PDA

View Full Version : Gimp vs Photoshop Just a curious question



MikePnKY
July 2nd, 2006, 12:52 PM
Personally, I like Gimp, it does everything that I need. Now granted, I'm not a graphics designer and I don't do graphics for a living, but I will take roughly 3000 photographs a year as a hobby.

I was just wondering if, by any chance. Has anyone dedicated any study to finding out just what additional features that photoshop has are actually used??

I've not researched it myself either, but I'd feel safe to wager that Gimp will do everything that 80% of the people will do 90% of the time. Any input?

NeghVar
July 2nd, 2006, 01:05 PM
The Interface, when I am working in Photoshop it is all in one nice window... In gimp its like someone said who cares about the user lets make this look and feel as absolutly ridiculous as possible... They suceeded.

B0rsuk
July 2nd, 2006, 01:10 PM
The Interface, when I am working in Photoshop it is all in one nice window... In gimp its like someone said who cares about the user lets make this look and feel as absolutly ridiculous as possible... They suceeded.

I stopped using Photoshop, because I couldn't stand the interface.
I started using Linux several years ago, when I saw the GIMP. I would dual boot into it just to play with GIMP.

FISHERMAN
July 2nd, 2006, 01:10 PM
I was just wondering if, by any chance. Has anyone dedicated any study to finding out just what additional features that photoshop has are actually used??
I'm pretty sure that the most, if not all, home users with their (usealy illegal) copy of Photoshop don't use the extra features. They're only used by trained professionals.

But Photoshop is a "cool"/well-know brand, so it's popular. Just like SUV's/Off-Road vehicles are popular vehicles for climbing speed bumps in an Urban Environment.

Jucato
July 2nd, 2006, 01:16 PM
I'm one of those people who actually like GIMP's implementation of MDI (multiple document interface). Of course, it gets a bit of getting used to, but with virtual desktops/workspaces, I can afford the extra windows. What I'm still trying to get used to is the general workflow, menus and keyboard shortcuts. Of course, there's GIMPshop, but I prefer to use the original. :D

One issue about GIMP for me, though. Their format, XCF, is not as "open" (opend format) as I hoped it to be. And it seems they have no plans of making it so.

sophtpaw
July 2nd, 2006, 01:30 PM
I never got as far as using photshop, so i can't compare.
However, now that i use Linux i would like to use the Gimp but i just cant figure it out.

3 separate boxes? i still aim to learn it one day. Hopefully, it will also get easier as it carries on to develop in time.

BWF89
July 2nd, 2006, 01:33 PM
One issue about GIMP for me, though. Their format, XCF, is not as "open" (opend format) as I hoped it to be. And it seems they have no plans of making it so.
The use of XCF as a data interchange format is not recommended by the GIMP developers, since the format is not well documented, and there may be minor format changes in future versions. Thus the source code of the Gimp itself (which is freely available) is the reference documentation of the format. In addition, a collaborative effort between the GIMP developers and Krita developers is underway to design a raster file format modelled on the Open Document Format for use in both applications in a future version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCF

BWF89
July 2nd, 2006, 01:34 PM
One issue about GIMP for me, though. Their format, XCF, is not as "open" (opend format) as I hoped it to be. And it seems they have no plans of making it so.
The use of XCF as a data interchange format is not recommended by the GIMP developers, since the format is not well documented, and there may be minor format changes in future versions. Thus the source code of the Gimp itself (which is freely available) is the reference documentation of the format. In addition, a collaborative effort between the GIMP developers and Krita developers is underway to design a raster file format modelled on the Open Document Format for use in both applications in a future version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCF

Jucato
July 2nd, 2006, 01:49 PM
@BWF89: yes, I've read that. I think the name for the open format that they're trying to develop is OpenRaster. But that could take a while, even a year probably. Until then, there would be no "open" way to properly exchange data between the GIMP and Krita, except by using .psd.

@sophtpaw: 3 windows really need a bit to get used to. I find it easier if I shade/roll up some of the windows. That way, they only roll down if I mouse over them.

fuscia
July 2nd, 2006, 02:14 PM
i had photoshop and dumped it for gimp as i prefered the interface. interface is largely a personal preference and i don't think it can be a serious consideration for comparing the two. it's also kind of absurd to argue the advantages of a feature if one never uses it.

lapsey
July 2nd, 2006, 02:35 PM
layout issues aside, i find you have to do many more actions (keystrokes, clicks etc) to do the same things , then in photshop. For example, copying and pasting to new layer. In gimp, you have to 'anchor' the item before you can use it. Same with text.

There are many other actions that require more work with the interface to do. Even if they are hotkeys, the aggregate extra time this leads to is not acceptable on a professional, competitive level.

