Tony Cooper
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:42:20 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
On 2013-12-03 17:04:30 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>said:

nospam
In article <m56dnUMW68T5RwDPnZ2dnUVZ8rmdnZ2d@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood <cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com>wrote:

sid
What's that got to do with it? Using a mouse to click about is the same on osx, windows or linux why is that so difficult for you to grasp. There is no awareness or expertise of the os required to do that

nospam
what you fail to grasp is that on a mac or windows, what takes a click or two, takes all sorts of hoops on linux.

sid
Provide me with an example of that can you?

nospam
non-destructive editing, adjustment layers, smart filters and smart collections.

Neil Ellwood
What a pity you don't keep up to date. Must be this OSX thing.

nospam
don't keep up to date with what? the gimp can't do any of that and won't any time soon, if ever.

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.

I really don't understand this mindset in this group that requires people to knock what they don't use and go out of their way - as you have - to "prove" that what they don't use isn't as good as what they do use.

I don't use Gimp, and I wouldn't bother even *trying* to use Gimp. I've got a program that works for me, that I'm reasonably proficient in using, and that I've spent an awful lot of hours learning how to use.

What other people can or can't do in Gimp is completely without interest to me.

Other people do things differently. So what?