Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >
> > The main difference in Photoshop is that many graphical
> > manipulations are "packed" into tools whereas in GIMP
> > you do them using the basic principles.
>
> I beg to differ. The GIMP has been packing many functions and bits of fine
> granularity and formed higher-level Script-Fus and user-friendly GUI's such
> as Lens Flare, The Gimpressionist, and so forth. It is all an evolutionary
> process and as the GIMP reaches the mediocre user, the community caters for
> simplifications. GIMPShop, which now has a home, goes as far as cloning the
> Photoshop exterior.
>
Sure. Having used Gimp for a while and being a user of
Photoshop Elements, that is my evaluation. You may have a
different view on what should be or is packed and how it is done.
IMHO, the default Gimp interface is nowhere near what is on
offer from Photoshop. Which is not to say that I agree with what
Photoshop does, or that I consider Gimp in any way an inferior
interface. Far from it: I actually find Gimp's default a lot
more consistent and much more concise than the multitude of
gizmos amd doo-dahs in Photoshop.
But they are nowhere near similar products in usage.
As they are far from being similar products in cost.
I do believe Gimpshop makes a step in the direction
of a Photoshop-like interface. Fine with me although
I'll stick to what I like: the default.
To me Gimp represents the best value photo editor
anywhere bar none. I use it mostly for photo-editing
and it constantly gets selected over PE, which I would
never have paid for: it came with my scanner. In
addition, it works in all my systems: Windows and Linux.
That is priceless.
As for Photoshop itself - the full version - there is
simply NO WAY I'd ever pay the fortune Adobe wants for it!
Interface notwithstanding: just too much of a bloatware
example.
Others might prefer the "niceties" of Photoshop and
they'll pay the price. It's supposed to be a free
choice process, they're most welcome.
|
|
