Slashdot Mirror

As much as I'd like it to be open source doesn't always do what's desired. Because I shouldn't spend the money Photoshop costs for a photography business I'll try to use CinePaint and see if it works for me. I've got a Mac and I already tried to install the Mac version of CinePaint, but it uses X11 and I haven't been able to get it to work. So Ive been thinking about setting up my Mac to dualboot Ubuntu, if so then I'll try CinePaint again. If it still doesn't work for me then I may end up having to buy Photoshop.

Falcon

I agree, GIMP is a BITCH to use. I can use it, but Photoshop's UI just obliterates GIMP's. It's not just that I have to learn something new, it's much harder to learn with a confusing approach to how to use tools.

If Photoshop works for you and you can afford it that's great. If however the GUI is holding you back there's a version of GIMP who's GUI is like Photoshop's, GIMPShop. I tried GIMP years ago and I wouldn't use it now except for basic editing. The only reason I thought if using anything other than Photoshop, like CinePaint, is because of the cost. I'm disabled and on disability so just Photoshop CS, not a suite, costs as much as one month of disability. If after I try CinePaint I find it does not work for me then I'd have to try to find a way to pay for Photoshop. Perhaps buy an older but upgradeable version off of eBay.

Yeah, and I've never, ever, ever heard anyone ever say "photog" ever, and it does sound stupid.

Google returns more than 2,500,000 results with photog. One of them is a freelance photographer, notice the domain name.

Falcon

Because I don't assume that the needs of the users are met. I do graphics work. I've used both the open and closed ecosystems' products. The open ecosystem's products, to be pretty frank, suck.

Have you tried CinePaint? If so what was wrong with it? Then same with Inkscape and Blender? Currently I use OS X Leopard and don't have the resources to buy Photoshop CS for graphics/photography. I tried CinePaint but it only works in X Windows and I wasn't able to get it working so I'm planning to install Ubuntu, then I'll be able to use CinePaint. And the others easier.

If I can't do what I want with them I might buy an older upgradeable version of CS off of eBay. But I want to try open source apps first.

Falcon

I'm also leaving aside the "GIMP blows goats and has a terrible name" angle.

While I wouldn't use GIMP for professional photo editing, I like CinePaint, there are pro photographers who do use GIMP. Check out some of the discussions about GIMP on Photo.net.

Falcon

That's my point, artists should keep on creating.

That would be nice, but they don't all have it in them. Stephen King is wildly prolific, but for someone who doesn't have it in them to keep that kind of pace copyright encourages them to do it at least once anyway.

If they don't have it in them then they should do something else. If nothing else they can work doing something else while writing in their free tyme. That's what many open source programmers do, they work on an open source project in their free tyme.

I generally admire Jefferson, but he wasn't infallible and who knows what his position would be now as the world is a vastly changed place from the one he knew.

If he were alive today, I'd bet he'd have copyright terms shorter. More is being created now than any tyme in history. As I said in my post you replied to as well as others technology makes it easier and cheaper to publish. About 20 years ago I spent a few hours designing fliers and posters in Quark Xpress on a Mac for a dance class recital, back then I danced myself. Today I could do that in an hour or two.

Obviously I was talking about after the copyright expires.

If it's going to be a best seller, more than likely it will be one while it's still being protected by copyright.

Why wouldn't they have been made into movies?

Because they were copyrighted and the copyright holder didn't want movies of them made. By the way, how would it be determined who the copyright holders were?

"Harry Potter" movies were made without a problem

They were made using the open source software CinePaint. As was "The Last Samurai" and a number of other movies.

Yeah, for weddings, the best photogs I've met are usually the ones who do it occasionally enough that they aren't cynical about it,

Perhaps that's why I wouldn't want to be a wedding photographer, I am cynical about marriage. To too many people it's disposable, if marriage doesn't work get a divorce and try again.

I think I'm about played out on this subject.

Ok, take it easy.

Falcon

Even if I had the money and needed to setup a server I still would not get an Exchange server unless I absolutely had to

Yeah, I feel the same way, and it's really easy to say that. Unfortunately, when you have a job, and your company needs to get something done, avoiding vendor lock-in is only one consideration.