Jedeye
July 2nd, 2006, 02:54 PM
For the price(free) the GIMP is awesome. One thing that I don't care for is scaling layers, as even when you use the tool, a dialog box pops up and gets in the way, it also leaves a copy of the layer you are scaling behind it so that gets in the way. The other thing lacking is CMYK color.

I think the GIMP is the perfect app for non professional computer users who want to get into some more advanced photo manipulation or creating images for websites or desktops... anything non print.

mips
July 2nd, 2006, 03:49 PM
If you do professional work GIMP simply will not cut it.

Only 8-bit RGB, grayscale and indexed colour models.
CMYK and printing support lacking.
Hard to setup colour profiles.
Colour seperation not up to scratch.
There is more...

Cinepaint Glasgow would be a better option to the gimp when it is released. Now they just have to start using the photogimp interface ;)

AlexC_
July 2nd, 2006, 04:00 PM
I used to moan and groan about the interface, but recently I have found out how to make it into 1 simple window ( sort of ), and no - it's not Gimp Shop. Here's how to make it look/feel more like photshop:

File -> Preferences -> Interface -> Keyboard Shortcuts ( Now set them up like Photoshop, I will supply mine soon when i've finished them all )

Now go to Theme and select the Small theme

Image->Windows Apperance:
Canvas Padding Mode: Dark Check Colour
Turn off Show Statusbar/Scrollbars/rules if you want to ( I do )

Window Management -> Set both Hint for the toolbox and docks to Utility Windows

Click ok, restart GIMP

Now Drag out the Tools Options dialog, then set the main Gimp tool pallet so it only shows 2-3 columns, and make it smaller

Do the same for Brushes on the right hand side, again make the brushes and layers dialogs smaller. Set the windows to On-Top if needed, there you go, done. ( Ok, not the most clear of guides but it's just a quick one! )

Though, the Utility windows do not work in XGL as i've just found out, so I still get multiple windows >< but it works with non-xgl ( I tried )

MetalMusicAddict
July 2nd, 2006, 04:20 PM
If you do professional work GIMP simply will not cut it.

Only 8-bit RGB, grayscale and indexed colour models.
CMYK and printing support lacking.
Hard to setup colour profiles.
Colour seperation not up to scratch.
There is more...

Cinepaint Glasgow would be a better option to the gimp when it is released. Now they just have to start using the photogimp interface ;)
I was wondering about CMKY. I thought it didnt have it because of licensing? I noticed Inkscape uses it though. I think Im missing something.

BWF89
July 2nd, 2006, 04:22 PM
@BWF89: yes, I've read that. I think the name for the open format that they're trying to develop is OpenRaster. But that could take a while, even a year probably. Until then, there would be no "open" way to properly exchange data between the GIMP and Krita, except by using .psd.
A year isn't that long, and instead of developing a completely new format why can't Krita just support XCF? Unless OpenRaster is going to be a better format, in which case I'd rather wait a year and have a superiour format.

I was wondering about CMKY. I thought it didnt have it because of licensing? I noticed Inkscape uses it though. I think Im missing something.
Mabye Inkscape development is based in a country that doens't have software patents?

mips
July 2nd, 2006, 04:25 PM
CMYK has patent & license issues I think but is still pretty important in the professional world.

Roger Mudd
July 2nd, 2006, 04:49 PM
Only 8-bit RGB, grayscale and indexed colour models.
CMYK and printing support lacking.
Hard to setup colour profiles.
Colour seperation not up to scratch.

As an avid photographer, I would probably make a complete transition to Linux if the above issues were remedied. The lack of easily implemented color management solutions, quality metadata (IPTC/EXIF) editors and true archivng solutions along the lines of iView Media Pro/Extensis Portfolio/IMatch have held me back.
I think GIMP is a fine piece of software, but it doesn't meet my needs at this point in time. Maybe it's my long history of Photoshop use ingraining a bias, but I find the GIMP interface frustrating. I also find RAW support to be lacking.
Ufraw's GIMP plugin does a relatively good job with conversions, but it wipes the metadata from the resulting file. I'm holding out hope for F-Spot as an archival solution.

raptros-v76
July 2nd, 2006, 04:52 PM
you can take all of the various windows of the gimp and put them on the toolbar thingy. so 1 window for all the tools, and a window for each open picture.

also, try gimp while running enlightenment.

AlexC_
July 2nd, 2006, 04:54 PM
but I find the GIMP interface frustrating.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1205492&postcount=14

mips
July 2nd, 2006, 05:07 PM
As an avid photographer, I would probably make a complete transition to Linux if the above issues were remedied.

