Re: [CinePaint] cinepaint vs Gimp

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:49:55 +0000
Ron Hickson <ron-H+SwEB6EEwZWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> Fortunately I don't earn a living from photography, so, after three
> paragraphs of chewing it over, I've decided I couldn't live with myself
> as a Microsoft user.   So, on with the hair shirt and kid myself that
> what I produce couldn't be any better if I had PS - and it's more
> fun!   

There is nothing whatsoever that is intrinsically superior about
PhotoShop.  Image processing can be accomplished just as competently
with a do-it-yourself C program on a Linux box.  The only advantage
to PhotoShop is that it successfully _integrates_ many facets
of digital manipulation into one stable package.  This may be
desirable for the majority of users but it is by no means
always necessary.

The claim that simple Open Source tools are equal or
even superior to PhotoShop is perfectly valid an undeniable.

I am also not a professional photographer, but I have been
approached by someone in the photo business to create digital
montages.  I will use Cinepaint for that purpose.  Already
I prepare images to be used commercially for on-line 
digital proofs.  For that purpose, I use Netpbm and shell
scripts but Cinepaint is used initially to establish the
basic parameters.

My results are equivalent to that from PhotoShop.  Why
shouldn't they be?

The only problem is that the manufacturers of commercial
photographic equipment will only release their specifications
to "legitimate" enterprises and not to the Open Source community.
Consequently, the needed color profiles are difficult to obtain.

Frank Peters


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV