[Biallystock]

Graphic Converter is a dinosaur. A clumsy, ugly, badly designed dinosaur that people like to mention because it makes them sound Kool.
I am 100% behind ndelc. OSX has introduced a wonderful set of tools for the fast, efficient and sometimes transparent manipulation of images both bitmap and vector.
I have been a Graphic Designer using both the Mac and Adobes products from the start. Adobe has applications that do the job but have become encrusted with poor GUI and "features" to the point where using them is a chore not a pleasure. Most of their software is starting to look like the Homer Simpson car.
New entries into the world of software of course have an advantage that they can start with a clean slate. Adobe will have to bite the bullet sooner rather than later as these nimble different thinking developers steal the ground from under it.
Adobe is the Microsoft of the graphics world, its response to competition has been to buy it out. We have to put up with the shambles of their corporate acquisitions.

[XMattingly]

Quote

{size:10px} leicaman wrote: Heck, even InDesign and Acrobat Pro offer ways of working non-destructively with documents. Not sure about Illustrator. {size}

Illustrator has had non-destructive features for years, as well with features like Appearance/Effects, Pathfinder, and Live Trace.

[XMattingly]

Quote

{size:10px} Biallystock wrote: Graphic Converter is a dinosaur. A clumsy, ugly, badly designed dinosaur that people like to mention because it makes them sound Kool. {size}

Quote

{size:10px}Adobe has applications that do the job but have become encrusted with poor GUI and "features" to the point where using them is a chore not a pleasure.{size}

What does being ugly have to do with getting the job done? Remember that next time you're up against a deadline and Photoshop won't open a JPEG that produces an "end of file" error. I guess some people like to turn their nose up at useful software because they like to sound Ignurent.

I don't think Adobe's latest GUI is really all that poor, either. The way they've redesigned the panels (formerly "palettes") from CS3 on is freakin' fantastic. However, I'm not totally sold on what they've done with the tabbed windows/ full screen windowing... that's a little too Windows-ish for my taste. I haven't plunked down $$ for CS4 yet - at this point, I may just wait until CS5 - so I can't really judge for sure until I get into it but I'm doubtful for the time being.

[himbo]

XMattingly said:

> {size:10px} alansky wrote: none of these budget-priced image editing apps is an actual Photoshop replacement. Not even close.{size}
Think again. Graphic Convertor has been a well-established Swiss Army knife of an image editor for years, for a very low price. In a number of ways, it's actually superior to Photoshop; particularly with the vast amount of image types that it'll open and work with. Most of Photoshop's muscle - and then some - with none of the bloat.

Graphic Convertor can open a ton of different file types (including partial and corrupted image files sometimes), and it has a great batch processing tool. That's pretty much the extent of what it can do well and with any arguable parity with Photoshop.

It is another program that does not even come close to being able to do what Photoshop does.

[XMattingly]

Quote

{size:10px} himbo wrote: Graphic Convertor is another program that does not even come close to being able to do what Photoshop does. {size}

Well, it's certainly not as user friendly as Photoshop, but Graphic Convertor is in fact a full featured image editing app. I think you're confusing capability (or perceived lack of) with software that tries to be everything to everyone, bloatware be damned.

Don't get me wrong - Photoshop is great, and it's a large part of my daily bread & butter. But you're making a case for a piece of software that has more features than any single user will ever need - many of which are either redundant or outdated.