Roger, Have a look at Cinepaint to be released soon, but i suspect you will still dislike the interface. It is aimed at the more profession market and is a split of filmgimp

GuitarHero
July 2nd, 2006, 05:14 PM
The GIMPs interface is horrid. Why are there two floating tool bars plus a workspace? It just looks cluttered when you can still see the desktop and everything else. It needs a big windows like photoshop. Also its missing some tools that photoshop has.
Plus I need CMYK

Jucato
July 2nd, 2006, 05:15 PM
A year isn't that long, and instead of developing a completely new format why can't Krita just support XCF? Unless OpenRaster is going to be a better format, in which case I'd rather wait a year and have a superiour format.

It's not that Krita devs don't want to support XCF, it's just that they can't fully implement/support it because of some reasons:
1. XCF "documentation" is only in the GIMP's source code
2. since it's not an fully open format, Krita developers can't implement some stuff that Krita has/will have
3. AFAIK, the only way to import/export XCF files is through the use of 3rd party apps/plugins, like ImageMagick, which is what Krita uses.

I'm not 100% sure on the facts, because I've heard very little from the side of the GIMP devs. Here are some stuff I've read.

http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi/2006/06/20#openraster
http://blogs.gnome.org/view/bolsh/2006/06/19/0
http://dot.kde.org/1117729682/1117742389/1117743878/1117787633/

So basically, there is currently no other "open" layered raster image format for other than XCF, but you can only use the GIMP for that.

MetalMusicAddict
July 2nd, 2006, 05:21 PM
The GIMPs interface is horrid. Why are there two floating tool bars plus a workspace? It just looks cluttered when you can still see the desktop and everything else. It needs a big windows like photoshop. Also its missing some tools that photoshop has.
Plus I need CMYK
If you comming from Photoshop on a Mac then I think this kind of layout is more familiar. I just wished that if I minimized the main tool window all the windows would also.

bruce89
July 2nd, 2006, 05:54 PM
Cinepaint Glasgow...
Why did they name a raster image program after the city I live in?

mips
July 2nd, 2006, 06:10 PM
Why did they name a raster image program after the city I live in?

I think it is just a code name, like microsft longhorn. Can always mail the devs and ask them why.

Mr.X
July 2nd, 2006, 06:27 PM
I like photoshop, I'm just use to it i guess :P.. Sure I don't do much graphics but its just easyish to learn and i dont like the GIMP interface.
Still pretty cool app though :D.

the_blue_pill
July 2nd, 2006, 06:32 PM
I really don't like the "Make a selection and trace the outline" method to draw shapes in gimp. I didn't work too hard though, and if there's an easier way to draw custom shapes, I'd love to know.

But the feature that's vital for my work is 16 pit processing, which doesn't work properly in gimp. And yes I've tried cinepaint and the ufraw plugin - for some reason they cannot adjust the levels properly and the picture comes out dark and faint.

egon spengler
July 2nd, 2006, 10:04 PM
If you do professional work GIMP simply will not cut it.

Only 8-bit RGB, grayscale and indexed colour models.
CMYK and printing support lacking.
Hard to setup colour profiles.
Colour seperation not up to scratch.
There is more...

While all of this is more than likely true it's not actually the question that was asked. What the OP was wondering was how many of the "Gimp is trash next to PS" brigade actually make use of those features you mention that seperate the two.

Of course it's pure specualtion on my part but I'd bet that the majority don't use those features and could just as easily get by with Gimp or Paintshop. I'm not saying that they should, if they want to spend their money on a 600 program and only use the features available in a 99 program then they are well within their rights to do so

MikePnKY
July 2nd, 2006, 11:13 PM
While all of this is more than likely true it's not actually the question that was asked. What the OP was wondering was how many of the "Gimp is trash next to PS" brigade actually make use of those features you mention that seperate the two.

Bravo, egon spengler. That is exactly what I was getting at. I've never done anything graphics for a living, or even professionally, but I've read enough posts here to know that Gimp isn't up to Photoshop on a professional level. But I was wondering how many people that bash Gimp, actually NEED all the extra features. I have a Nikon D70, and takes LOTS of pictures, but until I found Ubuntu and Gimp, I was doing just fine with the freeware version of Sherif's Photoplus. It has far less features than photoshop AND gimp, but half of what it has I was simply going "gee, I wonder what this one does\\:D/ "

I'm just betting that Gimp is plenty for the "Joe Users" like me out there!

RAV TUX
July 3rd, 2006, 12:08 AM
Personally, I like Gimp, it does everything that I need. Now granted, I'm not a graphics designer and I don't do graphics for a living, but I will take roughly 3000 photographs a year as a hobby.

I was just wondering if, by any chance. Has anyone dedicated any study to finding out just what additional features that photoshop has are actually used??

I've not researched it myself either, but I'd feel safe to wager that Gimp will do everything that 80% of the people will do 90% of the time. Any input?

