On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:32 -0800, Rickey Moore wrote: > --- Brian Mury <brianmury@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 11:29 -0500, taharka wrote: > > > I'm disappointed to see Adobe Photoshop riding at #1. Not needed > > when > > > you have the gimp. > > > > ...except that gimp can't do some of the stuff that photoshop can > > do, > > and some of that functionality is required by some of us. As a > > photographer I use gimp and photoshop for postprocessing images. I > > wish > > I could use gimp exclusively, but it just doesn't fill all my needs > > at the moment. > > I could stand some eduaction if you have a moment. What does gimp > lack? I can't make heads nor tails of one tenth of it, and it's menu > is sorta obscure, but in my own ignarance I am impressed that it > seems to have so much. It would be good to learn which functionality > it needs / doesn't have. Thanks, in advance, Ric > I don't have Photoshop, maybe one of the other people who claimed they were professional photographers can expand on this. It seems to me there are some more refined selection tools, and some better cloning type tools. Also support for 16 bit colour depths (48/64 bit colours) would be nice, my scanner supports it but for my non professional needs 8 bit colour depths (24 bit colour) is OK.