Well if you're working for someone else and they say you have then you have to or you can be fired. Actually installing and using it though may mean you're security your future employment. However how many who do so and maintain it would do so if it was their own business?

Imagine you get called into your bosses office, and he says, "Why can't we do [whatever]? I know you can do it, because the last company I worked for could do it."

Are you seriously going to say, "Well, there's a software package that almost everyone uses, and it does that perfectly with very little trouble, but I won't use it because I'm afraid of vendor lock-in."

If it was me and I was asked about doing so I'd do some research then get back to my boss with all the pros and cons of using Exchange versus using other software. Then if the boss still wanted it and I needed the job I'd do it. But at the same tyme if I could I'd also setup an alternative system. That is if I didn't do that before seeing my boss a second tyme. I admit I don't like MS but if Exchange, or any other MS product, was the best for the task that needed to be done then I would.

Luckily I'm not in that position, actually I'm in a worse position. I'm on disability now but I'm hoping to start my own business.

the sentiment of only wanting to use open source is all well and good, but whether it's practical depends on your situation.

While I'm pro open source, where a proprietary software package will do what I need but FOOS won't or where it will do it cheaper then I'll use proprietary software. Above I said I want to start my own business. I want to go into photography and web development, designing websites for other photographers and though I want to use CinePaint to edit photos I haven't been able to get it to run on my Mac, so when I can I'll probably get Photoshop. It's either that or setup my Mac as a dual boot and install Linux, in Linux I can get CinePaint to work.

Falcon

But you don't want to be the cheap provider. Companies don't care much about costs, someone needs to spent his budget. The cost argument is stupid. If you can get the source, that solution is better.

Hopefully RSN I'll be starting my own business and cost is a big issue for me. My business? Photography. I am on disability and can't afford to spend thousands of dollars for software. So instead of spending more than $700 to buy Photoshop I'll try CinePaint first, then only if I find out I need Photoshop and can afford it then I'll buy it. For running the business I'll look for open source software such as CRM, accounting, and a database. If I can't find what I want I'll take open source software and try to modify it so it will do what I want.

Now if I'm going to modify source code then I'd like to be sure I can close the source with an eye to sell said program(s) to other photographers. With BSD software I can do that but I can't with GPL software.

Falcon

I can just use the GIMP to do my photo touch ups and other editing.

I tried GIMP years ago when I had Windows but found it seriously lacking. So I tried out Paint Shop Pro. Now that I have a Mac I'll try CinePaint, aka FilmGIMP. Because colour bit depth is important to me I consider it better than GIMP. Whereas GIMP only has 8 bit colour depths CinePaint has 16. Which brings up something I don't like about the GIMP developers. A programmer submitted code to the project that had 16 bit colour depth, several years ago, but they refused to use it. So he, or she I don't know who is was, forked GIMP. Many years later GIMP still only has 8 bit colour depths while movie studios work with CinePaint.

I used Photoshop a few years ago, and the interface was sleeker than the GIMP

Have you tried GIMPshop? It's interface was designed to be more like Photoshop.

Falcon

As is CinePaint, which is also open source. It's not as good capability wise as Photoshop but it does a lot photographers want to do.

Falcon

In other areas it seems like the intersection between programmers and users are very low, like say video editors. If you've tried any of the OSS editors and compared them to commercial ones, you know what I mean.

Have you tried CinePaint aka Film GIMP? Movie makers like Dreamworks uses it, along with Linux.

All in all, I don't think closed source companies will disappear for a very long time even if Windows/Office were to disappear (and that's a looooooong way to go there too).

There's no good reason for closed source software to disappear. I'd like to see more open source but wouldn't make all software open. Instead I'd let a freemarket encourage competition, as well as cooperation.

Falcon

My MBA Program talks rather fondly of Open Source Software, for the most part. They just make you analysis the benefits in a business perspective, and try to decide when an Open Source product is worth it, or getting a closed source app may be a better overall value.

That's what everybody should do. First an analysis of the needs, what is required, should be done. Take the requirements to evaluate software then use that to decide what hardware and OS will run the chosen software. Sometimes a closed source proprietary solution is needed while other tymes FOOS can be used. Or they can be mixed and matched. For instance I'd like to start a photography business, shooting photos as well as creating online photography websites. So I can take my computer with me I have a MacBook Pro laptop. My desktop unit, a tower really, is a generic PC with Linux. I can use it as a server. For photo editing I have CinePaint, which lies between GIMP and Photoshop in capability, and it runs on both Linux and OS X as well as Windows. I'm hoping it will do everything I'll want to do, but if not I may spring for Photoshop. For editing code just about any text editor will work and there's plenty of those for every OS.

Falcon

I want to try Film Gimp aka CinePaint. But I need a book or something to learn it and I haven't found one. That or someone to show me how to use it.

Falcon

Matte painters worked in 8K resolution, and the artists painted texture maps in either 8K or 16K resolution, depending on the view. âoeThat was a bottleneck,â Franklin says. âoePhotoshop doesnâ(TM)t handle images above 4K very efficiently and itâ(TM)s a closed tool, so we couldnâ(TM)t get in there and add stuff to it. Working with Photoshop was possible, but slow. It took three or four times longer than usual to paint the textures.â

I doubt the GIMP would have been able to do it either, but I wonder if in the future, it might get used for a project similar to this because it is open source and can be modified for special use like this.

the only open source app I know of that handles it is cinepaint, it actually handles 32 bit floating color channels as well as 16 and 8 bit.

an open source image editor Cinepaint is in the middle of a rewrite to convert from GTK to FLTL, Fast Light Toolkit to free up some memory and CPU cycles by using a more spartan interface. The pro's want they work to be pretty, not their software.

It would take a long explanation for a satisfactory response. I think I put together a detailed comparison between the two, but I'm not sure if I still have the file.

Ever notice how many open source critics call it communism? It isn't just because of MS schills. A lot of that has to do with Stallman's constant crap. He constantly trashes Linux, apparently because he is jealous of its success. He thinks he should be the only one to get credit for anything open source. He is very controlling, especially with GNU projects or any projects similar to a GNU one. GNU projects are free as in "freedom", but not if you want to compete or make a fork. For example, I've seen messages on the front pages of a few projects which seemed to indicate some GNU/FSF people were harrassing them. Namely Cinepaint (a GIMP fork) and TenDRA (a compiler). One has to wonder why all the development stopped on TenDRA. It looked like a viable project.

Basically he is an extremist who wants to eliminate anyone who is a threat to his "leadership." Yes, he doesn't kill people, but his paranoid actions don't seem far off from Stalin. I would suppose he has the same psychological disorder.

Might not be what you're after but I think cinepaint (a GIMP-derivative software package used in film mostly, I believe) has some HDR support. Don't know enough about it to be sure, but saw it referenced in some other thread about GIMP.

And if you look at a lot of them they are alpha/beta releases and not the 1.0 that you come to expect with proprietary software though.

What are the 2.5 and 2.6 releases of the Linux kernel then? Or take NeoOffice. While I have version 2.1 it's up to 2.2.3. NeoOffice, neither my version nor the new one is an alpha. I'm not sure about whether either one is a beta or not. My version of Firefox is 2.0.0.6, I don't know what's the current version for Macs. Look at Blender, I have version 2.44.

But there is a difference, the GIMP is not backed by any major corporation

CinePaint is backed by major corporations. It's called FilmGIMP because it's used by movies studios, it started as GIMP but a programmer added capabilities to it that photographers wanted, such as 24 bit colour depths per channel. The maintainers of GIMP did not accept them however some in the movie industry ran with it creating a fork. Here's a list of movie studios and movies that used it, two being Sean Connery's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and Tom Cruise's "The Last Samurai".

So you would expect them to be a little less on features, another thing is, the GIMP developers focus on what means the most to them

That's right, businesses give users what they want whereas OS maintainers only do what they want, which takes us back to there being a place for both FOOS and proprietary software.

Please do not mention the Gimp. I need CMKY for one thing.

