I appreciate the time you spent writing your email, however I ferl you've completely misunderstood what I said.
As I want to be understood I'll simplify.
I feel anyone who laughs at GIMP has not taken the time to voice themselves clearly or simply have little understanding of what they are saying. It's a matter of not having the experience to distinguish the greys from the black and white.
I feel your lack of appreciation of the points I made doesn't reflect in any way on the argument I was making, more so on your personal preferences.
I also feel the it's highly subjective argument lends more weight to my argument. Yes it's highly subjective as such anyone who dumps on GIMP without taking into consideration other peoples needs I feel are lacking perspective.
Also as a counter to all your points, I noted GIMP as being capable of being clearly the better app for MOST people in 10 years, not today.
Summary of summary: people lack appreciation of whats here today and also lack vision as to what GIMP could be and is heading towards.
On 28/11/2011 12:34 AM, "Bogdan Szczurek" <thebodzio gmail com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> gimp-developer-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list