Computer Graphics with Photoshop

Author

When will Gimp

measekite

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money. We
all know that PS is better but we also know that Linux iis a superior OS
to Windows notwithstanding 3rd party hardware and software support.
That is a big thing. But sooner than later Gimp will develop a version
that will be able to play on the same field as PS and with a better OS
you may have a real choice and prices will come down.

tony cooper

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:28:36 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money. We
>all know that PS is better but we also know that Linux iis a superior OS
>to Windows notwithstanding 3rd party hardware and software support.
>That is a big thing. But sooner than later Gimp will develop a version
>that will be able to play on the same field as PS and with a better OS
>you may have a real choice and prices will come down.

The prices are already "down". Photoshop Elements 5.0 is available
for under $50 (new in the box) on eBay. The average Photoshop user,
and even the above-average user, can do as much with Elements as he
can with the more expensive CS versions. It's only the above-above
average user, and the user with some special need, that needs the full
version.

Most of us non-professionals that use the full version were on the
train before Elements became available. I have Photoshop 7.0, and
Elements 5.0, but never open Elements only because I'm used to working
with 7.0. I don't want to stop and figure out how to get to the same
place in Elements that I know how to get to in Photoshop.

The Gimp is for those who don't want to pay *anything*, not those who
don't want to pay as much as the full version costs.

--

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Billy

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:28:36 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:

>When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money.

Never.

RC_Moonpie

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:45:55 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:28:36 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>The prices are already "down". Photoshop Elements 5.0 is available
>for under $50 (new in the box) on eBay. The average Photoshop user,
>and even the above-average user, can do as much with Elements as he
>can with the more expensive CS versions. It's only the above-above
>average user, and the user with some special need, that needs the full
>version.
>

I dont know if i qualify as an above-above-average user

I'm not sure what that means

but the last time i looked at a copy of elements, it was severely
lacking in all the things I need to do in graphic design to get a job
designed and on-press. No cmyk, no suport for vector, the list went on
and on.

Could have been an old version of elements.

Somebody!

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money. We all
> know that PS is better but we also know that Linux iis a superior OS to
> Windows notwithstanding 3rd party hardware and software support. That is
> a big thing. But sooner than later Gimp will develop a version that will
> be able to play on the same field as PS and with a better OS you may have
> a real choice and prices will come down.

I really doubt it ever will. Why?

1. Because they don't make money from it the updates come along slow and
they are limited in what they can add without having to pay royalties for
something's.

2. Because it is Open Source development is also slow. Couple that with the
no-money thing from one and what you have it is a program that is going no
where fast.

3. Gimp will never be seen as professional. Just a program for people that
are too cheap to pay for the real thing.

Somebody!

Dawid Michalczyk

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

Somebody! wrote:
> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> news:oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> I really doubt it ever will. Why?
>
> 1. Because they don't make money from it the updates come along slow and
> they are limited in what they can add without having to pay royalties
> for something's.
>
> 2. Because it is Open Source development is also slow. Couple that with
> the no-money thing from one and what you have it is a program that is
> going no where fast.
>
> 3. Gimp will never be seen as professional. Just a program for people
> that are too cheap to pay for the real thing.
>
> Somebody!

These are all good points, but, its all a matter of perspective and
ultimately the requirements needed to get the job done. There are
countless graphic tasks for which gimp is just as good as photoshop. So
as long as your needs lie within such domain there is no need to buy
photoshop if your budget is tight.

--
Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.scifi-art.info _Sci-Fi art directory_

KatWoman

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money. We all
> know that PS is better but we also know that Linux iis a superior OS to
> Windows notwithstanding 3rd party hardware and software support. That is
> a big thing. But sooner than later Gimp will develop a version that will
> be able to play on the same field as PS and with a better OS you may have
> a real choice and prices will come down.

"When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money"???

when they start charging money for it
when they add CMYK, pre-press etc and vector to it
when it becomes an industry standard

and no ELEMENTS is not satisfactory for pros

pico

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

tony cooper

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:37:58 -0400, RC_Moonpie
<rc_moonpies@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:45:55 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>I dont know if i qualify as an above-above-average user
>
>I'm not sure what that means
>
>but the last time i looked at a copy of elements, it was severely
>lacking in all the things I need to do in graphic design to get a job
>designed and on-press. No cmyk, no suport for vector, the list went on
>and on.
>
>Could have been an old version of elements.

