-weight photo editing tool > for the non-production artist, for those who have the patience to learn it. > > >> And a good part of the things I wish for will probably come "next year" >> (or so). I would guestimate gimp is probably 5-years behind photoshop in >> the higher-end features. > > I think there has been some new blood, or at least fresh thinking > applied to its development in the last couple of years. It seemed that > for the longest time there was a NIH attitude among the primary dev > team. Especially regarding its UI. The thing I've seen bear that out. In fact I believe one of the most common gripes (the confusion of too many windows and dialog boxes) is significantly improved in the next release. UI people are talking about how to _reduce_ choices on some menus, about removing filters in the "one trick pony" category, combining tools, ... The 2.6 release is supposed to remove obstacles to moving ahead faster -- I hope so. >> Gimp is most certainly a serious photo-editing tool. Whether it meets >> "professional" needs is arguable. I think it's a very nice and fun tool. > > I think so. While not as capable as PS, it's powerful, and therefore, > complex enough to have a steep enough learning curve for to put off the > casual user. I have found some nicely done video tutorials that I highly recommend. Look around at http://meetthegimp.org/ But the bottom line remains, that there may be easier tools, if all you want to do is crop, rotate, and make simple brightness/contrast adjustments. Photo [collection] management tools, I guess they are called. I don't have a list of those tools at hand, but I'll try to note those which I run into. Perhaps others will post what they know about such simpler tools. >.. > The Gimp's UI has probably been the biggest area of criticism over the > years. Apparently a "Love it or hate it" thing. Part of it seems unfair > in that people with experience using PS think that everything else > should look/work/feel like PS. Of course that pretty much describes most > people who grew up using exclusively only one OS (or class of app, or > one side of the cockpit, etc.) and never peeked out the window, so to > speak. It seems they are paying attention to the criticism. http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign I believe 2.6 will show an improvement. .. Regards, ..jim -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
