3 ms·
Gimp is good for basic photo editing and manipulation, but it sucks as a professional-grade tool. Gimp can't handle raw images. It can't handle more than 8 bits
by erroneousfunk 12y ago
Gimp is good for basic photo editing and manipulation, but it sucks as a professional-grade tool. Gimp can't handle raw images. It can't handle more than 8 bits per channel, no CMYK support. None of the Photoshop CS5 features (like content-aware spot healing) are there.
Yes, it's better than most Photoshop alternatives, but it would never be a satisfactory replacement for, say, commercial photographers. I mean, I've only casually used Photoshop for random freelance work over the years (for clients who don't want to hire a real designer), and in my limited experience I've done things with Photoshop that Gimp literally doesn't have support for.
- abandonliberty 12y agoIs that different from content aware fill? Gimp had that feature first, actually. The workflow difference seems minor to me on this one. http://www.gimpology.com/submission/view/getting_around_in_gimp_content_aware_fill_heal_/ http://www.gimpology.com/submission/view/getting_around_in_g...
- erroneousfunk 12y agoI stand corrected :) I wasn't aware of that feature. However, I believe there are still problems with raw, CMYK, and images with large color depth.