I think both CinePaint aka Film GIMP, and Krita support CMYK. CinePaint is available for Linux, Macs, and Windows whereas Krita is for Linux. I don't know about Krita but CinePaint also does 32 bits per colour channel.

With the rate of advancement in The GIMP, eventually, Photoshop enthusiasts will have nothing bad to really say about it. It was always about no cmyk, no 32 bit color support, no adjustment layers. It looks like some of these things may be coming in future.

CinePaint aka Film Gimp has had 32 bit colour depths for a while. While it doesn't have cmyk support it's being worked on. From what I could find though it doesn't have adjustment layers either.

Oh, I wanted to share these graphics of Gimp and Photoshop being depicted as Swiss Arm Knives

As a supplement to your comment, here is the very next page of the link you posted:

Link

Yeah...16 bit color makes a HUUUUUGE and TOTALLY NOTICEABLE difference.

Now if only the open source community could come up with a Solution to this HUGE problem.

I guess you also don't work in, say, animation. Or you would know http://www.cinepaint.org/.

Oh, there's something else I forgot to mention in my original post. You can build a Linux PC.

It used to be that you could build your own PC cheap, cheaper than OEMs, if you know what you're doing. However the prices of OEM PCs have come down a lot whereas the prices of the components to BYO haven't come down as much. I've got an old HP Pavilion I was going to rebuild. I wanted to use the same case, hdds, and graphics but replace everything else, the mobo and cpu, the power supply, and add cards for USB2 and Firewire if the mobo didn't include them. I ended buying a PC with Linux preinstalled for about what a cheap new mobo and cpu would have cost, $250. And it came with a $50 mail in rebate. About the only tyme it's cheaper to BYO is when you have specific component requirements such as a specific graphic card and hdds.

So yes, you can say you can just buy that 23" Viewsonic, buy a mac in parts...and I'll just go to Newegg, buy a PC in parts. Guess which is cheaper?

Then buy Windows? I bought a Mac because I was sick and tired of dealing with Windows PCs. Or you can download and install Linux free. Good luck getting Photoshop CS3 installed and ready to use, especially if you're if you're new to Linux. And despite what people say GIMP IS NOT a drop in replacement for Photoshop. Accurate colour rendition is important for not just photographers but graphic artists who print. For print CMYK is also important. GIMP's 8 bits per colour channel comes no where near to having good colour rendition. Photoshop's 32 bit colour depth is so much better. And GIMP doesn't natively have CMYK support, instead you have to install a plugin to get it. And while CinePaint also has 32 bit colour depths and can do CMYK, can it do everything PH does?

Many open source apps I use are not well supported (Openoffice, Amarok, Gimp, Inkscape, k3b.

NeoOffice is a good Mac port of Open Office. And MacGIMP is also a Mac port. However if it's like GIMP it only has an 8 bit colour depth per channel. While that may be fine for the web, it's seriously lacking for print media. For print CinePaint aka Film GIMP is better. How well it's supported on OS X I don't know but I've be finding out rsn. If it doesn't do what I want though I may end up getting Photoshop CS3, which you can't get running on Linux without jumping through hoops. I'll also try Inkscape and Blender. The others I don't know about.

the OS X interface is awful

I guess it depends on your taste. Neither I nor many other Mac users have a problem with it. Of course my favorite OS was Amiga.

MacPorts packages didn't compile 50% of the time.

I haven't tried it yet but I'll go through to see what's available. If I find some good software I'll go ahead and try it.

# Adobe: GIMP(shop) and Inkscape; evince and gnash

What are the colour depths of Photoshop and GIMP? PS CS3 has 32 bits per colour change whereas GIMP only has 8. Can GIMP work with CMYK? Only with a plugin. Does PS? Natively. So, if you want print then you need PS as GIMP won't do. However Film GIMP AKA CinePaint can do it. I plan on working in photography and I'll give CinePaint a try but if it doesn't work I may have to get PS. As for Inkscape, it is for vector graphics not photo editing. I'll also try Inkscape, as well as Blender.

I actually don't mind paying for software - if it earns me money. Now, paying the prices that they ask of me, at the outset, even before I can afford it... that's another question.

