On 5/17/05, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well I did the only smart thing and loaded the GIMP up to see for myself. My > basic assessment is: don't venture down this path if you think you might > possibly consider migrating to an Adobe product some time in the future. The > interface and operation is so different that it would be like learning from > scratch again. Adobe family products behave much the same way so anyone > considering PS in their futures would be wise to stick with Adobe elements. > > Colour management (or the lack thereof) is the other very pertinent > consideration, there is none, unless you are working in a closed system this > will pose a problem. It might be a great (if not the only) option for non- > Windows/Mac OS platforms but otherwise I wouldn't recommend it as a photo > editing tool for dedicated photographers. I'll play with it over the next few > days but I don't expect I'll warm to it any. Just my biased opinion. > Rob,
I hear quite a few people say stuff like "MS Word does it this way", or "It's different in Photoshop. The GIMP sucks." I have the hardest time explaining to people that interfaces are different, and if they had started with OpenOffice they would be griping about the interface in MS Office. You, on the other hand, have made one of the most intelligent comparisons I've read. Thank you. BTW, I'm relatively new to digital imaging. My wife has Photoshop Elements installed on her DOS box, and I have The GIMP installed on the Slackware machine. I've been toying with both and haven't quite made my mind up. Honestly, I'll probably go with the GIMP just so I don't have to install Winders on my machine. Neither is easier or harder to use than the other, but they most definitely are different. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
