Path: ...!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1 (and digiKam and showFoto)
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 14:06:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <vks6k9$12a03$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vkjmdg$30kff$1@dont-email.me>
 <1814c96a2531ed89$71164$2566989$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <441smjp44l5o2ja4c1vlsv32oh2j6m9n4j@4ax.com> <CoubP.49797$DPl.41452@fx13.iad>
 <pan$4da7a$f7b58970$926e1064$15cef996@linux.rocks>
 <4f7tmjplbte7cnuh2pqrh1fufs4iatv3fd@4ax.com>
 <f6GcnYUuyu7qFfL6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <ubb0nj5ioc4r3gbqhmmiprdejtefj1j6mm@4ax.com>
 <18156702df3c622d$26268$891815$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <slrnvn1617.l28j.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 20:06:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c835ec5d44f4a1d96b4d03da2f34323";
	logging-data="1124355"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184+TFGDZjydrDASd5uL0uh6/xcjNsbz+E="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fwMI9Vzp5gelf2VUfRWai8ZCz0w=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <slrnvn1617.l28j.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com>
Bytes: 3680

On 12/28/24 7:30 PM, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>> GIMP is basically as good as PhotoShop.
> 
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 11:04:22 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>> ... I wouldn't know.  I've assumed that PS is better, based upon
>>> its popularity and price.  I would expect evolving technology would
>>> favor the payware, when it comes to outright performance.
> 
> On 2024-12-28, Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>> The primary expenditure of commercial software is to develop
>> a GUI that can accommodate the stupid -- and I mean STUPID.
>> ...
>> Both the GIMP and Photoshop (and all other such software) are
>> merely GUI wrappers around standard image processing techniques.
>> How the fuck can they be different?  They can't.
>>
>> Except perhaps in the GUI.  Photoshop, as all commercial software,
>> caters to the stupid.  The GIMP not so much.
> 
> I am not a grapical or photographical professional. I do not know much
> about image processing techniques. I just need to manage a collection of
> 100,000 images (my wife takes a lot of pictures on her iPhone) and
> occasionally polish a few of them up a bit.
> 
> To me, the UX design matters a lot - I want the features I need to be
> discoverable even if I don't know what they are called ... or even that
> they exist. I would never spend the money for Photoshop, but I have
> bought PhotoShop ELEMENTS twice. It has some nice features for managing
> large collections, such as automatic face recognition and searching by
> geolocation EXIF tags. But it seems to have gratuitous changes from one
> release to the next, and some performance problems.
> 
> I recently discovered digiKam, and it seems to me to be closely aligned
> with what I need. We will see how I feel in 6 months.

Yes, an image organizer ('database' app) is what you're looking for, and 
to that end, neither GIMP, Photoshop, nor Photoshop Elements are that 
tool; they're image manipulator Apps.

Apple's Photos does some organizing, as does also Adobe Lightroom.  In 
Adobe land, it used to be Adobe Bridge, although I don't know if that's 
current.  Apple Aperture was another, but it was obsoleted years ago.


-hh