The "above-above-average" includes the professional who uses Photoshop
in his or her occupation. I wouldn't have any way of determining the
statistical breakdown, but there are a lot of people who use Photoshop
for their own personal use. The features that you require are not
their requirements.

Most in this amateur category are in the average group, although some
progress to above-average just because they like learning and
experimenting and read the magazines, tutorials, and books on the
subject. This is the category that Elements will satisfy.

I don't envision professionals - people who use Photoshop as part of
their occupation - to ever adopt The Gimp no matter how much it
improves. They start learning on Photoshop and will continue to use
Photoshop.

Programs like The Gimp are attractive to the amateur because there's
no cost to get started. But, when a Adobe produced product like
Elements becomes available for under $50, the cost is minimal enough
for the amateur to jump on it.

What holds back The Gimp, in my opinion, is that you can't walk into
Borders or Barnes & Noble and see books and magazines on how to use
it. You can with Elements. The amateur doesn't realize that books
and magazines on Photoshop tips and techniques applies to The Gimp in
many cases.

--

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

tony cooper

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:04:43 -0700, "Somebody!" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>news:oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
>I really doubt it ever will. Why?
>
>1. Because they don't make money from it the updates come along slow and
>they are limited in what they can add without having to pay royalties for
>something's.
>
>2. Because it is Open Source development is also slow. Couple that with the
>no-money thing from one and what you have it is a program that is going no
>where fast.

Open Office is in the same situation, but it has much more of a
following than The Gimp. Open Office has a broader application of use
than The Gimp because word processing and spreadsheets are used by
more people. Still, Open Office is Open Source and free.

>3. Gimp will never be seen as professional. Just a program for people that
>are too cheap to pay for the real thing.
>
"Too cheap" is a negative term. That's like saying that people who
buy a non-self-propelled lawn mower are too cheap to buy a riding lawn
mower. If you have a small yard, the non-self-propelled is perfectly
adequate for the job.

I use Photoshop 7.0. I'm not too cheap to upgrade to a CS version,
but 7.0 does what I want to do, and the CS features wouldn't benefit
me. However, my occupation has nothing to do with things created in
Photoshop.

--

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

tony cooper

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:10:32 -0400, "KatWoman" <spamfree@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>news:oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
>"When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money"???
>
>when they start charging money for it
>when they add CMYK, pre-press etc and vector to it
>when it becomes an industry standard
>
>and no ELEMENTS is not satisfactory for pros
>
I don't think there's any thought that Elements is suitable for the
pro. However, it's not just pros who use the tools in Photoshop.
Elements contains enough of the tools to be a viable alternative to a
program that is too costly for the non-pro. The Gimp essentially
competes with Elements in this regard.

The Gimp would be more competitive if there was more access to tips,
tricks, and tutorials as there is with Elements. Most people don't
realize that many techniques gleaned from Photoshop or Elements books
and magazines apply to The Gimp.

I don't use The Gimp, or Elements, by the way. I've looked at them,
but I stick with Photoshop 7.0.

--

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Mike

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

In article <78rqd3p5btm1elif05i4pttfejvoqlhg84@4ax.com>, tony_cooper213@earthlink.net says...
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:28:36 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> The prices are already "down". Photoshop Elements 5.0 is available
> for under $50 (new in the box) on eBay. The average Photoshop user,
> and even the above-average user, can do as much with Elements as he
> can with the more expensive CS versions. It's only the above-above
> average user, and the user with some special need, that needs the full
> version.
>
> Most of us non-professionals that use the full version were on the
> train before Elements became available. I have Photoshop 7.0, and
> Elements 5.0, but never open Elements only because I'm used to working
> with 7.0. I don't want to stop and figure out how to get to the same
> place in Elements that I know how to get to in Photoshop.
>

I am still using PS7.0 and am not sure about the benefits of upgrading top CS3. I have considered Elements as a cheaper
upgrade but don't know if it will cut-the-mustard. I make extensive use of layers, masks, and curves - can all this be
done on Elements these days? Any reviews available comparing PS and Elements?