Same here. I'm hoping to start working early this year as a photographer and I'd like to get Photoshop CS3. However because I'm on disability I'd rather not have to part with the $800, or however much CS3 cost. Right now I only work with film and I'd rather use the money to help pay for a DSLR. So initially I'm going to tryout CinePaint. If it doesn't work or work well but I'm able to have an income from photography then I'll go ahead and buy PS. Then I'll first buy an old upgradeable version then buy the upgrade version of CS3, that's save me a few hundred dollars.

I can use the same software on Linux just as easily as I do on my Mac.

What software are you using exactly?

First I should say I got it reversed, instead I should of said I can use the same software on my Macs as I can use in Linux. Now as for what I use, for now I only use Eudora, Firefox, and a text editor on my Mac. When I get around to it though I plan on installing CinePaint and Inkscape, both of which are cross platform. I have X11 installed on my Mac and with either Fink or MacPorts I can download and install the same X11 programs for Linux on my Mac. Fink uses dpkg, dselect and apt-get from the Debian Project and MacPorts uses Redhat's rpm package management software. For technical reasons I haven't used my Linux PC in a few months.

I say good job Adobe for making their commodity products reasonably priced so as to profit from software that would otherwise be unused in the non-professional world (or at least not paid for), while ensuring that professionals will still pay for their core product.

I'll use Film GIMP aka CinePaint first, then if it doesn't work I'll get Photoshop. I'd like to find a book on it though.

Or they could be like me and not find an easy install package for Gimp on OSX. Can anyone point me to a single file that I double click (or drag to apps) to install Gimp, or must I go through about 2 hours of web surfing just to figure out how to install the installer?

It's not a 1 step install but have you thought of trying Film GIMP AKA CinePaint? Here's the instructions for installing it in Panther. If you don't already have X11 installed you will need to install it first. X11 should be on your install disks, if not then you can download it from Apple. Apple also has a download page for GIMP, which also requires X11.

But I agree. People who pirate Photoshop don't have the money to buy it in the first place and that corporations more than pay their share for those of us...errr, you that have downloaded Photoshop for your home use. If they'd make a "home" edition that was around $150 or so, I'd buy it.

Though not cheap, it's still cheaper than paying the full price for Photoshop, you can buy an old version of PH, say PH6 or 7 then buy the upgrade version of CS3. I'll first try CinePaint then if it won't work for me I'll do this myself.

Utter horseshit. under Linux, you can't even get many types of app - for example, there are no Photoshop-class image editing apps

Gimp?

Whereas Photoshop has 32 bits per colour channel for a total of 96 bits, GIMP still only has 8 bits per channel for a total of 24 bits. For print media that added colour bit depth is important. However there's Film GIMP or CinePaint which also has 32 bits per colour channel.

As a final point, I actually find installation and usage of applications to be very intuitive and easy under Ubuntu. Add/Remove software is built directly into the interface, and it contains any type of software I've ever really wanted or needed to use. There's also the availability of Wine.

Drag and Drop is even easier to install software on Macs. Macs also have Wine and CrossOver.

Someone into graphics and photography is not going to be happy with the Linux offerings, no matter how complete, since the apps don't even exist for the platform.

While I agree different Linux distros come with different programs there's not much of a problem with apps for graphics and photography. Sure Adobe hasn't released Photoshop for Linux yet, but it can be installed on Linux systems with WINE or CrossOver. Even if Linux won't install CS3, though it doesn't have everything CS3 does, there's CinePaint, formerly Film GIMP, used in the movie industry. For graphics other than for photography there's Inscape, Xara Extreme, Blender, and other programs that are cross platform. Actually because I want to learn it I picked up a book yesterday on Blender. Now, only if I could find one for CinePaint. And yes, though only an amateur now I hope to break into photography freelance. Because I've only done film and not digital work, I'll probably be working with film a lot at first. But I'll scan film and work digitally, so I'll tryout CinePaint first and then only if it doesn't workout well will I get Photoshop. Then to save money on it I'll get an old version then get the upgrade version.

Ah, it's be good to get back into the darkroom.

