MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

jswinden · 11-03-2013, 10:51 AM

I agree that Gimp is too kludge to use for anything but casual processing. Professionals who use image processing on a daily basis don't want the added BS. I guess it fits well with the Millennials who think everything should be free and given to them. But it is not going to fit into a professional's work flow very well.

Prosumers (such as myself) and professionals need image processors that work with RAW images. Photoshop has long been the goto app for that. It has always been pricey, but most of us only updated every 2nd or 3rd version. For example, I went from CS3 to CS6 skipping CS4 and CS5. Several hundred dollars spent over a 3 or 4 year usage of the product is easier to accept, especially when you own the software, than it is to merely rent it at $240 per year. I think they dropped the price, but still it is not a good thing. It was easy to skip upgrades because most version upgrades were incremental and added more bloat anyway.

Apple's Aperture can do a fair job with RAW, but it is way behind Photoshop in capability. Apple spent way too much time integrating BS for Facebook and Twitter and dumbing down the interface for consumers. I would rather see a $400 Aperture Professional that is more like Photoshop and Lightroom. I could care less about social networking integrations.

Lightroom is where I do most of my post-processing. For now Adobe has left it out of the cloud only list. But I suspect they will make it cloud only in the future. Aperture has a lot of the same features, but it still lags behind LR. However, the LR interface is really bad and complicates your workflow.

Bottom line is this: If you only work with JPEG, GIF, PNG, TIF, etc. for web BS, then you don't need a professional grade image processor. Even if you do some photography processing but never use RAW, then you probably don't need a professional grade image processor. But for those who need a professional grade app there really isn't much out there that can compete with Photoshop. But now that Adobe has gone nuts on pricing and cloud crap, I'm hoping other companies will start pumping more into developing true competition to Photoshop.

11-03-2013, 10:51 AM	#145
jswinden Nameless Being	I agree that Gimp is too kludge to use for anything but casual processing. Professionals who use image processing on a daily basis don't want the added BS. I guess it fits well with the Millennials who think everything should be free and given to them. But it is not going to fit into a professional's work flow very well. Prosumers (such as myself) and professionals need image processors that work with RAW images. Photoshop has long been the goto app for that. It has always been pricey, but most of us only updated every 2nd or 3rd version. For example, I went from CS3 to CS6 skipping CS4 and CS5. Several hundred dollars spent over a 3 or 4 year usage of the product is easier to accept, especially when you own the software, than it is to merely rent it at $240 per year. I think they dropped the price, but still it is not a good thing. It was easy to skip upgrades because most version upgrades were incremental and added more bloat anyway. Apple's Aperture can do a fair job with RAW, but it is way behind Photoshop in capability. Apple spent way too much time integrating BS for Facebook and Twitter and dumbing down the interface for consumers. I would rather see a $400 Aperture Professional that is more like Photoshop and Lightroom. I could care less about social networking integrations. Lightroom is where I do most of my post-processing. For now Adobe has left it out of the cloud only list. But I suspect they will make it cloud only in the future. Aperture has a lot of the same features, but it still lags behind LR. However, the LR interface is really bad and complicates your workflow. Bottom line is this: If you only work with JPEG, GIF, PNG, TIF, etc. for web BS, then you don't need a professional grade image processor. Even if you do some photography processing but never use RAW, then you probably don't need a professional grade image processor. But for those who need a professional grade app there really isn't much out there that can compete with Photoshop. But now that Adobe has gone nuts on pricing and cloud crap, I'm hoping other companies will start pumping more into developing true competition to Photoshop. Last edited by jswinden; 11-03-2013 at 10:54 AM.