Mikr

Toke Eskildsen

2007-09-04, 6:14 pm

Somebody! wrote:

> I really doubt it ever will. Why?
>
> 1. Because they don't make money from it the updates come along
> slow

Where did you get that strange idea that no money implies slow updates?

> and they are limited in what they can add without having to
> pay royalties for something's.

A fair point.

> 2. Because it is Open Source development is also slow. Couple that
> with the no-money thing from one and what you have it is a program
> that is going no where fast.

Open source does not imply slow development. Or fast development for
that matter. However, it might very well be that the _specific_ open
source project Gimp is currently a slow evolver. No argument there.

> 3. Gimp will never be seen as professional. Just a program for
> people that are too cheap to pay for the real thing.

You obviously only grasped the "free as in beer"-part of Open Source.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/

Somebody

2007-09-04, 10:14 pm

"Dawid Michalczyk" <dm@eonworks.com> wrote in message
news:46dd911d$0$2102$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> Somebody! wrote:
>
> These are all good points, but, its all a matter of perspective and
> ultimately the requirements needed to get the job done. There are
> countless graphic tasks for which gimp is just as good as photoshop. So as
> long as your needs lie within such domain there is no need to buy
> photoshop if your budget is tight.
>
> --
> Dawid Michalczyk
> http://www.scifi-art.info _Sci-Fi art directory_

On the other hand you will never get a job by saying "I know GIMP inside and
out". Or, "oh sorry I don't know Photoshop, but I do know GIMP." The fact
remains that even by some impossible miracle GIMP ever caught up with
Photoshop, Photoshop is what's used in the real world. No one will ever be
impressed by someone knowing GIMP. For a hobbyist, it just screams
"CHEAP!!!!!" more than anything else. I may not be fair, it may not be
right, but that is what it screams.

Somebody!

Somebody

2007-09-04, 10:14 pm

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ua7rd3ltaeomvtt9srkadfkpoa02u3tnsd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:04:43 -0700, "Somebody!" <nospam@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Open Office is in the same situation, but it has much more of a
> following than The Gimp. Open Office has a broader application of use
> than The Gimp because word processing and spreadsheets are used by
> more people. Still, Open Office is Open Source and free.
>
> "Too cheap" is a negative term. That's like saying that people who
> buy a non-self-propelled lawn mower are too cheap to buy a riding lawn
> mower. If you have a small yard, the non-self-propelled is perfectly
> adequate for the job.
>
> I use Photoshop 7.0. I'm not too cheap to upgrade to a CS version,
> but 7.0 does what I want to do, and the CS features wouldn't benefit
> me. However, my occupation has nothing to do with things created in
> Photoshop.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Tony Cooper
> Orlando, FL

Open Office has one major difference. Open Office does its job just fine. We
are talking about a much less demanding set of applications than we are when
we talk about Photoshop and photo editing. Though it is behind Microsoft
Office and it is very slow for updates, but because of the type of
application package it is it is much easier to use as a replacement for
Microsoft Office than GIMP is for Photoshop.

Somebody!

Somebody

2007-09-04, 10:14 pm

"Toke Eskildsen" <darkwing@daimi.au.dk> wrote in message
news:Xns99A1E991DC480tokeeskildsen@130.225.247.90...
> Somebody! wrote:
>
>
> Where did you get that strange idea that no money implies slow updates?
>
>
> A fair point.
>
>
> Open Source does not imply slow development. Or fast development for
> that matter. However, it might very well be that the _specific_ open
> source project Gimp is currently a slow evolver. No argument there.
>
>
> You obviously only grasped the "free as in beer"-part of Open Source.
> --
> Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/

No money means slow updates because that is how it happens. Open source
software isn't updated anywhere close to the rate that commercial software
is. That is because of its Open Source and changes are done by a committee
and because there is no money involved it is much ore limiting to who, what,
where and when updates can be done. That is why Open Office hasn't been
updated in well over a year, even Google Picasa which isn't Open Source but
is free doesn't get major updates for years at a time. Just look at the
releases of Gimp vs. Photoshop. Money makes things happen.

