On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:27, Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > > Total poppycock. > > What you write? ;) No. > > That, like hundreds of other facilities, is available as an external > > plugin. > > Having to hunt around the internet to add basic functionality to a core > work tool is unprofessional.
You don't "hunt around the Internet" in order to install the extentions. You go to the defined repository. It's at: http://registry.gimp.org There are many hundreds of extention plugins, and if more of them were included in the basic distribution file you'd be whinging about bloated downloads. > > The major disadvantages are that gimp has is that the colours are only 8 > > bits per channel. This puts it out of contention for high quality > > pre-press work. > > See, also not good enough for professionals ;) It all depends on what the professional does. For web work the gimp is fully competitive with the closed source stuff. For high end pre-press glossy magazine work it isn't, but it is not intended for that use. > > Where you will see that the gimp has been accepted by the movie industry > > with alacrity. > > The movie industry... television, sounds like low-resolution and bad > picture quality to me, comparing with photography here of course. FilmGimp / CinePaint / Glasgow all of which are improved derivative works of the gimp all use 32 bit colour resolution. > Btw the user interface has improved no end in gimp 2. And some of the > colour tools are superb! Adjusting colours by draggable curves was last > available in xv 10 years ago. draggable curves have been in gimp for many years. The other gimp disadvantage is that in order to get the breadth of functionality they wanted in the limited time available, the original authors used a special interpretive language for most of the implementation. This made gimp unbearably slow on big ( print ) images. Now that gigahertz machines are the norm this serious is no longer the problem it was when the gimp was first released 10 years ago. -- C. S.
