nospam
In article <87fvlroztb.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:

Alan Browne
And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well...

Floyd L. Davidson
Tell us about how great it is to have only a choice between "bicubic sharper" and "bicubic smoother" for filters when resampling an image either down for the web or up for printing!

nospam
tell us how great it is to not have adjustment layers, non-destructive workflow and the inability to use a wealth of plug-ins that can do whatever you want, for starters.

Alan Browne
One exercise, optimally sharpening (USM) a finished image, is but one of many examples I can use to show that the Gimp is a poor user experience for photographers. Yes - you can achieve the desired end for many things - just not as quickly or efficiently as in PS. (and yes, sufficient cherry picking will fine exceptions).

Floyd L. Davidson
You can't get sharpening quit right using Photoshop.

nospam
nonsense.

Floyd L. Davidson
But with GIMP it is possible to combine, in proportions of the users choice, Wavelet sharpening, High Pass sharpening, Unsharp Mask, and Richardson-Lucy Deconvolutional sharpening.

nospam
nothing about photoshop prevents that.

Floyd L. Davidson
Photoshop is fine if you are willing to settle for "good enough", but if you know the difference you'll get between *proper* application of USM, HP sharpen and RL sharpen there is no comparison.

nospam
more nonsense.