Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Date | 04/08/2014 01:57 (04/07/2014 15:57) |
| Message-ID | <878urg7kx4.fld@barrow.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (4m) > Floyd L. Davidson |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:
nospamAccording to nospam.
In article <lhvbs301i0m@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:nospamPeterNAlan BrowneFloyd L. Davidson
And as time goes on and the capability set of Photoshop increases more quickly than the Gimp's poor record of catching up ... well...
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!
Are you talking about Photoshop CC? There are quit a few more choices. And there is PerfectResize, which has completely different algorithms.
keep in mind floyd has never used photoshop (and readily admits it).
According to nospam.nospamPeterNAlan BrowneFloyd L. Davidson
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).
You can't get sharpening quit right using Photoshop.
And the last tme you used PS was?
he hasn't.
All of which is a Non Sequitur to avoid depth of discussion.
-- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
04/05/2014-