Somebody!

tacit

2007-09-04, 10:14 pm

In article <oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:

> When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money.

The short answer is "never."

The long answer is:

A program like Photoshop can not be created by computer programmers. All
the world's best, brightest, most talented, most skilled computer
programmers (and let me be very clear on this point: many programmers in
the Open Source community are brilliant, highly skilled, and extremely
talented) could never produce Photoshop.

Photoshop required, and still requires, collaboration between computer
programmers, digital signal processing experts, experts in color theory
and color modeling, experts in prepress and print, experts in color
management, and people highly skilled in other similar fields. While you
can probably find people with these talents in many occupations,
bringing them all together in one place in order to create a project on
the scale of Photoshop is unlikely in the open-source community, for a
large number of logistical, financial, and other reasons.

Additionally, Photoshop, which is the product at this point of more than
fifteen years' worth of work (that's about two and a half centuries in
computer and application design years), embodies many proprietary,
patented techniques and developments, which pose additional challenges
for anyone (open source or no) to implement equivalent or better
functionality in another program.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Toke Eskildsen

2007-09-05, 10:14 pm

Somebody wrote:
> No money means slow updates because that is how it happens. Open
> source software isn't updated anywhere close to the rate that
> commercial software is.

Since you're speaking in totals, I just have to pick a single open
source example out to prove you wrong. That's easy. Take a look at
http://forum.team-mediaportal.com/m...uilds_v0_2_3_0-
f198.html for example. The update rate? About once or twice a day.

Now you have to modify your statements to "Most Open Source ..." and
while you're at it, you might want to add "... that I know of ..." so
that we're all clear that this is just your personal impression.

> Money makes things happen.

Sure they do. Another thing that makes things happen is dedication.
They are not exclusive and they are not both needed to get things to
happen, although it certainly helps.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/

Malcolm Smith

2007-09-06, 3:14 am

Mike

If you use extensively layers, masks and curves Elements is not for you - it
doesn't support masks for other than adjustment layers and does not have
curves. I have Cs3 and my son and daughter use Elements 5 which is cheaper
than CS3 but I believe the average user is better off with CS3 particularly
as they move to wider range of techniques. CS3 if you use RAW has the new
Adobe Camera Raw 4.1 which is magic and worth the price of CS3 alone. If
you have PS 7 I think you are just able to upgrade - check with Adobe web
site.

regards
Malcolm

Derek Fountain

2007-09-06, 6:14 pm

> No money means slow updates because that is how it happens. Open source
> software isn't updated anywhere close to the rate that commercial
> software is.

You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The Linux kernel updates every 2 months on average. Most Linux
distributions have a 6 month upgrade cycle. How often does Windows
update? Every 5 years?

The Firefox web browser went from 1.0 in November 2004 to 2.0 in October
2006. Internet Explorer 6.0 was released in 2001 and 7.0 arrived 5 years
later.

There are all sorts of political and technical reasons for speeds that
software projects get updated and here isn't the place to discuss them.
But your assertions that a) Open Source software isn't updated anywhere
close to the rate that commercial software is, and b) that money is the
cause, are both ridiculous.

--
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/

Joe

2007-09-06, 6:14 pm

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:

> When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money. We
> all know that PS is better but we also know that Linux iis a superior OS
> to Windows notwithstanding 3rd party hardware and software support.
> That is a big thing. But sooner than later Gimp will develop a version
> that will be able to play on the same field as PS and with a better OS
> you may have a real choice and prices will come down.

I guess when all PSP users passed away then Gimp can be ready for your
funeral <bg>

Jason

2007-09-10, 6:14 pm

In article <oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
inkystinky@oem.com says...
> When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money. We
> all know that PS is better but we also know that Linux iis a superior OS
> to Windows
>

I recall reading a comment from someone (Chris Cox?) in PS development a
few years ago addressing this. He said that Adobe concluded that X-
windows was inadequate to support what PS needed. If so, then it's not
just gimp that would need work... IIRC, there was a short-lived Unix
version of PS way back when (before I began using it, anyway). I don't
know if was a true product or just a prototype.

