Floyd L. Davidson
PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:

PeterN
On 4/6/2014 12:18 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>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!

PeterN
Are you talking about Photoshop CC? There are quit a few more choices. And there is PerfectResize, which has completely different algorithms.

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.

PeterN
And the last tme you used PS was?

Floyd L. Davidson
That is irrelevant. The last time I had in depth discussions about sharpening with someone who know what that means and uses PS was about two months ago.

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.

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.

PeterN
I haven't used the Gimp, so I can't comment.

Floyd L. Davidson
But do you know the difference between UnSharpMask, High Pass, and Deconvolutional sharpening? That's what counts, not using GIMP or PS.