*quality *geek stuff, use it myself.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Payback.

Adding video to channels (Geek) - requested by Payback.

Didnt seem to work to well , and i could have done it faster manualy.

gr8 for free , but ultimately if you work profesinaly the time saved using photoshop would pay for itself within 6 months.

^Of course you'd say something like that, Nancy Naysayer. /shakeshead

WESTY SPEAKS THE TRUTH

*nochannel *geek

This video doesnt debunk anything, it simply shows that there are free alternatives to Photoshops features, which is great, but it doesnt make PS bunk.

This video has been removed from all channels (Geek, Debunked) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by BicycleRepairMan. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Geek) - requested by BicycleRepairMan.

Yea Westy's right, the end result is far from impressive... Someone posted the Photoshop equivalent a couple days back, it looked far more promising. Obviously boundless respect for being freeware though.

How much is Photoshop going for nowadays? With the money you save on using the GIMP, you could invest in faster hardware (an SSD drive would improve performance to the point where the speed differences between PS and the GIMP are barely noticeable). I'd rather keep the money for myself, rather than line Adobe's pockets. Besides, Adobe needs to get off their ass, and give Opera the code they need to update the Wii Internet browser's Flash plug-in. v7 is practically archaic, and only a handful of sites use backup applets for the older flash versions out there.

Besides, the GIMP is open source. If you want a better Content-Aware fill, write your own.

After the PS video the other day, I grabbed the Resynthesizer plugin and tried it out in a number of different situations. At no point did it produce even mildly believable results. Let me clarify that... The synthesized imagery can sometimes be very good quality and very believable, but doesn't fit in with the surrounding picture. In some cases the synthesized imagery is just terrible all on its own.

The good news is, I think the work done so far on Resynthesizer is good work and it just needs to be developed further to catch up with Adobe. The buzz Adobe has created around CAF is also likely to get Resynth some new developers as it hasn't been in active development for a couple years, I think.

kagenin: forget the loading time, look at the final image, it uses the same textures over and over, like a clone brush tool, it's not believable

>> ^kagenin:

How much is Photoshop going for nowadays? With the money you save on using the GIMP, you could invest in faster hardware (an SSD drive would improve performance to the point where the speed differences between PS and the GIMP are barely noticeable). I'd rather keep the money for myself, rather than line Adobe's pockets. Besides, Adobe needs to get off their ass, and give Opera the code they need to update the Wii Internet browser's Flash plug-in. v7 is practically archaic, and only a handful of sites use backup applets for the older flash versions out there.
Besides, the GIMP is open source. If you want a better Content-Aware fill, write your own.


The piont is that photoshop is aimed at profesoinals , and you would earn the money back very fast making it cost afecctive.

The gimp is realy good for people doing art for fun. less than 1 logo job , or basic peace of web content would probably cover the cost of photoshop for most people , and after that u have something thats far faster and wider used than the gimp.

as i said though open source is gr8 and maby we will get to a piont where the gimp can compere with photoshop in a profesoinal inviroment.