Sam Malone wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > Gimp vs. Photoshop
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | The truth is, they're both winners when they're used in the proper
> > | context. The Gimp just doesn't have support in the areas that are
> > | necessary to make it useful in a commercial application. However,
> > | you cannot justify the price of Photoshop for personal use when the
> > | Gimp will do everything it can do outside of commercial printing. I
> > | know I've beat the horse to death, but unless you want to pirate
> > | software, there is no reason to use Photoshop if you're not producing
> > | a print publication ? use the Gimp.
> > `----
> >
> > http://grimthing.com/archives/2007/01/11/Gimp_vs_Photoshop/
>
>
>
> BAWAWWAWAWWWAAWWWAWAAA
>
> You and article are to stupid to know that Photoshop is often free with
> digital camera.
Adobe Photoshop Elements, not the full version of Photoshop, is often
available as a cheap or free addition to cameras. Of course it is
"free" like "buy X and get a free Y" has always been "free" (i.e. they
included the cost of the "free" addition in the price of X).
However, Photoshop Elements lacks many of the professional features
that were being discussed in the post you replied to, making the
stupidity entirely yours.
Dean G.
|
|