I use all three:

1. The Gimp

2. Photoshop

3. Gimpshop

on both Ubuntu 6.06, and XPsp2 (Photoshop & Gimpshop only on XPsp2)

out of all of them The Gimp is the best, I looked at a friend of mine's Mac and his version of Photoshop looks just like the Gimp.

For the Gimp imitation is the greatest from of flattery. Much like IE7 has imitated Firefox.

mips
July 3rd, 2006, 12:24 AM
While all of this is more than likely true it's not actually the question that was asked. What the OP was wondering was how many of the "Gimp is trash next to PS" brigade actually make use of those features you mention that seperate the two.


Professional people would use the features I listed above. Any serious photographer would have a need for them as well as commercial establishments.

Or would you now like to only target the hobbyist part of the market and leave out the professional sector in order to skew reality so things favour OSS ???

Reality bites, get over it. OSS is all well and good but for heavens sake please remain objective.

The GIMP has spawned FilmGIMP & Cinepaint which are used in big studio environments but they address some of the shortcomings of GIMP, well for professionals anyway but why should we worry about that.

I don't use those features at all but that doesn't change the fact that others do.

egon spengler
July 3rd, 2006, 01:10 AM
Professional people would use the features I listed above. Any serious photographer would have a need for them as well as commercial establishments.

Or would you now like to only target the hobbyist part of the market and leave out the professional sector in order to skew reality so things favour OSS ???

Reality bites, get over it. OSS is all well and good but for heavens sake please remain objective.

No genius, what MikePinky asked is how many of the people who knock Gimp actually make use of all that PS has to offer and don't in fact have only the meagre requirements that Gimp could meet. I didn't suggest any skewing of figures, all it is is a simple question "do you think most people who knock Gimp actually use all of the features in PS?". Bearing in mind how heavily pirated PS is do you seriously think that 100% of PS users actually use PS to a professional standard? Of course there is no way that any of us can accurately put a percentage on who does what with PS but I think it is very safe to say that there are more than few PS users who could do what they do with a lesser program.

I started to try and make a simpler example with a reference to a friend of mine with a 30 gig ipod and only 3gigs of music but I just realised, it can't get any simpler than the question asked in the original post. I'm baffled how you can't grasp such a simple question

MikePnKY
July 3rd, 2006, 01:19 AM
Actually, this whole misunderstanding is my fault. I re-read my original post, and I left some room for debate. Here is my original question....


I was just wondering if, by any chance. Has anyone dedicated any study to finding out just what additional features that photoshop has are actually used??

I've not researched it myself either, but I'd feel safe to wager that Gimp will do everything that 80% of the people will do 90% of the time. Any input?

I never made any specifics as to wether I was referring to casual users or professionals. In light of that, you're both right. I'll try to be more clear next time :(

william_nbg
July 3rd, 2006, 02:15 AM
For my web business, I sometimes have to make a couple of hundred thumbnails from larger jpgs given to me on a cd.

With a script-fu I found on-line I can set up one gui window and convert all photos in just a minute or so.

I used photoshop for years before swithing to Linux and for web graphics I'd go with Gimp any day of the week.

fluffington
July 3rd, 2006, 05:56 AM
Personally, I like Gimp, it does everything that I need. Now granted, I'm not a graphics designer and I don't do graphics for a living, but I will take roughly 3000 photographs a year as a hobby.

I was just wondering if, by any chance. Has anyone dedicated any study to finding out just what additional features that photoshop has are actually used??

I've not researched it myself either, but I'd feel safe to wager that Gimp will do everything that 80% of the people will do 90% of the time. Any input?

I'm not aware of any such study, but I'd agree that the GIMP will do what most non-professionals want. It'll even do what I want, and I used to be a professional. Aside from the common complaint of "can't find xxx feature because I'm used to Photoshop", the only things I really miss are CMYK and 16-bit channels. I hear both of those are on the way, though.

aysiu
July 3rd, 2006, 06:00 AM
For my web business, I sometimes have to make a couple of hundred thumbnails from larger jpgs given to me on a cd.

With a script-fu I found on-line I can set up one gui window and convert all photos in just a minute or so. I just use mogrify from the imagemagick package:
mogrify -resize 40x40 *.jpg Takes less than a minute, usually, even for a couple hundred.

ericesque
July 3rd, 2006, 06:22 AM
william, photoshop supports actions which will do the same thing as script-fu ---not that you'll necessarily find the action that you're looking for.

I personally require the CMYK color management when I even have a fleeting thought of printing. I refuse to spend 6+ hours on a project and end up with a file that is only good for viewing on my computer. But then average joe probably isn't doing anything like that.

One thing I like about Gimp is how they handle creating gradients. It is much nicer than photoshop.