Jason

--
reverse my name in email address

Derek Fountain

2007-09-11, 6:15 pm

> I recall reading a comment from someone (Chris Cox?) in PS development a
> few years ago addressing this. He said that Adobe concluded that X-
> windows was inadequate to support what PS needed. If so, then it's not
> just gimp that would need work...

I could well believe that from a few ago. It's quite remarkable how X
went from being state of the art for graphics workstations to being
hopelessly under featured and out of date in just a few years. I suspect
it was partly gaming on PCs that drove the graphics subsystems forwards,
whereas X didn't have that development pressure. Having the defacto X
standard, XFree86, managed by a bunch of in-fighting clowns didn't help
one little bit.

Things have changed dramatically since then, with the break away and
genuinely innovative X.org project grabbing a huge chunk of the X market
(including virtually all the free software distributions). Unfortunately
there's a lot of catching up to do, and NDAs around the graphics
hardware are a problem. Plus, as Tacit explained, there's a lot more
involved in writing graphics software than pure coding ability.

Whether X ever gets to a position where it will once again support state
of the art graphics applications remains to be seen. X.org has some very
clever people people behind it. Then again, so does Apple, and they
didn't use X on top of their new UNIX based OS:

http://developers.slashdot.org/comm...257&cid=6734612

There might be a lesson there.

--
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/

plugsnpixels

2007-09-16, 6:14 pm

Thoughts about the GIMP and other OSS imaging apps (from a Photoshop
CS3 user):

Free is good, no matter what. It may mean the difference between a
young person getting started (legitimately) in digital imaging or not.

It's a fact that Photoshop is King of the Hill, regardless of what we
like or don't like and what we think or don't think. It's got the best
user base and support structure (books, seminars, associations, etc.).
Its high cost (not its feature set) probably keeps even more people
from using it, who would if they could.

The time to start looking at free or low-cost alternatives is when,
like I said above, you are just starting out, or perhaps you're
looking to start a business with as little overhead as possible. Or
maybe you just want to try something new and different!

While GIMP might not be a PS replacement, it's interesting to note
that its layered files are compatible with PS (at least as of CS2),
and vice-versa. That goes a long way toward making GIMP viable.

The next step up for Windows users would be the free Paint.net (http://
plugsandpixels.com/paintdotnet.html).

The closest thing I've seen to Photoshop for cross-platform users
(aside from Elements) is the $80 PhotoLine 32 (http://
plugsandpixels.com/photoline.html). It has so many of PS's features
it's scary (16-bit, CMYK, vector support, etc.).

I like the concept of OSS and OS's (Ubuntu, etc.) and am glad they
exist for those who want an Adobe- or Micrsofot-free existance. Power
to the little guy!

Joe

2007-09-16, 10:14 pm

plugsnpixels <plugsnpixels@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

<snip>
> The time to start looking at free or low-cost alternatives is when,
> like I said above, you are just starting out, or perhaps you're
> looking to start a business with as little overhead as possible. Or
> maybe you just want to try something new and different!
<snip>

Me? don't waste your valuable time learning the bad habit of something
that you may have to break the bad habit to learn something new.

Since you are new to something, you won't know the difference so there
shouldn't be any easier or harder. If you think 10-20 years from now you
will be using GIMP then start and stick with GIMP, or if you think 10-20
years from now you will be using Photoshop then start and stick with
Photoshop.

Yes, I am one who love to try just about anything I can get my hand on,
but few thing I won't try.

- I won't try my life <bg>

- Sometime in 80's I decided to start and stick with Photoshop, so I don't
try other. And I am still learning and practicing, and the more I know
about Photoshop the less I think I know Photoshop .. and sometime I think I
may know 5-10% of its strength (or may be even less?).

