Skip to main content
news

Re: converting raw images f...

nospam
Google Google
SubjectRe: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
Fromnospam
Date12/03/2013 19:08 (12/03/2013 13:08)
Message-ID<031220131308565007%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsSavageduck
In article <2013120309422098502-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
Just for the hell of it I fired up GIMP 2.8.2 on my Mac about 30 minutes ago. Not wanting to push things too much (I didn't try a TIFF) I managed to load a 3,5MB JPEG without issue. Now I had a JPEG open in GIMP, and my usual smooth PS workflow got dumped. This left me having to work around the GIMP kludgyness and improvise to get close to what I would have been able to do in PS or LR, but only close, certainly not in anyway an equal result.

some of that is the gimp being new to you, with a different interface. however, as you found out, there are things that the gimp can't do (and probably never will).

So many of the PS & LR features I take for granted are nonexistent in GIMP, there is no work around they are just not there. This might be acceptable to somebody not having access to PS or LR, but not to anybody familiar with Adobe releases of PS, LR, or PSE of the last 5 years.

more like 10 years behind, on average, with some still missing after 20 years.

according to the gimp site, some of that is supposedly coming to the gimp in some future version at some unknown time. that's called vaporware (or more accurately, wishful thinking).

meanwhile, photoshop and lightroom aren't sitting still. by the time the gimp adds that (if it ever does), photoshop will have added all sorts of other stuff.

When it comes to making any sort of comparison the only conclusion I can come to is, GIMP is crippled when put up against PS, PSE, LR, Aperture, Pixelmator, Acorn, and even PSP, or DxO.

that is the opinion of everyone who has used both the gimp and photoshop/lightroom for anything more than casual adjustments of brightness, contrast, etc. if that's all you do, then the gimp is more than adequate, but then again, so is iphoto.

anything beyond the basics and photoshop will win, every time.