On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:00:28AM +0000, Markus Triska wrote: > Apparently, Dave has understood my point and has taken the photo off the web. > That was in my opinion the only correct behaviour. I think we can agree that > we would not show a naked woman in a Gimp advertisement, even if it is > perfectly natural. So why would you show a naked baby? I think one should not > do this. On a side note, displaying a static photograph does not do justice > to the Gimp's functionaliy either. I can use kview for that. Let us both have > a look at Adobe's screenshot section of photoshop. I bet they are pretty > proud to show off with features and stuff that their PRODUCT is able to > provide. > i have looked at the adobe photoshop web site perhaps 4 times. for information to help my friend run her photoshop le. we did not ever find the information we were searching for. can you just explain what the differences are and what should matter to us? carol
