Chris Wilkinson wrote: > A few things. Photoshop might also be seen to be missing a few things > too. > > The biggest thing missing about Gimp is a well researched and objective > review, as opposed to subjective spin from people who have spent a mere > fraction of the time a digital artist would need to spend to acquaint > themselves with either software...
<rant> Gimp's true strengths show when you look at it as a tool for an artist, not a tool for a photo editor. I disagree with the first sentence in the gimp/photoshop review posted about them both being photo manipulation programs. Gimp is an *image* manipulation program, and could/can be used for some photo manipulation. The reviewer in the article mentions his Photoshop skills were gained in magazine work, GIMP doesn't even support CMYK - a prerequisite for print work. Its almost like the difference between oil and water paints, they both have their advantages and disadvantages - but you can still create a simalar picture from either. I can and I do use both programs, I'm more proficient with photoshop but I'm amazed at some of the things I've created with gimp that I could probably never have imagined in photoshop. </rant> My point is they can't be objectively compared, they are *so* different that as soon as you get past the surface you see that you're not comparing fruit, you're comparing apples and oranges. Not two types of apple.
