Sujet : Re: Why GIMP Is Better Than Photoshop
De : ldo (at) *nospam* nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.advocacyDate : 06. Jan 2025, 23:33:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vlhlnf$1r4fb$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Pan/0.161 (Chasiv Yar; )
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:59:14 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 1/6/25 3:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:12:21 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 1/5/25 8:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
GIMP’s GEGL pixel engine deals natively with such things. Photoshop
needs to use import/export filters which inevitably lose quality.
>
But isn't integral vs modular just a software architectural design
choice?
The limiting factor is what the native pixel engine can handle. And
Photoshop’s one is pretty limited compared to GEGL.
Yet both are limited by what the original image source is too ...
The “image source” is here computer-generated images, with potentially
very high dynamic range.
Why GIMP Is Better Than Photoshop
Re: Why GIMP Is Better Than Photoshop