Re: [Gimp-developer] suggestion for new versions of GIMP

[Bogdan Szczurek <thebodzio gmail com>]

Hi!

> I use both gimp and photoshop and find it questionable that anyone laugh
> at GIMP.
>
> If they do so you have to question why?  I feel they have little
> knowlege of image manipulation programs if they belittle GIMP and don't
> recogise its' greatest strengths.

…or they miss some vital functionalities like I do. Higher bit depths or 
built-in raw handling are not really the case for me here. What is? 
Proper CMYK, Lab and multichannel support. These can be provided by 
recent architectural changes, but I adhere to the current status quo. 
Without it, it's hard to think seriously about GIMP in publishing industry.

> -simple layout of menus

IMHO it's quite relative thing. Besides, to be effective in everyday 
work, you have to use keyboard shortcuts extensively and cut navigating 
the menus to the minimum. Also, menu layout convenient in one specific 
use can be painful to work with in another.

> -the best selection tools I've used (I feel like I'm suffering when I
> have to use photoshop)

It depends what rows your boat. I personally use quick mask/masks almost 
exclusively, caring a little about "automatic" selection (in my 
experience such tools work best when used in functionality showcase 
movies ;>), so choice GIMP-way/Photoshop-way doesn't really make a 
difference.

> - covers the most important photoshop use cases (bar high end
> photography needs)

It's hard to say which use cases are most important. It strongly depends 
on the area of application.

> -much more that I take for granted
>
> I know so much more is coming in the next release that is amazing, more
> visibly planned.  Soon enough they are targetting high bit depth image
> processing which many use as reason to only give a cursory glance at
> GIMPs strengths.
>
> More than this, there is no illusion amongst the developers of GIMP
> where its strength and weaknesses lie.
>
> I could easily write a blog post stating why I feel GIMP is in position
> to be a better program than photoshop for most people in ten years time.
> Summarised it would be:  It's focus is smaller and targetted to what
> counts,

This "narrow focus" is a double edged blade. And, as for what "counts" 
it's highly subjective matter.

> as such the number of developer hours required is reduced sub
> stantially and the quality increases dramatically.

<cut />

Bless
thebodzio