> You mentioned a technical issue, the handling of big > raster images. Does it run out of memory quickly in > comparison to Photoshop? What is the issue?

> You mentioned a technical issue, the handling of big > raster images. Does it run out of memory quickly in > comparison to Photoshop? What is the issue? I thought I > remember gimp not being able to handle 16-bit tiffs or > something along those lines. Its memory usage gets high enough for Windows to start trashing on my box with 4 gigs of RAM, and brings everything to a halt. It's not only GIMP's problem BTW, I have to disable thumbnails on the folders with big TIFFs because Windows itself trashes. I don't know how Photoshop avoids this lame behaviour but it does. I haven't tried on Linux but was told it has the same problem. I won't try it because color management in Linux is a PITA even if you are only interested in calibrating your monitor, which is my only need as a hobbyist without money for a decent printing setup. I believe support for 16bit TIFFs is already built into yet-unreleased GIMP 3, but yes, having only 24 bit colour is also another huge problem with GIMP, and totally a dealbreaker once you get serious with photography. Most prosumer flatbeds or DSRLs already take measurable advantage of 48bit colour. I didn't comment on that because the original post was on usability.