Cropping photos (Astronomy, Graphics & Video Software [WAS: VMWare / Wine))

[Eric Dunbar]

On 26/02/07, Jeffrey F. Bloss <jbloss at tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Patton Echols wrote:
>
> > > That works - Picasa is a little easier & userfriendly. For any real
> > > photo work I prefer Gimp.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that's what folks keep saying.  But did you find the learning
> > curve steep?
>
> Having had a little experience with Photoshop, Fractal Painter, PSP,
> and about a dozen other lesser known imaging software and layout
> applications on both Windows and *nix, I feel Gimp has a comparatively
> mild learning curve. Somewhat less than Fractal, similar to Photoshop
> and PSP, and certainly nothing like Blender. But then that's no more a
> fair comparison than you calling Gimp "unintuitive" simply because
> you're use to different or "lesser" software.
>
> > I confess that the only thing I have tried with my
> > linux install is a simple crop.  It took three tries to get an even
> > psuedo-acceptable result, I finally figured out that you can't
> > "select" an area and then crop the selection; you have to use the
>
> Nonsense. Any of the three selection tools can be used to define an
> area to be cropped to, which you do from the Image menu. Simple as pie.
> The crop tool merely gives you more refined control over size and
> position, aspect ratio, etc.
>
> > crop tool, then navigate past the unexpected and counterproductive
> > behavior.  My other Gimp experience is with an install under WinXp.
> > Very very frustrating.  I never figured out how to do anything at all
> > with a "selection" except "cut"

One of the great tragedies of GIMP is that they are dropping the ball.
Photoshop has become a huge bloated beast over the years and they've
adopted some pretty advanced editing modes, and abandoned simpler
ones. This means that the pros can do fantastic things with Photoshop
but the amateurs are left out in the cold.

GIMP is probably no more difficult to learn than is Photoshop, but,
the problem is that it's trying to be a Photoshop replacement. A wiser
route would be to drop the kitchen sink philosophy of design and focus
on delivering a reduced subset of the more important (and usable)
editing modes and tools. The GIMP leaves a _LOT_ to be desired when it
comes to the speed department. Photoshop has done some pretty amazing
things with optimizing their filters and operations.

In a way, GIMP is filling the needs of an empty market. If you're
doing photo layout for a living, $500 for a piece of software is
NOTHING!!! That's less than 10 billable hours of work, and, If you're
any good at what you do, you'll be dropping $3000 (or much more) on a
decent piece of hardware to ensure that you're competitive. If you
make your living with software, you're a fool to accept anything less
than the best.

I think GIMP is getting to the point where it's pretty robust under
the hood (except for optimization). Unfortunately, it leaves A LOT to
be desired on the surface in that it's got a million and one windows
(bad design), and, they're also trying to be more than they really
need to be. Though, since this is a FL/OSS project, we may see a fork
eventually that seeks to make the GIMP _accessible_ (kind of like
Photoshop Elements tries to do, but, given that PE isn't exactly well
executed, there's a lot of room for GIMP to make something that "just
works").