My other gripe is that I have a hard time getting crisp images out of gimp. When I try to make curved or diagonal lines they are either blurry or I get grossly jagged edges... photoshop seems to make this kind of thing easier. Maybe it's my inexperience with Gimp. Maybe Photoshop's algorithms are better.

egon spengler
July 3rd, 2006, 11:03 AM
I never made any specifics as to wether I was referring to casual users or professionals. In light of that, you're both right. I'll try to be more clear next time :(


I've not researched it myself either, but I'd feel safe to wager that Gimp will do everything that 80% of the people will do 90% of the time. Any input?

Well personally I would take "the people" to mean "the people who use PS" with no real need to be ultra specific. I don't really see any grounds for confusion and can't imagine how someone could read "80% of the people" as "80% of professional graphics designers" but I guess it's better that you clarified

drfalkor
July 3rd, 2006, 11:24 AM
The Interface, when I am working in Photoshop it is all in one nice window... In gimp its like someone said who cares about the user lets make this look and feel as absolutly ridiculous as possible... They suceeded.

I agree,... And photoshop has more more powerfull tools !

BuffaloX
July 3rd, 2006, 11:42 AM
Whats with CMYK, and GIMP being prevented from using it ?

This makes me angry, does anyone have special rights to CMYK?
That would be like having rights to RGB, or rights to gravity.
CMYK is just how subtractive colors work, no one can make or change that.

I cannot imagine any patent or copyright organisation being stupid enough to grant rights to the use of laws of physics. Except maybe in the US?

If anyone know about this, please specify...

bruce89
July 3rd, 2006, 12:35 PM
This makes me angry, does anyone has special rights to CMYK?
That would be like having rights to RGB, or rights to gravity.
CMYK is just how subtractive colors work, noone can make or change that.
You can patent practially anything in the USA - Microsoft Receives Patent For Double-Click (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/06/02/2222258.shtml?tid=109&tid=155&tid=187&tid=99)

tsb
July 3rd, 2006, 01:18 PM
Anyone serious about digital photography in Linux should consider Bibble Pro. It's the only alternative to dual-booting if photo editing is your thing IMO. It has really nice batch features as well.

BuffaloX
July 3rd, 2006, 01:32 PM
Sorry, I do not intend to hijack this thread...

I used to use a mix of Corel Photopaint and Photoshop. I'm not too happy with Gimp. So I use nothing at the moment...

PS.
Would be nice if the philosophy of the Amiga DeluxePaint could be revived.
( Painting program for programmers )
Yes it could be argued that it is the mother of all modern paint programs.
But even the ports of DeluxePaint to MAC and PC didn't come close to the Amiga version.

luca.b
July 3rd, 2006, 05:15 PM
I find the GIMP's UI to be absolutely horrid for my tastes, and I will completely switch to Krita once it reaches maturity.
That said, I managed to use the GIMP for my image editing hobbies (I wouldn't call them "needs"). I even blogged about it a while ago (link is in my profile, I don't feel "right" in posting a link, it would feel like wanting to "advertise").

AlexC_
July 3rd, 2006, 05:20 PM
You can make the GIMP interface more like Photoshop, read a few pages back I posted a quick how to.

luca.b
July 3rd, 2006, 05:29 PM
You can make the GIMP interface more like Photoshop, read a few pages back I posted a quick how to.

The only thing I like about PS is having all the windows in a coherent environment. For the rest, its UI is nothing special, IMO (and it keeps on changing between versions).

william_nbg
July 4th, 2006, 09:20 AM
I just use mogrify from the imagemagick package:
mogrify -resize 40x40 *.jpg Takes less than a minute, usually, even for a couple hundred.

Yes, I just started playing around with imagemagick a couple of weeks ago, and taking it one step further. Here's a bash script I started working on:


for img in `ls *.jpg`
do
convert -resize 300x500 \
-bordercolor white -border 6 \
-bordercolor red -border 1 \
-background none -rotate 2 \
-bordercolor black -border 50 -crop 350x550+0+0 +repage -gravity center \
$img pix-$img
done

eriqk
July 4th, 2006, 01:58 PM
The only thing I like about PS is having all the windows in a coherent environment.

Only on Windows, though. On a Mac, which for a very long time was the preferred platform for Photoshop users, it's a bunch of floating windows, like GIMP. Same is true for Illustrator, and I suppose it's the same for Indesign, too.
It was such a popular interface Macromedia copied it wholesale (and got sued for that, IIRC).
I've gotten to prefer the floating windows, and with the desktop switcher it's not an issue at all.

