If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP ... yes, it sucks
Mark Thomas wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Mark Thomas wrote: Also, someone implied that Gimp toggled the preview on or off by simply holding down the mouse or scroll bar..? not so in mine (2.4.6). You need to check/uncheck the Preview box, and it only previews the effect in the dialog box. In PS you merely have to hold the mouse button and release it as you scroll around - nice. Just move the mouse slightly (which will scroll the preview within the image). You are describing for PS exactly what GIMP does. No, it isn't. Because AS SOON AS Gimp recalculates the image it replaces it - you do NOT control the re-appearance of the sharpened image. Maybe that gives you time on a slow machine, but on mine it means I am continually clicking and re-moving - that is not the same at all, and is annoying. Why would you be "clicking" to re-move??? What you describe for PS sounds like a PITA compared to GIMP. Select Unsharp from the menu, then click on the little cross in the lower right corner to position the preview display within the image, then put the cursor on the displayed preview image. You can hold down the left mouse button and scroll the image. When the image is moving it will be the non-edited version, and immediately when you stop moving the unsharp version will pop in. The only time "clicking" is necessary is if you want to scroll the image a distance greater than the limits of the preview width or height. As far as a preview it is great. You can, for example, scoot the center of the preview display around an object and get a good look at the effects *without* having to be clicking the mouse a dozen times. Or, if you want the preview to stay in one place, you just move the cursor ever so slightly downward, and click in the preview on and off box, which really is horribly difficult and distracting for PhotoShop users I agree, but for *everyone* else seems to be very very easy. (As in, what's your problem?) You sound just like Alan "It isn't EXACTLY PhotoShop" Browne. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP ... yes, it sucks
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote: Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Mark Thomas wrote: Also, someone implied that Gimp toggled the preview on or off by simply holding down the mouse or scroll bar..? not so in mine (2.4.6). You need to check/uncheck the Preview box, and it only previews the effect in the dialog box. In PS you merely have to hold the mouse button and release it as you scroll around - nice. Just move the mouse slightly (which will scroll the preview within the image). You are describing for PS exactly what GIMP does. No, it isn't. Because AS SOON AS Gimp recalculates the image it replaces it - you do NOT control the re-appearance of the sharpened image. Maybe that gives you time on a slow machine, but on mine it means I am continually clicking and re-moving - that is not the same at all, and is annoying. Why would you be "clicking" to re-move??? What you describe for PS sounds like a PITA compared to GIMP. Select Unsharp from the menu, then click on the little cross in the lower right corner to position the preview display within the image, then put the cursor on the displayed preview image. You can hold down the left mouse button and scroll the image. When the image is moving it will be the non-edited version, and immediately when you stop moving the unsharp version will pop in. Holy crap. I started reading this thread, and first replied, when it was claimed that the only way to move around an image in The GIMP was with the scroll bars. Clicketyclicketyclickety. I simply pointed out the little four-arrow navigator tool. Click. I wasn't talking about an in-process unsharp mask operation (or any other) -- I was just talking about a plain ol' pane that was smaller than the sizing of the image display. I've used The GIMP for years, and I don't think I've ever used that dialog-box navigator *during editing*; I've always used the scroll bars. D'oh! Much thanks for pointing out the obvious -- to this real-life *user* of The GIMP. snip You sound just like Alan "It isn't EXACTLY PhotoShop" Browne. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP ... yes, it sucks
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
You sound just like Alan "It isn't EXACTLY PhotoShop" Browne. Ah yes, distort the message to damn the messenger. Floyd, eh? No surprise there. Not the first time he's twisted what I said. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP
nospam wrote:
In article , Troy Piggins wrote: So does GIMP. I'm not bashing PS. I'm just pointing out that almost everything PS does, GIMP does. And the gap between functions is narrowing all the time. that's not even remotely close to being true. photoshop does a *lot* more than the gimp and the gap is *growing*, not shrinking. people who think that the gimp is essentially a free version of photoshop are simply unfamiliar of what photoshop can actually *do*. and it's not just a feature checklist; as i said before, there are a lot of little things that make working in photoshop more productive. So you say... but every time we down to brass tacks it turns out that GIMP does what PS does, but differenty. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: So does GIMP. I'm not bashing PS. I'm just pointing out that almost everything PS does, GIMP does. And the gap between functions is narrowing all the time. that's not even remotely close to being true. photoshop does a *lot* more than the gimp and the gap is *growing*, not shrinking. people who think that the gimp is essentially a free version of photoshop are simply unfamiliar of what photoshop can actually *do*. and it's not just a feature checklist; as i said before, there are a lot of little things that make working in photoshop more productive. So you say... but every time we down to brass tacks it turns out that GIMP does what PS does, but differenty. um, no. and last time we went thru this, you even agreed that a number of things that i mentioned were in fact missing from the gimp, such as adjustment layers, to name just one. and cs4 debuts in three weeks with a plethora of new features that gimp doesn't have. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP
