Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 11th Jan 2010 08:10 UTC
Multimedia, AV I followed the hype: Reddit, Slashdot's front page, months of thumbs up on my blog and various video forums by Linux users for OpenShot. Given that I'm longing for a usable Linux video editor since 2003, and given that OpenShot version 1.0 had just been released, I naturally gave it a go, by also downloading its provided dependencies on my Ubuntu Linux 9.10.
Permalink for comment 403834
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: A common problem
by tupp on Wed 13th Jan 2010 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A common problem"
Member since:

I've developed extensively for GIMP and I've used Photoshop for 15+ years. I very pro open source where it makes sense, but I also understand both applications very deeply. Claiming that GIMP is better than Photoshop is utterly silly... GIMP is missing vital tools that are the bread and butter of a working photographer. This includes things like the healing brush, the patch tool, perspective image stamping, real support for actions, the quick select tool, a real brush engine, etc. The list is miles long. Trying to work as a real photographer without these tools greatly increases the amount of time spent editing.

It is interesting that, one who has extensively developed for GIMP, who is very pro open source, who understands Gimp very deeply, would claim that GIMP is missing a healing brush:

GIMP has had this function since at least version 2.4.

In regards to the other features, the patch tool is not yet included in GIMP, but the heal tool can yield the exact same results.

Also, GIMP has the Resynthesizer plug-in (which is actually more sophisticated than the Patch tool): "resyn From what I've read, GIMP had this function prior to Photoshop.

Perspective image stamping? Do you mean "perspective clone?": Or perhaps you meant the "perspective" tool:

In regards to the other features you mentioned, I think that most good photographers can do without them. Do you think that if Richard Avedon's work of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s would be greater if he had had "real support for actions," "the quick select tool" and a "real brush engine?"

What else is on the "list."

But saying that any real professional photographer (who gets paid for their time) could use it daily INSTEAD of Photoshop is silly. It's just not true.

Again, most of the greatest photographers never used Photoshop. I would put my money with Richard Avedon using GIMP against most others using Photoshop.

ACR uses *pieces* of dcraw. But Adobe has added thousands of hours of their own development tweaking the raw conversion algorithms.

How do you know?

Reply Parent Score: 3