On Wednesday 20 June 2007 20:48, Kevin Cozens wrote:
> Jon Cosby wrote:
> > How about providing a link to the article? The only mention of Gimp I
> > see in the July issue is on processing Web images
>
> The article in question appears to be the one that starts on page 34 of the
> July 2007 issue o
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 21:17 -0400, Brendan wrote:
> ... The name doesn't help
> either. Just basing this on countless interactions I've had with models or
> other photographers sitting here near my workstation, seeing me download my
> images and go through my workflow of digikam download -> Gqv
On Thursday 21 June 2007 21:17, Brendan wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Eric P wrote:
> > > I really get peeved by these types of articles. GIMP is GIMP.
> > > Krita is Krita. CinePaint is CinePaint. Each is a tool. Use
> > > the right tool for the job. There are lots of hammers. Some
>
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Eric P wrote:
> > I really get peeved by these types of articles. GIMP is GIMP. Krita is
> > Krita. CinePaint is CinePaint. Each is a tool. Use the right tool for
> > the job. There are lots of hammers. Some are good for some projects.
> > Others are good for other
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Rachael H. wrote:
> Same here. I read that article and felt like they were bashing the
> Gimp. I did download Krista to see how it worked. I ended up
> uninstalling since it ran pretty slow. Seems like everything for KDE
With Krita, what's exciting is how fast it prog
Jon Cosby wrote:
> How about providing a link to the article? The only mention of Gimp I
> see in the July issue is on processing Web images
The article in question appears to be the one that starts on page 34 of the
July 2007 issue of LJ.
--
Cheers!
Kevin.
http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"W
Same here. I read that article and felt like they were bashing the
Gimp. I did download Krista to see how it worked. I ended up
uninstalling since it ran pretty slow. Seems like everything for KDE
runs slow! *LOL* Anyways I'm really used to the Gimp and it's fast
compared to other image edit
> I really get peeved by these types of articles. GIMP is GIMP. Krita is
> Krita. CinePaint is CinePaint. Each is a tool. Use the right tool for
> the job. There are lots of hammers. Some are good for some projects.
> Others are good for other projects. None are good for all projects. As
>
Michael J. Hammel wrote:
> In truth, the patches were rejected because the developers
> felt they implemented the right solution the wrong way. And the
> developers chose the right way over the quick way. Argue that as good
> or bad as you like. But I don't believe they dismissed "the patches o
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:15:51 -0700, George Farris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The latest Linux Journal sure doesn't have much good to say about GIMP
> (Deep Images). Talks about it being a dinosaur and being left behind by
> the likes of Cinepaint, Krita and Pixel. Sure hope there isn't a GIMP
>
George Farris wrote:
> The latest Linux Journal sure doesn't have much good to say about GIMP
> (Deep Images). Talks about it being a dinosaur and being left behind by
> the likes of Cinepaint, Krita and Pixel. Sure hope there isn't a GIMP
> 2.6 but rather it moves to GIMP 3.0 based on GEGL with a
The latest Linux Journal sure doesn't have much good to say about GIMP
(Deep Images). Talks about it being a dinosaur and being left behind by
the likes of Cinepaint, Krita and Pixel. Sure hope there isn't a GIMP
2.6 but rather it moves to GIMP 3.0 based on GEGL with a UI revamp.
I kind of like t
12 matches
Mail list logo