* nospam wrote :
* Troy Piggins wrote : So does GIMP. I'm not bashing PS. I'm just pointing out that almost everything PS does, GIMP does. And the gap between functions is narrowing all the time. that's not even remotely close to being true. photoshop does a *lot* more than the gimp and the gap is *growing*, not shrinking. people who think that the gimp is essentially a free version of photoshop are simply unfamiliar of what photoshop can actually *do*. and it's not just a feature checklist; as i said before, there are a lot of little things that make working in photoshop more productive. I don't think GIMP is a free version of PS. And I said I'm not bashing PS, unlike you who /are/ bashing GIMP. I'm sure you have reasons behind your opinions, and that's fine. My comment about the closing gap was based on the most common complaints about GIMP - colour bit depth, and probably adjustment layers. The development versions are working on these IIUC. And the interface, the other common complaint from people who have never used it before, is also improving as it develops. If you read, and understood, the other parts of my post that you cut out, unattributed BTW, you will remember why I am using GIMP and that I said in different circumstances I'd probably use PS. For me to pick up PS now and try to re-learn photo-editing would be unproductive /for/ /me/. I know GIMP well enough now to do pretty much everything I want or need to do. Why would I go backwards? Of course, if you already know PS you will be able to use its tools productively. If you're on a tight budget, haven't used either, are only an amatuer/hobbyist photographer, and aren't afraid of learning by using or going online for help, I'd recommend GIMP. It worked for me. If you've got the money, have little patience or persistence, or need to produce professional high quality prints, get PS or some other commercial product. I think you're seeing an argument from me that isn't there. Calm down. Peace. -- Troy Piggins I always appreciate critique. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP
nospam wrote:
and cs4 debuts in three weeks with a plethora of new features that gimp doesn't have. You're not allowed to say that 'cause it's not fair to Gimp. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP
* nospam wrote :
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: So does GIMP. I'm not bashing PS. I'm just pointing out that almost everything PS does, GIMP does. And the gap between functions is narrowing all the time. that's not even remotely close to being true. photoshop does a *lot* more than the gimp and the gap is *growing*, not shrinking. people who think that the gimp is essentially a free version of photoshop are simply unfamiliar of what photoshop can actually *do*. and it's not just a feature checklist; as i said before, there are a lot of little things that make working in photoshop more productive. So you say... but every time we down to brass tacks it turns out that GIMP does what PS does, but differenty. um, no. and last time we went thru this, you even agreed that a number of things that i mentioned were in fact missing from the gimp, such as adjustment layers, to name just one. and cs4 debuts in three weeks with a plethora of new features that gimp doesn't have. Cool. How much will it cost you? And how much did you spend on previous versions of PS/CS that you now throw away because of upgrades? Hope the "plethora" is worth it. Gimp users will still be able to produce the same end product, which is what it's all about really. -- Troy Piggins I always appreciate critique. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP
Me wrote:
Operations that can be done with PS elements while in 16 bit colour mode were very limited last time I looked at it - so if fully editing in 16 bit colour-space is needed, then full price PS is also needed. Not quite true. You do what you can at 16 b (which is not 'very' limited, just some ops/filters are 8b). Convert to 8 b for the remaining steps. Imperfect. But not as imperfect as gimp (at present). -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
GIMP
Troy Piggins wrote:
For me to pick up PS now and try to re-learn photo-editing would be unproductive /for/ /me/. I know GIMP well enough now to do pretty much everything I want or need to do. Why would I go backwards? Of course, if you already know PS you will be able to use its tools productively. Again, I have to re-iterate. Every once in a while (12 - 18 months) I DL gimp to perform a very straightforward series of operations on an image. These are SO straightforward as to not require much time in learning anything. And no there were no 'other' ways to do these things. See the list of operations... And yet, even for that, it takes more movements of the mouse, more clicks than PS and as said many times, the most critical step before saving the print version: the USM is very awkward to use as file sizes get larger. Again: a very straightforward set of steps (see earlier post for description). If these somewhat simple steps take, let's say 20% more moves and clicks, then what will happen in more advanced work. Will it get easier and simpler... somehow I don't think so. (And by the way, I have printed results from gimp at 8x12. I mean the work was done, so why not... [that goes back a few versions at that...]). The OP wanted opinions on GIMP. He got mine: Don't w/o trying Elements (for free) too. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gimp (was Which Software) | Jerry | Digital Photography | 2 | December 24th 06 01:51 AM |
The GIMP on the go - in your PDA! | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 2 | October 30th 05 08:20 AM |
Do I want The Gimp??? | royroy | Digital Photography | 52 | August 6th 04 04:44 AM |
The Gimp | Allodoxaphobia | Digital Photography | 14 | July 10th 04 06:59 AM |
help with the GIMP | Peter | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 5 | April 13th 04 12:28 AM |