Both of those reviews were pretty negative about the good old gimp. i too find the interface confusing and the results a little patchy, but I have not persevered long, I don't have 40 hours a week to practice like the first reviewer.
But if gimp is a poster boy for open source quality, this sort of review isn't helping the cause, thats one thing for sure. truly i could write a similar comparison on getting stuff that linux does better set up on my windows box, but does joe user care? no, he wants to edit his digital pics, not set up vpn's and proxying or serve email or even serve web pages. </cynical mood> (you will notice there was no start tag, thats because i am not sure when that part of the answer started ;-) On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:38:16 +1200 Michael JasonSmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 14:54, Steve Bell wrote: > > > What's missing in gimp? > > > > If any of you have seen "The Castle", I would have to say it's "just the > > whole vibe of it". It's the feel. A better lawyer than me has written a > > review which I pretty-much agree with here: > > http://tingilinde.typepad.com/starstuff/2004/05/gimp_vs_photosh.html > Ahhh, homeostasis. (Which is a fancy way of saying that people do not > like having to learn new things.) I suffer the same problem when I try > and use Photoshop, as I am a long-time GIMP user. > > Apart from altering the UI, Volker, apparently some of the layer > management features need beefing up. Then there is the Paltone[1] > problem that means that the GIMP shall be forever second to Photoshop > when it comes to print work. > > Another GIMP review > http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd0504review.htm > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone > -- > Michael JasonSmith http://www.ldots.org/ -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
