16 Apr
2011
16 Apr
'11
3:52 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 02:39:40PM -0700, Geoffrey Reed wrote:
On 4/13/11 1:07 PM, "geoffrey oltmans"
<oltmansg at bellsouth.net> wrote:
But there is the gimp-dcraw plugin, so it should be able to deal with
RAW files. I haven't used the gimp-dcraw plugin, but I found dcraw (via
the ufraw frontend) to be quite useful.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
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.