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. 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. 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.

Now more than ever I am convinced that I would only resort to GIMP under dire circumstances, and would probably move to Pixelmator or Acorn first if For some reason I no longer had access to the Adobe software I currently use.

Tony Cooper
Really, Duck, all you've shown is the equivalent of being able to ride a bicycle, but falling flat on your ass trying to ride a unicycle. But, a circus clown in oversized shoes can ride a unicycle and do tricks on it.

To really make your point, you'd have to put the same amount of time and effort into learning how to successfully process an image in Gimp that you've put into learning how to successfully process an image in Photoshop.

Most of the "kludge" effect is that you're working with a program that is not what you're used to using and proficient at using.

Other people do things differently. So what?