On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Karl Günter Wünsch <kgw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > For me this only means: I'm a book author for photography books and in > these I usually add some sort of recommendations on which tools on the > computer side would be worthwhile having around, my coauthor has up to > now recommended Adobe programs and I was sort of inclined to include > free alternatives like the GIMP. With GIMP 2.8 I have decided against > doing that because I cannot support your narrowed view which workflow is > worthwhile and which isn't... GIMP can not support all workflows equally well - it can not be a breadknife and a scalpel at the same time. Right now, GIMP is a lousy scalpel. It has a ton of flaws that makes many people use it as a breadknife. But at least it seems to know what it wants to be. Even among commercial producs there is specialization AFAIK. There is Painter, Photoshop and Lightroom - each with their own usecases - and I can not belive that you would recomend people use the wrong tool for the task at hand. -- --Alexia _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
