bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us
Thu Apr 26 19:13:18 BST 2007
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Rob Lingelbach wrote:
> Bob Fr., you who are of estimable value and esteem for those of us
> who use GraphicsMagick, which I believe is under the GNU license, would
> you so easily discard The Gimp as being a good alternative to Photoshop,
> and under the GNU license as well? I ask this sincerely and would like
> your honest opinion comparing the two.
The core of GraphicsMagick uses a MIT-style license rather than GNU.
The binary package includes some GNU-licenced bits.
It is important to notice that The Gimp is still limited to
8-bit/sample images while Photoshop has supported 16-bit/sample images
for many releases and is now starting to add useful support for
floating point as well. Other than the 8-bit limitation, I think that
the results are primarily determined by the skill of the person using
the software and that talented Gimp users can produce results which
are visually similar to results produced by talented Photoshop users.
There are applications where the 8-bit limitation of the Gimp is a
show-stopper. The 8-bit limitation makes the Gimp unsuitable for film
and high-end publishing (which is why CinePaint exists).
While some tools are much more suitable for a task than others, in the
end the talents of the person using the tools makes the final
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
More information about the Tig