Yes, I have seen quite afew people who can compare the difference between
Photoshop vs GIMP vs PSP like they know the programs so well. But when I
ask if they would answer one or few simple question about Photoshop (the
only program I know) then they refuse to answer.

measekite

2007-10-03, 6:14 pm

measekite

2007-10-03, 6:14 pm

Somebody! wrote:
> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> news:oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> I really doubt it ever will. Why?
>
> 1. Because they don't make money from it the updates come along slow
slower
> and they are limited in what they can add without having to pay
> royalties for something's.
>
> 2. Because it is Open Source development is also slow.
slower
> Couple that with the no-money thing from one and what you have it is a
> program that is going no where fast.
Take a look at the about to be released 2.4
>
> 3. Gimp will never be seen as professional.
You mean as professional but it certainly can be used by typical
photographers.
> Just a program for people that are too cheap to pay for the real thing.
>
> Somebody!

measekite

2007-10-03, 6:14 pm

measekite

2007-10-03, 6:14 pm

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
 
 
tony cooper wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:476rd3d5m3rpg0aqgi7jqh9p6hqdfqiukk@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:37:58 -0400, RC_Moonpie
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rc_moonpies@hotmail.com"><rc_moonpies@hotmail.com></a> wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:45:55 -0400, tony cooper
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tony_cooper213@earthlink.net"><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net></a> wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:28:36 GMT, measekite <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:inkystinky@oem.com"><inkystinky@oem.com></a>
wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money. We
all know that PS is better but we also know that Linux iis a superior OS
to Windows notwithstanding 3rd party hardware and software support.
That is a big thing. But sooner than later Gimp will develop a version
that will be able to play on the same field as PS and with a better OS
you may have a real choice and prices will come down.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">The prices are already "down". Photoshop Elements 5.0 is available
for under $50 (new in the box) on eBay. The average Photoshop user,
and even the above-average user, can do as much with Elements as he
can with the more expensive CS versions. It's only the above-above
average user, and the user with some special need, that needs the full
version.

</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I dont know if i qualify as an above-above-average user

I'm not sure what that means

but the last time i looked at a copy of elements, it was severely
lacking in all the things I need to do in graphic design to get a job
designed and on-press. No cmyk, no suport for vector, the list went on
and on.

Could have been an old version of elements.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The "above-above-average" includes the professional who uses Photoshop
in his or her occupation. I wouldn't have any way of determining the
statistical breakdown, but there are a lot of people who use Photoshop
for their own personal use. The features that you require are not
their requirements.

Most in this amateur category are in the average group, although some
progress to above-average just because they like learning and
experimenting and read the magazines, tutorials, and books on the
subject. This is the category that Elements will satisfy.

I don't envision professionals - people who use Photoshop as part of
their occupation - to ever adopt The Gimp no matter how much it
improves. They start learning on Photoshop and will continue to use
Photoshop.
</pre>
</blockquote>
 
I agree with most of what you said; however, there are people in small
business who will get fed up with Windows and the MS Bullshit. They
may have under 6 machines and decide they do not want to spend $10,000
to upgrade their software that will cost $0 using Linux. They will
evaluate if Gimp or any other mission critical sofware package is "Good
Enough". I am not saying better and I am not saying as good but good
enough. 
 
And besides users of all walks of life are beginning to get fed up with
copy protection and product activation. Just look at the music
industry. Now Itunes is beginning to unlock some of the music they
sell. 
<blockquote cite="mid:476rd3d5m3rpg0aqgi7jqh9p6hqdfqiukk@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Programs like The Gimp are attractive to the amateur because there's
no cost to get started. But, when a Adobe produced product like
Elements becomes available for under $50, the cost is minimal enough
for the amateur to jump on it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
 
No layers. 
<blockquote cite="mid:476rd3d5m3rpg0aqgi7jqh9p6hqdfqiukk@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
What holds back The Gimp, in my opinion, is that you can't walk into
Borders or Barnes & Noble and see books and magazines on how to use
it. You can with Elements. The amateur doesn't realize that books
and magazines on Photoshop tips and techniques applies to The Gimp in
many cases.

</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

measekite

2007-10-03, 6:14 pm

Somebody wrote:
> "Dawid Michalczyk" <dm@eonworks.com> wrote in message
> news:46dd911d$0$2102$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
>
> On the other hand you will never get a job by saying "I know GIMP
> inside and out". Or, "oh sorry I don't know Photoshop, but I do know
> GIMP." The fact remains that even by some impossible miracle GIMP ever
> caught up with Photoshop, Photoshop is what's used in the real world.
> No one will ever be impressed by someone knowing GIMP. For a hobbyist,
> it just screams "CHEAP!!!!!" more than anything else. I may not be
> fair, it may not be right, but that is what it screams.
>
> Somebody!