2. The GIMP only supports 8 bits per channel
...
Only item 2 above is a real showstopper

I agree with everything you said, but especially this. I can't consider GIMP seriously for editing my photos until it supports 16 bpc. Not that I'm all that great of a photographer, but that makes it even more important for me to not lose any detail in my prints.

Cinepaint supports 32 bpc, but it lacks most of the features that make GIMP 2 worth using; for the moment, Bibble is meeting my needs 90% of the time; noise ninja takes care of the most common editing that I'd normally use GIMP for. Still, I'm looking forward to the day when GIMP mainline supports 32 bpc; I still feel crippled by not having a decent photo editor on Linux.

--- SER

I know nothing of Paint.net but so far GIMP is the best and most functional free software of it's nature out there.

If you like GIMP you may like CinePaint aka Film GIMP more.

I have installed Neo-Office on the Macs belonging to our graphics designers, plus a couple other open-source tools(main tool is In-Design).

A few weeks ago I installed NeoOffice on my new Macbook Pro and I plan on trying out other FOOS programs. Maybe the next I plan on trying is CinePaint aka Film GIMP.

what are these deep colors you speak of? Can you show me a picture saved in gimp and one saved in photoshop that uses deep colors?

Unfortunately I doubt the web, browsers, can handle colour bit depths past 12 bits. While GIMP has 8 bit colour depths Photoshop has 32 bit colour depths, as does CinePaint aka Film GIMP. It may not make much difference here, both on the web and on /., but it matters a lot for any sort of professional graphics.

I've been using photoshop for about 10 years now and have become very proficient. I recently made the switch to linux. The only real application i havn't found a replacement for is photoshop. I have tried using GIMP but their are just too many problems with it.

Have you tried CinePaint aka FilmGIMP? I'll be getting into photography, well professionally I'm hoping, and because it would be a real stretch for me to afford Photoshop right now I'm been looking for a FOOS photo editor. Also as some have offered there are other editors available such as Bibble, Xara Xtreme, and Light Crafts. I'll start with CinePaint and work my way down 'til I find one that works for me, if I don't find one I guess I'll be stuck getting Photoshop. If I do what I'll do is buy an older version of PS from eBay and upgrade it. You can get PS pretty cheaply on eBay but you have to make sure what you get is eligible for upgrades and there's a Transfer of Ownership form filled out.

Unless they have recently added support for higher depths than 16 bits, no one will be able to take it seriously. I'd love to use gimp for something more than a quick rescale of jpegs, but when you're constrained to working with 8 bits per channel, everything just gets too tedious.

CinePaint aka Film Gimp supports 32 bit colour depths. However it's based on an older version of GIMP. Seeing as how it was made by and for the movie industry it's great for motion pictures.

More basically, what is it feature-wise that puts PS so far ahead of the very solid product that is The GIMP

24 bit colour depths. GIMP doesn't even do 16 bit depths while Photoshop does 32 bit colour depths, as does CinePaint or FilmGimp.

Interface and everything aside, the big stumbling block with the Gimp was its lack of support for more then 8 bits per channel. I would love to be able to use the GIMP, I can't afford to keep up with Photoshop, but without support for more then 8 bits per channel you wind up with some pretty nasty artifacts if you do any major editing.

Have you checked out CinePaint or FilmGimp? Like Photoshop it has 32 bit colour depths.

Thing is, it isn't, and never has been as good as photoshop, so the professional world aren't going to accept it while photoshop is better.

For photographers what's better is CinePaint or FilmGimp. Like Photoshop, PS, it has a 32 bit colour depth whereas the last version of GIMP I checked out didn't even have 16 bit colour depth. It has more features than GIMP as well. I'm not sure how it stacks up to PS for most things dealing photos however it's better for movies. That's why it was created, for those in the motion picture industry.

You might want to try Cinepaint: http://www.cinepaint.org/ -- supposedly, in all its 32-bit glory...

Paul B.

