4 ms·
To be precise, op said "lowER-quality" (relative comparison) and not "low-quality" (absolute judgement that something is garbage). I think the OP's GIMP-vs-Pho
by jasode 10y ago
To be precise, op said "lowER-quality" (relative comparison) and not "low-quality" (absolute judgement that something is garbage).
I think the OP's GIMP-vs-Photoshop example made that distinction clear. One can simultaneously consider GIMP to be "high quality software" and also "lowER-quality" than Photoshop.
- spacelizard 10y agoIf you ask me, the GIMP-vs-Photoshop debate has become so much of a dead-horse-beating exercise, to the point where I no longer believe that it is fair to compare those two programs as being anything similar. The only comparison I can draw is this: As with any large and old programs, they both will suffer irrelevance in the coming years anyway, and hopefully become displaced by newer and better products. Disclaimer to make me not sound like a complete idiot: I haven't used Photoshop in many years, but I use GIMP infrequently for mundane image editing tasks.