13 Apr
2011
13 Apr
'11
2:39 p.m.
On 4/13/11 1:07 PM, "geoffrey oltmans" <oltmansg at bellsouth.net> wrote:
Really? Is Gimp better quality than Photoshop or
Aperture? If you were doing
photo work for a living would you bet your paycheck on it? I wouldn't. You may
not always get what you pay for with commercial software, but there are plenty
of instances where it is true. There are plenty of instances of half-baked OSS
solutions like Gimp to compete with commercial apps.
While Gimp is not the most polished image manipulation app out there, it is
hardly unusable. Currently Gimp reminds me, functionality wise of photoshop
from 5-7 years ago, it certainly is faster and far less
bloated than the
current release of Photoshop (which I wouldn't use except I got
in an
auction lot as I couldn't afford it). I've used Gimp, and the biggest
problem that others (and I have had) is that it does not have native support
for the "raw" format that my camera puts out.