Groet, Erik

aysiu
July 4th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Only on Windows, though. On a Mac, which for a very long time was the preferred platform for Photoshop users, it's a bunch of floating windows, like GIMP. Same is true for Illustrator, and I suppose it's the same for Indesign, too.
It was such a popular interface Macromedia copied it wholesale (and got sued for that, IIRC).
I've gotten to prefer the floating windows, and with the desktop switcher it's not an issue at all.

Groet, Erik
For a long time...? Isn't it like that now? My wife has Adobe CS 2 on Mac OS X Tiger, and it's still floating toolbars, as far as I can tell.

fluffington
July 5th, 2006, 02:27 AM
I've gotten to prefer the floating windows, and with the desktop switcher it's not an issue at all.

Whether or not I prefer separate windows in the interface depends on how many screens are attached to my workstation. If it's just one, I want one window. More than that, I'll let the image I'm working on fill one and all the toolbars fill another.

Of course, I'd very much like if The GIMP's interface was near as polished as Photoshop Mac's. Simple things clicking on a tool window and losing focus on the image I'm editing are extremely annoying (e.g., I can't just pick a color then hit CTRL+Comma to fill with it; I have to click back on the image first).

Note that even Photoshop on Windows can behave like multiple separate windows (and there's still only one taskbar entry, which I like), as you can drag all of the toolbars out of their parent window and put them wherever you like. I just wish the toolbars were dockable in Photoshop Windows so that I could maximize the image area without half of it being obscured by toolbars.

As far as windows and toolbars go, Krita is the only app to actually do what I want. Now if only its text tool wasn't crap.

fluffington
July 5th, 2006, 02:31 AM
For a long time...? Isn't it like that now? My wife has Adobe CS 2 on Mac OS X Tiger, and it's still floating toolbars, as far as I can tell.

I do believe the "for a very long time" was attached to "the preferred platform for Photoshop users". Not that it makes the first bit of your reply any less relevant.

mips
July 5th, 2006, 09:44 AM
PS.
Would be nice if the philosophy of the Amiga DeluxePaint could be revived.
( Painting program for programmers )


I remember deluxe paint pretty well, was one of the coolest Amiga apps out there or any platform for that matter.

Artificial Intelligence
July 13th, 2006, 11:45 AM
I like gimp interface. When you learn how to use it you'll relalize how genious it is. Especially when working with multiply pictures (we are talking many here, not two or three) combining it with Gnu/linux Workspace desktop. Sure it still needs improvement (like all other program/applications out there).

bruce89
July 13th, 2006, 12:36 PM
I like gimp interface. When you learn how to use it you'll relalize how genious it is. Especially when working with multiply pictures (we are talking many here, not two or three) combining it with Gnu/linux Workspace desktop. Sure it still needs improvement (like all other program/applications out there).

It's best when "Select windows when the mouse moves over them" is on System>Preferences>Windows. What is does is self-explanatory.

mech7
July 13th, 2006, 01:25 PM
Gimp is a joke compared to photoshop.. Pixel32 looks a bit nicer if only it was more stable :-k

Artificial Intelligence
July 13th, 2006, 01:48 PM
The pay version is quiet stable compared to the demo version.

jeremy
July 13th, 2006, 04:23 PM
Gimp is a joke compared to photoshop..
Not if you consider the price!

mech7
July 13th, 2006, 04:48 PM
lol yeah well you definitly get what you pay for :)


Not if you consider the price!

bruce89
July 13th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Gimp is a joke compared to photoshop.

It depends on what you need. For instance you can't have more than 8-bit colour per channel in the GIMP.

william_nbg
July 13th, 2006, 04:58 PM
I guess it really depends on what your doing.

For web graphics I'd take Gimp over photoshop any day of the week.

Though, I've been using it for 2 or 3 years, have read dozens of tutorials, 'grooking with the gimp' and lots of 'how to's.

I have a small web company, and need licenced software: the price tag on photoshop compared with the price tag on Gimp just wouldn't be a good solution.

Note: the last version of Photoshop I had worked with was 6.something.

Adamant1988
July 13th, 2006, 05:09 PM
In my case GIMP lacked imporant features for my graphics work. So I have photoshop 7.0 in crossover.

Adjustment layers are one BIG feature that I need. I sometimes work with 90+ layers and Adjustment layers give me a lot of freedom to play with color balances etc.

In GIMP if I want to do the same thing I need to merge all the layers, undo, and then copy and paste into a new layer and edit that layer. If I ever want to make a small adjustment it all has to be redone.

Also the drop shadow features aren't quite up to par.

Adamant1988
July 13th, 2006, 05:41 PM
For a long time...? Isn't it like that now? My wife has Adobe CS 2 on Mac OS X Tiger, and it's still floating toolbars, as far as I can tell.
actually Adobe themselves said in an interview with that windows was fast becoming the preferred platform for photoshop and such...

aysiu
August 29th, 2006, 04:15 AM
Here's an interesting blog entry I came across today:
Let's call this one "An exercise in getting the real facts." Many of the arguments against FOSS software out there are just plain wrong, and having a few links ready to educate the uninformed at least gives others a chance to get their facts straight .

