> Anyway, like Chuck says, you can't beat the bang for the
> buck with PW Pro. Maybe when I outgrow it, if I ever do, I'll
> save up, or sell something, to finance Photoshop.
I primarily use PWP and The GIMP for the bulk of my picture
editing. For spotting and overall image color manipulation I
prefer The GIMP, but for large-scale changes, resizings and
monochrome conversions PWP rocks.
Both editors have a layer merge facility which allows you to
meld two identical images of high and low exposure to increase
the dynamic range of the picture. For example, my scanner has
lousy dynamic range, but by doing two scans--one overexposed to
reveal the shadows and the second one underexposed to preserve
the highlights in just a few seconds I can merge the two into a
nice picture with both highlight and shadow detail while leaving
the midtones alone.
Best part of PWP is that it is VERY fast. The GIMP is sludgy by
comparison. But The GIMP has extensive "Layers" capabilities
not found in most programs. Nearly everything you can do in PS
is possible in The GIMP. It's short on automated or geewiz
features (like the healing brush) and it lacks support for 48
bit images and ICC profiles.
As to perspective correction in PWP and The GIMP? They both
work very well, but I think I need to give the nod to The GIMP
for preserving image sharpness. PWP gives fewer artifacts, but
ends up blurring scaling operations a bit more.
AG
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|