I imagine that's a lot easier said than done, let me tell you a sad tail, a long time ago there was this project that forked off from the GIMP originally called film Gimp and is now called cinepaint and that happened about version 1.3 for the GIMP. It different from the gimp because it was designed movies with big honking frames at 32 bit color depth, and I'm not talking 8+8+8 = 24 bits, were talking 32 * three color channels! So when the UI gets bloated it really bogs the whole system down. Cinepaint is currently undergoing a rewrite of the core to better support high color depth images and undergoing a change in the UI from GTK to FLTK. What they should have done was first separate the UI code from the program logic and made sure very thing still compiled and worked, then changed from the increasingly bloated, slow and ugly GTK to the still ugly but small and fast FLTK. What the Gimp team needs to do is get their code-Nazi's to finish the GEGL overhaul and then separate the code for the user interface so it can be worked on without FUBARing the whole project. The other problem that the GIMP has is the GTK, Gimp Tool Kit that they wrote for the gimp is now integral with gnome so whatever evils gnome introduce the GIMP inherits and there is a limit to what they can fix.

Supply and demand does not change at all because of any version of GPL!

This is patently false, the GPL makes sure anyone anywhere can take GPLed software and distribute it, therefore it does have a direct affect on supply.

Alternatives to a lot of software, which was not available to the general public has been made available by way of FOSS. This has only devaluated software which was inferior to the FOSS alternatives. Example: For all the great features of Gimp, Photoshop is still very successful, and to my knowledge the price tag hasn't gone down because of Gimp.

Yea, as much as I'd love GIMP if it had the capabilities of Photoshop, it doesn't come close for pro photographers. Film Gimp, aka CinePaint is a lot better on that score, and I may try it out. But first I plan on trying out Inkscape. I hope it works, I don't want to layout $800 for PS CS3.

But who would buy it? The same reasons not to buy and run Windows (whatever they are) also apply to Office

The same people who buy CrossOver from CodeWeavers which allows people to run MS Office on both Linux and Mac OSX, or use WINE for the same purpose. Being a commercial port of WINE it runs a bunch of Windows software. It's not needed for Macs but I may get it to run Photoshop on Linux. First I'll tryout FOOS apps like Inkscape, Cinepaint, and others.

Who are these companies who don't allow open-source software? Even Microsoft makes extensive use of GPL software.

Nor is Microsoft the only business of Bill Gates that uses FOSS. His Dreamworks SKG, the "G" is "Gates", uses Linux and Cinepaint.

The one that doesn't support more than 8 bits per channel.

Oh yeah?

CinePaint, aka FilmGimp already supports 32 bits per channel. Use it if that's what's important to you.

Ah, isn't Cinepaint for movies and not photo editing? The Cinepaint homepage even says it's for retouching and is not an editor. Even so, I may give it a try along with other programs such as POV-Ray.

um, even RAW files are only 12 bit, jpeg is 8bit. what camera are you using that you need 32bit?

While many digital cameras use 12 bits per colour, some use 14 and a few use 16 according to an article in current edition, Jan/Feb 2007, of Digital Photo Pro . I'd bet more and more will use 16 bit colour depths with medium format digital backs having even more depth. I don't currently have a digital camera, but I'd like to get one like Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II. I just read where it's colour bit depth is only 12 bits. However I also would like to get a medium format camera, perhaps a 645 maybe from Mamiya, a Hasselblad, or a Sigma.

if you need 16bit to accommodate the extra bits from your RAW files there is CinePaint (AKA filmGIMP).
CinePaint handles up to 32bit colour spaces.
http://www.cinepaint.org/ [cinepaint.org]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I agree that there is nothing like PS, but for most people gimp works as well as PS. I recently mad the move from GIMP to PS Elements 4.0 (MAC) strictly for the RAW import so I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't change that there are other packages that support higher bit colour spaces. Having never done a RAW conversion on a Linux machine I have no idea what you would use to import RAW files into CinePaint.