Take Gimp, for instance. Gimp released again, and like a Holiday on the calandar, that always means it's flame-weekend on the Internet. Gimp is proprietary software users' number-one favorite straw man. I have never seen the FOSS program that takes half the abuse that Gimp does. Read more here (http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=don_t_let_a_fud_cloud_rain_on_your _parad_3&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 )

DirtDawg
August 29th, 2006, 06:43 AM
Forgive me if someone's brought this up already as I didn't bother reading all the previous posts to this thread.

A few days ago, I just discovered one feature Gimp doesn't have, which I thought it would and, frankly, I'm sorta bummed about it.

In Photoshop, there's a nifty feature, I don't know what it's called, but the paintbrush can be used to create selections. I was working with the Gimp the other day and couldn't find this option. So I figured it was buried in the menu system somewhere. However, after some document surfing, I came to believe the feature is absent in Gimp.

Granted I could still make the selection with a combination of the available tools, but for complex selections, that method is really the best.

Wotta drag.

P.S. I still love the Gimp.

Jucato
August 29th, 2006, 11:51 AM
The GIMP isn't really a Photoshop clone, so it might lack some features that Photoshop has. But I'm sure it will be included soon, if more people demand for it. Or probably it is buried there somewhere, in some obscure feature/tool.

@aysiu: nice link. Thanks for sharing that. There are a few points though, that I really don't agree with. Some of these complaints, which he fondly calls FUD, comes also from those using the GIMP. Also, while he does point out that there is CMYK support coming from a plugin, it all the more emphasizes the point that someone had to and was able to develop support for CMYK, something that the GIMP developers have not been able to do so far. It's good to have have plugins and extensions. But why rely on 3rd party plugins for a feature that should exist natively?

A personal issue that I have with the GIMP is that the format it currently uses is not really "open". The only documentation that XCF has is in the source code for the GIMP. This has resulted in a format that only the GIMP can render perfectly. It also means that other image editing/manipulating and painting software cannot have full support for XCF.

My last, and probably the most important, issue for me is the pace at which the GIMP tries to resolves these issues. Most of the "FUD" that the author of that article has been going around for so long, yet most of them still don't have real answers/solutions. It also seems that the GIMP, for all it's popularity, has stagnated a bit. It's toolkit, GTK, and GNOME and Xfce, which use GTK, have progressed significantly over the past months. The GIMP has, on the other hand, moved slowly.

The GIMP is now working with OpenUsability to develop a better UI. Someone (not a GIMP developer) has also taken the pains to document properly XCF for the benefit of others, partly because of the OpenRaster proposal (a proposal to have an open format for layered raster images). I hope that these are signs that the GIMP will be moving forward with more vigor and enthusiasm.

frup
August 29th, 2006, 12:54 PM
CMYK has patent & license issues I think but is still pretty important in the professional world.

Ok i might be wrong here but patented colours? wtf lol. or does CMYK not stand for Cyan Magenta Yellow blacK ?

I find anoying gimps lack of support for text and editing it... photoshop did that really nice... one thing i have never liked about both is how much work you have to put in to just make a damn circle... windows paint had it sorted... but AFAIK you have to mess with the circular selection tool... now what do you do if you just want the outline of the circle? ... doesnt all this process make things less precise?

I'm pretty sure gimp works with layers differently... the quality in the opacity just doesnt seem to be as good... but i've been using gimp at home so much that when i hop on photoshop at uni i find that harder than i did to work out gimp when i began using linux... funny that lol.

BTW please tell me if i'm wrong about any of the above as i'm not 100% sure and incredibly tired right now

Brunellus
August 29th, 2006, 01:36 PM
Here's an interesting blog entry I came across today: Read more here (http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=don_t_let_a_fud_cloud_rain_on_your _parad_3&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 )
aysiu, thanks for the link. I'm putting that on my blog....you'll note that now I have decided to declare you Ubuntu Community Hero for how you manage to find and share things like this.

Wallakoala
August 29th, 2006, 04:46 PM
Well photoshop has this one advantage. Whenever you rightclick on a layer in the layer window you can bring up a menu where you can do all kinds of stuff really easily like drop shadows, etc.

ago
August 29th, 2006, 04:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP
see "Comparisons with other graphics editors"

Anyway I know that the devs are working on proper 16-bit system. It is slow moving, but apparently the changes are really invasive and worth the wait. By the way in 2.3.11 changelog I read "- added support for 16/32 bit bitmaps and alpha channel to the BMP plug-in", not sure how useful can that be.