What you are saying is accurate TODAY

measekite

2007-10-03, 10:14 pm

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
 
 
tony cooper wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:78rqd3p5btm1elif05i4pttfejvoqlhg84@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:28:36 GMT, measekite <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:inkystinky@oem.com"><inkystinky@oem.com></a>
wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money. We
all know that PS is better but we also know that Linux iis a superior OS
to Windows notwithstanding 3rd party hardware and software support.
That is a big thing. But sooner than later Gimp will develop a version
that will be able to play on the same field as PS and with a better OS
you may have a real choice and prices will come down.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The prices are already "down". Photoshop Elements 5.0 is available
for under $50 (new in the box) on eBay. </pre>
</blockquote>
Elements is not in the same class as Gimp and PS. It does not do
layers! 
<blockquote cite="mid:78rqd3p5btm1elif05i4pttfejvoqlhg84@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The average Photoshop user,
and even the above-average user, can do as much with Elements as he
can with the more expensive CS versions.</pre>
</blockquote>
No way Jose. No layers and no adjustment layers either. 
<blockquote cite="mid:78rqd3p5btm1elif05i4pttfejvoqlhg84@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> It's only the above-above
average user, and the user with some special need, that needs the full
version.

Most of us non-professionals that use the full version were on the
train before Elements became available. I have Photoshop 7.0, and
Elements 5.0, but never open Elements only because I'm used to working
with 7.0. I don't want to stop and figure out how to get to the same
place in Elements that I know how to get to in Photoshop.

The Gimp is for those who don't want to pay *anything*, not those who
don't want to pay as much as the full version costs.
</pre>
</blockquote>
You forgot the OS. 
<blockquote cite="mid:78rqd3p5btm1elif05i4pttfejvoqlhg84@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">

</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

measekite

2007-10-03, 10:14 pm

measekite

2007-10-03, 10:14 pm

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
 
 
tony cooper wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:ua7rd3ltaeomvtt9srkadfkpoa02u3tnsd@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:04:43 -0700, "Somebody!" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nospam@nospam.com"><nospam@nospam.com></a>
wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"measekite" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:inkystinky@oem.com"><inkystinky@oem.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net">news:oYdDi.4941$JD.3764@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">When will Gimp get better so it will give PS a run for the money. We all
know that PS is better but we also know that Linux iis a superior OS to
Windows notwithstanding 3rd party hardware and software support. That is
a big thing. But sooner than later Gimp will develop a version that will
be able to play on the same field as PS and with a better OS you may have
a real choice and prices will come down.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I really doubt it ever will. Why?

1. Because they don't make money from it the updates come along slow and
they are limited in what they can add without having to pay royalties for
something's.

2. Because it is Open Source development is also slow. Couple that with the
no-money thing from one and what you have it is a program that is going no
where fast.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Open Office is in the same situation, but it has much more of a
following than The Gimp. Open Office has a broader application of use
than The Gimp because word processing and spreadsheets are used by
more people. Still, Open Office is Open Source and free.

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">3. Gimp will never be seen as professional. Just a program for people that
are too cheap to pay for the real thing.

</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">"Too cheap" is a negative term. That's like saying that people who
buy a non-self-propelled lawn mower are too cheap to buy a riding lawn
mower. If you have a small yard, the non-self-propelled is perfectly
adequate for the job.

I use Photoshop 7.0. I'm not too cheap to upgrade to a CS version,
but 7.0 does what I want to do, and the CS features wouldn't benefit
me. However, my occupation has nothing to do with things created in
Photoshop.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I use 7 also. I was thinking of upgrading to CS3 when I build my new
machine. Now that is about $200 and then Vista is about $300 and then
Office is about $200 and then $1200 for the rest of the software and
then I still have Windows headaches. 
 
I am evaluating Linux and so far except for quicken it is looking
good. I just need to get the printing out of Gimp to become as good as
PS. Then I can take my $2,000 I did not spend on software and buy a
DSLR and a couple of lenses. 
<blockquote cite="mid:ua7rd3ltaeomvtt9srkadfkpoa02u3tnsd@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">

</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>