I'm not exactly the average person that uses cameras, in high school I took a class in photography learning how to use cameras and work in darkrooms. Because of this and I had a 35mm slr when I was in the army I was my unit's unoffical photographer. My commanding officer would give me film to shoot some photos whenever we went out into the field or when we were training. We had an arts and crafts center on post where I'd develop, make enlargements, of photos for those in my unit. Then in college I took photography as an elective. While it's been years since I have worked in a darkroom I plan on joining a local photography association, IFP Minnesota, that has photography classes and darkrooms members can use. I'm hoping they can help me work as a photographer, I'm on disability and don't work now. As for what OS I'll use, I'm typing this on a Windows PC, however because it's old I recently got a tower PC with Linux preinstalled and I'm getting a Macbook Pro for a laptop.

I wish I had the dough to buy CS2 (or CS3 when it's available) but Elements is all I can afford right now. I still use GIMP a lot because there are some things I'm used to in GIMP that I can't figure out how to do or even if they area possible in Elements. (layer mask for example)

I know what you mean, I wish I could afford CS3 myself. I'm hoping I'll be able to find work quickly as a photographer and can then afford it. However something I thought of which may help you if you want to get CS3, is to find and buy an older version of Photoshop. Around here a few tymes a year we have computer shows wherein booths sale older versions of software with prices dramatically lowered. Then Adobe sales upgrade versions for a lot less than full versions, between the costs of an old version and the new one, this may be cheaper than the full version. You may even be able to find old versions in some stores, though I haven't looked specifically for Photoshop but some of the stores around here have a bin or shelf with outdated software for sale at reduced prices.

Again, thanks for the info on Cinepaint, I'll see how well it works.

um, even RAW files are only 12 bit, jpeg is 8bit. what camera are you using that you need 32bit?

While many digital cameras use 12 bits per colour, some use 14 and a few use 16 according to an article in current edition, Jan/Feb 2007, of Digital Photo Pro . I'd bet more and more will use 16 bit colour depths with medium format digital backs having even more depth. I don't currently have a digital camera, but I'd like to get one like Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II. I just read where it's colour bit depth is only 12 bits. However I also would like to get a medium format camera, perhaps a 645 maybe from Mamiya, a Hasselblad, or a Sigma.

if you need 16bit to accommodate the extra bits from your RAW files there is CinePaint (AKA filmGIMP).
CinePaint handles up to 32bit colour spaces.
http://www.cinepaint.org/ [cinepaint.org]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I agree that there is nothing like PS, but for most people gimp works as well as PS. I recently mad the move from GIMP to PS Elements 4.0 (MAC) strictly for the RAW import so I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't change that there are other packages that support higher bit colour spaces. Having never done a RAW conversion on a Linux machine I have no idea what you would use to import RAW files into CinePaint.

I'm not exactly the average person that uses cameras, in high school I took a class in photography learning how to use cameras and work in darkrooms. Because of this and I had a 35mm slr when I was in the army I was my unit's unoffical photographer. My commanding officer would give me film to shoot some photos whenever we went out into the field or when we were training. We had an arts and crafts center on post where I'd develop, make enlargements, of photos for those in my unit. Then in college I took photography as an elective. While it's been years since I have worked in a darkroom I plan on joining a local photography association, IFP Minnesota, that has photography classes and darkrooms members can use. I'm hoping they can help me work as a photographer, I'm on disability and don't work now. As for what OS I'll use, I'm typing this on a Windows PC, however because it's old I recently got a tower PC with Linux preinstalled and I'm getting a Macbook Pro for a laptop.

I wish I had the dough to buy CS2 (or CS3 when it's available) but Elements is all I can afford right now. I still use GIMP a lot because there are some things I'm used to in GIMP that I can't figure out how to do or even if they area possible in Elements. (layer mask for example)

I know what you mean, I wish I could afford CS3 myself. I'm hoping I'll be able to find work quickly as a photographer and can then afford it. However something I thought of which may help you if you want to get CS3, is to find and buy an older version of Photoshop. Around here a few tymes a year we have computer shows wherein booths sale older versions of software with prices dramatically lowered. Then Adobe sales upgrade versions for a lot less than full versions, between the costs of an old version and the new one, this may be cheaper than the full version. You may even be able to find old versions in some stores, though I haven't looked specifically for Photoshop but some of the stores around here have a bin or shelf with outdated software for sale at reduced prices.

Again, thanks for the info on Cinepaint, I'll see how well it works.