[SATLUG] automatix2 troubles

Todd W. Bucy toddwbucy at grandecom.net
Sat Jun 7 12:22:07 CDT 2008

On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 11:18 -0500, pixelnate at gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 22:23 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > On 6/6/08, Todd W. Bucy wrote:
> > 
> > >  there really only is one choice for a F/OSS replacement for photoshop
> > >  and that is Gimp.  Which considering the price you pay at the register
> > >  for photoshop Gimp is more then photoshops equal.
> > 
> > That's like saying that GraphicConverter is your only replacement for 
> > Photoshop, or maybe Picasa.
> > 
> > They may be image editing programs (or sites), but there is so much 
> > more that Photoshop can do that they can't.  Gimp may be further down 
> > that path, but it still suffers from the same problem -- it's not 
> > Photoshop, and can't do half of what Photoshop can.
> > 
> > 
> > Sometimes, you really do need the real thing.
> I couldn't have said it better myself. There are so many things that
> Gimp cannot do that Photoshop can. It's really good, but it is nowhere
> near being an apt replacement to Photoshop for those who do anything
> more than basic photo editing. And it's lacking in many more areas than
> just CMYK support. If that was all it was lacking I could deal with it,
> I start all my color correction in Photoshop.
> And just for the record, I would pay full price to have a native
> Photoshop on Linux. Being free doesn't automatically make substandard
> software better.
> ~Nate
> ~Nate

What both you and Brad have noted about my comparison of Gimp and
Photoshop is true.  However my standards for evaluating software are
probably different.  I can only assume that you guys are evaluating Gimp
from a very strict understanding of the software's functionality.  Don't
get me wrong, functionality is very important in my own evaluation
software but it is not my only means of evaluating software.  After all
what is the use of software if it doesn't help you accomplish something
in as efficient a manner as possible.   that said I have a few other
standards that I use when evaluating software.  One of which is the
quality of the end product (in this case the art work) that is created
when using a piece of software.  Is the gimp artists able to create an
end product which is comparable to that of an end product created by the
Photoshop artist?  The answer to this question is of course quite
subjective, however if one looks at the Gimp created work on sites such
as kde-look.org and gnome-look.org then one can see that the end
products are at the very least comparable to that of Photoshop.  Another
important standard for me is does the software lower the cost of entry
for the artists or does it raise the cost of entry?  Gimp may lower the
monetary cost of entry but due to the lack of functionality may raise
the sweat equity cost of entry.  Photoshop on the other hand may raise
(on a yearly basis upon new releases) the monetary cost of entry but it
is still a very complicated program which requires a large amount of
sweat equity to produce a quality end product.  From my point of view I
cannot avoid the cost in sweat equity but I can avoid the monetary cost
of entry.  Why should I pay or a $3000 dollar Mac and $650 for Photoshop
for Mac to do something that I can do with a $1500 computer and $0 for
Gimp?  If the question is speed, then with an investment of sweat equity
and $500 more dollars I can go out get 5 used XBoxes from my local pawn
shop and create a render farm with a distro such as Dyne:Bolic.  It is
for these reasons that my cost/benefit analysis says that Gimp is better
then Photoshop.  


More information about the SATLUG mailing list