As for the interface I do not understand why the default is not a tabbed, dockable interface, with multiple layouts, like modern IDEs, where you can make a panel float by simply dragging it outside of the main window.

ago
August 29th, 2006, 05:44 PM
For those that want to know more about 16 bits (and more) in Gimp:

http://www.gegl.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEGL
http://rants.scribus.net/2006/06/03/why-no-cmyk-in-gimp-is-a-good-thing-now/

DirtDawg
August 29th, 2006, 05:49 PM
Ok i might be wrong here but patented colours? wtf lol. or does CMYK not stand for Cyan Magenta Yellow blacK ?



It's Cyan Magenta Yellow Key-color, FYI ;)

Brunellus
August 29th, 2006, 05:53 PM
the relevant patent (U.S. Patent 5,734,800) is owned by Pantone and covers six-tone printing:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,734,800.PN.&OS=PN/5,734,800&RS=PN/5,734,800

gruvsyco
August 29th, 2006, 05:53 PM
Well photoshop has this one advantage. Whenever you rightclick on a layer in the layer window you can bring up a menu where you can do all kinds of stuff really easily like drop shadows, etc.

That one advantage is a lot more widespread than that... Photoshop has context sensitive menus. That's huge on the workflow front. Gimps menus are just redundant. On an image window, the same menus appear at least 3 times... Across the top, right click and in the upper left corner where the rulers come together.

bruce89
August 29th, 2006, 06:00 PM
In Photoshop, there's a nifty feature, I don't know what it's called, but the paintbrush can be used to create selections. I was working with the Gimp the other day and couldn't find this option. So I figured it was buried in the menu system somewhere. However, after some document surfing, I came to believe the feature is absent in Gimp.

It's called Quick Mask in The GIMP- Select>Toggle Quick Mask or Shift+Q.

DirtDawg
August 29th, 2006, 06:30 PM
It's called Quick Mask in The GIMP- Select>Toggle Quick Mask or Shift+Q.

Great! That's exactly what I'm talking about,thanks. Now how on Earth did I miss that?

DirtDawg
August 29th, 2006, 06:35 PM
the relevant patent (U.S. Patent 5,734,800) is owned by Pantone and covers six-tone printing:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,734,800.PN.&OS=PN/5,734,800&RS=PN/5,734,800

The patent for CMYK or Pantone colors? If it's CMYK, is the process itself patented? In other words, maybe building a CMYK press requires a licence, but does creating CMYK software as well? And is that really what's holding the Gimp up?

BuffaloX
August 29th, 2006, 06:53 PM
the relevant patent (U.S. Patent 5,734,800) is owned by Pantone and covers six-tone printing:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,734,800.PN.&OS=PN/5,734,800&RS=PN/5,734,800

Thanx, But it describes a 6 color printing method using colors with some fluoresence, and is described as CONTRARY to generic 4 color prints. So this is NOT a patent for CMYK.

At least I can't see how it can be. Also it's from 1994, So it can't be a patent for CMYK, as it was already in use.

I have tried seaarching the web on this topic, but I cannot find anything which supports a patent for CMYK.

Brunellus
August 29th, 2006, 07:06 PM
Sorry. I'm leaping over one gap in my thinking.

Photoshop can do Pantone color-matching, and the Patent is for Pantone's Hexatone printing/pigment system. I believe this is really what people mean when they talk about Photoshop, colorspaces, and so forth being superior to the GIMP--which does not have this capability.

For the uses I put it to (which are modest) the GIMP is fantastic...indeed, a bit of overkill.

IYY
August 29th, 2006, 07:32 PM
I do use the Gimp whenever I can, but I do likePhotoshop better, and here is why:

1. Only one window. This is a very big deal, because I have many machines with fairly low resolutions and three windows add a lot of clutter. It also makes things very difficult to maximize/minimize.

2. No CMYK support means no designer who's final product will be printed will be able to use it. At all. There is no real RGB to CMYK converter out there, so without built in CMYK support you cannot make anything for print.

3. The locations of the buttons are really counter-intuitive. I've used the Gimp and photoshop for about the same amounts of time, but in Photoshop I find the buttons instantly whereas in the Gimp I have to go through almost every button before I find the one I want.

charles nicholls
August 31st, 2006, 03:50 PM
Sadly without a fully colour managed system Linux no matter how good (and Umbunto is IMO as good as it gets) can never be my choice for graphic work.

In windows or Mac I can do that,Output as 4 colour acrobat doc at 300 dpi with an embeded profile for the target press (In my case offset litho) and be sure of the result.

So until Adobe comes across with Linux versions and Ubuntu has full systen colour managment im stuck.

if anyone knows or can help how to colour calibrate Ubuntu let me know.