On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 05:07:41PM +0200, Alexia Death wrote: > > This is analogous to saying "don't use emacs just to do a quick edit; > > use vi for that". Different tools have different interfaces, and I > > don't want to learn two different interfaces to edit images just because > > I want to "quick and dirty". > I take beef with this comparsion. its more like comparing GIMP and PS. > fair compare would be nano vs emacs. And if its available, I use nano > to edit a single line in a small conf file. If I want syntax higlight > and all the fancyness of emacs, I fire it up. And I do not complayn > that I have to press a few more keys to save and exit than in nano if > I do. To run with this analogy: the problem is when you *frequently* need something that is more than nano provides. In the specific case of Gimp, I don't think there's anything else that offers layers, curves, and a healing brush. I use those things all the time in quick JPEG editing. (The layers only temporarily, of course -- I'll be looking forward to adjustment layers when that work is done.) If we had a whole toolbox of photo editing tools at our disposal in Linux, I'd be less sad. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://mattdm.org/> _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
