nospam
In article <14441321.QmDcE0a0vB@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid <sidney@sidshouse.net>wrote:

Savageduck
Since you are apparently attempting to take a neutral stance regarding this particular debate, perhaps the time has come for you stop any further commentary in this specific sub-thread.

sid
That's just about the most arrogant and pompous thing I've read in, well actually only a day or two, you sound more like Jonas on a daily basis! How the heck does having a neutral point of view mean Tony shouldn't comment on what he wants?

nospam
nobody said he can't comment on what he wants.

the point is he didn't try the gimp so he's not in a position to comment on what it can or can't do.

Savageduck
You are missing the point and are not prepared to make any sort of comparison yourself. Strangely enough neither are the protagonists on the other side of this discussion.

sid
I assume you are partly refering to me with that statement, in which case that is bullshit too as I have stated in another post that I have tried PS running on osx but I haven't tried lightroom. And more to the point I described the experience as alien, not as complete garbage just because it was not what I'm used to.

nospam
that is because it has a different user interface. this is not about its user interface.

the issue is its functionality, not the interface.

the gimp has fewer features than photoshop does, which means it has less functionality. this is a fact, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

sid
Unlike you I have not denigrated your choice because it's not what I'm used to and I haven't invested years in learning to use it. Just because, in your brief look at GIMP, you couldn't find alternatives to your favourite methods does not mean that someone used to GIMP couldn't.

nospam
if the functionality is *not* *there*, there aren't any alternatives.

you might be able to fake it with a lot of effort and dozens and dozens of steps, but that just means you're doing a lot more work than is necessary, and that's assuming you can even do it in the first place.

in other words, what someone can do in a click or two and just seconds in photoshop or lightroom will take minutes, possibly hours, if it's possible at all, in the gimp.

you are certainly welcome to make things as difficult and convoluted as possible, but be aware that a lot of people will wonder why you're doing it that way, when it's so much easier with the proper tools.

sid
In fact the only thing not achievable is your content aware fill/move. Big deal!

nospam
absolutely wrong. there is a *lot* more that can't be done in the gimp.