Graphic Converter vs Photoshop
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: nospam on 30 Mar 2010 22:19 In article <jwolf6589-0E8281.22135230032010(a)nntp.charter.net>, John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Which one is better? photoshop does *far* more things than graphic converter could ever dream of (and much faster too), but it really depends on what you need to do. converting obscure file formats is better done in gc, for example.
From: David Empson on 30 Mar 2010 22:32 John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Which one is better? [This is off topic for comp.sys.mac.system, so followups set to comp.sys.mac.apps only.] What are your criteria by which you could measure "better"? Exactly what do you want to achieve when using either application? If your goal is to avoid spending a lot of money, then GraphicConverter is better than Photoshop. If you want to be able to import and export image files in a wide range of formats, then GraphicConverter is better than Photoshop. If you need advanced photo editing capabilities such as layers, then Photoshop is clearly better than GraphicConverter, but there are many other applications cheaper than Photoshop which support layers, such as Photoshop Elements and Pixelmator, and one of them may be sufficient for your requirements. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: sbt on 30 Mar 2010 22:42 In article <jwolf6589-0E8281.22135230032010(a)nntp.charter.net>, John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Which one is better? Graphic Converter is excellent for displaying and converting between myriad (often obscure) file formats and is an adequate painting environment. That stated, if you're looking for something with which to create serious artwork, Photoshop blows it out of the water. Photoshop Elements, at a much lower price than Photoshop and only slightly more expensive than GC is also far more capable as an artistic environment, lacking only such Photoshop features as CMYK color space, Actions, and a couple of advanced tools. I paid the shareware fee for GC back in the version 1 days and have paid two upgrade fees since then. I still use it a couple of times a month, but I use Photoshop virtually every day. -- Spenser
From: Phillip Jones on 30 Mar 2010 22:46 John wrote: > Which one is better? Photoshop might have some features that GraphicConverter doesn't have but it's very few and you pay a hefty price for those items that are missing. For My money GC. I use it all the time. many of the photo's used on my website have been edited by GC. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org mailto:pjones1(a)kimbanet.com
From: nospam on 30 Mar 2010 22:49
In article <houd1e$llf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Phillip Jones <pjones1(a)kimbanet.com> wrote: > Photoshop might have some features that GraphicConverter doesn't have > but it's very few actually, it's quite a bit. > and you pay a hefty price for those items that are > missing. it's only hefty if you get the full photoshop. photoshop elements is about the same price as graphic converter, and anyone considering graphic converter more than likely does not need the full version of photoshop. |