PDA

View Full Version : GIMP or Photoshop?



Ben Crisford
March 5th, 2009, 10:16 PM
Do you guys do your graphics in GIMP or photoshop.

Because obviously photoshop is more professional, but GIMP is a big part of ubuntu culture...

I use GIMP and paint.NET because I don't have the money for something like photoshop or fireworks, but what about you? What do you use?

Tibuda
March 5th, 2009, 10:18 PM
GIMP fits all my needs as webdesigner

lukjad007
March 5th, 2009, 10:21 PM
GIMP for me. I've never used Photoshop though.

UbuntuNerd
March 5th, 2009, 10:31 PM
I have try to use Gimp before but I'm a long time Photoshop user so I was lost, so I had to keep using Photoshop. Gimp does seem to offer some of the same feutures.

Ben Crisford
March 5th, 2009, 10:42 PM
GIMP is good, but I don't like the lack of fonts.

When I was a windows user, I used paint.NET and I prefferred that I think.

But I'm quite happy with GIMP I guess...

It does mostly fit my needs, I only really use it for fun and developing my new website and my newsletters of course ;).

Maheriano
March 5th, 2009, 10:50 PM
I used Photoshop for years so it took a long time to convert to GIMP but eventually I did. I prefer it now because I feel like I'm supporting something positive when I use it. The only thing I like more about Photoshop is the background it puts over your desktop while you work. GIMP just lets you see right through to your desktop and if I have a lot of icons, it gets confusing what I'm working with.

bearslumber
March 5th, 2009, 10:55 PM
Ive used both. Photoshop on Windows until I could not afford it any longer, and did not sleep well at night using dodgy copies. A great program it was. I loved it.

Got introduced to GIMP, and got confused at first. Persevered and got the jist, and realised that it had all the features that I had become used to. On the windws platform you can install a plugin that transforms the interface into one much more like photoshop, for those finding it hard to convert. This came along after I had got used to the GIMP interface. I'm still discovering features. I am starting to use the script interface to automatically adjust photos in batch. Not sure if photoshop has such a feature.

Thumbs up to the GIMP team. Much respect!!!! And many many thanks.

Photoshop is good, but with the price mixed in GIMP wins hands on!!!!!!!!

Ben Crisford
March 5th, 2009, 10:59 PM
Ive used both. Photoshop on Windows until I could not afford it any longer, and did not sleep well at night using dodgy copies. A great program it was. I loved it.

Got introduced to GIMP, and got confused at first. Persevered and got the jist, and realised that it had all the features that I had become used to. On the windws platform you can install a plugin that transforms the interface into one much more like photoshop, for those finding it hard to convert. This came along after I had got used to the GIMP interface. I'm still discovering features. I am starting to use the script interface to automatically adjust photos in batch. Not sure if photoshop has such a feature.

Thumbs up to the GIMP team. Much respect!!!! And many many thanks.

Photoshop is good, but with the price mixed in GIMP wins hands on!!!!!!!!

I agree, but more fonts would be nice definately ;).

Tibuda
March 5th, 2009, 11:45 PM
GIMP is good, but I don't like the lack of fonts.

When I was a windows user, I used paint.NET and I prefferred that I think.

But I'm quite happy with GIMP I guess...

It does mostly fit my needs, I only really use it for fun and developing my new website and my newsletters of course ;).
Lack of fonts? It uses the fonts installed in my system. If you are looking for fonts, search those font sites, and all synaptic packages starting with ttf.

If you like Paint.net, you would like to see http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/

avaralom
March 6th, 2009, 01:08 AM
I use Photoshop since I have access to it at school.
Well, I use Illustrator more than Photoshop.

I have both GIMP and Inkscape on my laptop, but this isn't really a good computer for doing graphics work. I've yet to play with either a whole lot, but they seem promising. And everyone tells me I can do anything I want on GIMP, so we'll see. ;)

Mohamedzv2
March 6th, 2009, 01:18 AM
I use GIMP. Tried using Photoshop, but I hated it. There a few things in PS that I liked better than GIMP but, GIMP is overall more productive for me

Cope57
March 6th, 2009, 02:14 AM
Do you guys do your graphics in GIMP or photoshop.

Because obviously photoshop is more professional, but GIMP is a big part of ubuntu culture...

I use GIMP and paint.NET because I don't have the money for something like photoshop or fireworks, but what about you? What do you use?

You said Photoshop is more professional, on what basis did you come up with this conclusion? If it is because it cost money, then you do not have a understanding of computer related tools.
Photochop and Gimp are both extremely good programs, but it is the USER which makes the graphic into something to behold, not the tool.

I use Gimp myself, and could create anything somebody using Photoshop or Inkscape can do. but then again, I have been using Gimp for eight years now, and i am familiar with the program and how to get the effects I need.

Even today, I am impressed with what people can do with MS Paint, yes, I said MS Paint...

MS Paint Car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUWqRhReaZk&fmt=18)

Mona Lisa using MS Paint (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU&fmt=18)

So from just a couple of videos, you can see that it is the talent of the individuals, and the tools they have to work with which makes the graphics professional looking.
If somebody told me they use MS Paint because it is more professional, I would have to believe that individual is a professional with that tool, and not that the tools is actually any good for my use.

Gimp or Photoshop?

Neither, they are just tools.

kayosiii
March 6th, 2009, 02:18 AM
Neither terribly much at the moment.... I do large number of photos (14000 in the last year and a half) and I haven't had time to more than basic corrections of late. So Sigma Photo Pro under wine + Digikam for me. I am really interested in having a stable Krita 2.0 to test as I would prefer to be using a 16bit workflow.

When I do do graphic design stuff I prefer to work in inkscape using the gimp only for building specific components.

Somiac
March 6th, 2009, 04:40 AM
I use Photoshop just because thats what I started with..I opened GIMP and the UI was overwhelming and not worth learning, not that it's a bad program, but like the person above said they have basically the same functionality it's just a matter of what you started with and which you prefer.

konqueror7
March 6th, 2009, 04:59 AM
started out with Photoshop, heard about GIMP but didn't like the interface...now that i'm on linux, i felt a kind of guilty to using Photoshop under Wine, i mean, why still use windows application in a linux environment? now, i bought a book on GIMP, hopefully i can be more comfortable with it...:D

Linuxratty
March 6th, 2009, 05:14 AM
GIMP is good, but I don't like the lack of fonts.
;).

That is the only thing that bugs me about the Gimp...Whose' bright idea was this not to provide good fonts?
When i tried using the fancy xtra fonts,I'd get something really stupid like the word "marble" written in marble,but no way to write what I wanted in marble,no way to change it,no way to write in marble on the art work I'd just made.
Totally useless and annoying.](*,)
I originally used Photoshop,but when I moved to Linux,I started using the Gimp. I'm quite happy with Gimp and can do anything with it i could do with Photoshop,except the above mentioned fonnts. I'm sure there is a work around,I've just not found it.

bashveank
March 6th, 2009, 06:58 AM
As a former GIMP user, current Graphic Designer/Photoshop User. I'm never going back.

Dragonbite
March 6th, 2009, 04:44 PM
Do you guys do your graphics in GIMP or photoshop.

Because obviously photoshop is more professional, but GIMP is a big part of ubuntu culture...

I use GIMP and paint.NET because I don't have the money for something like photoshop or fireworks, but what about you? What do you use?

At work (Windows) I use Paint.NET.
At home I use Gimp and Photoshop (via Wine).

I'm also going to be doing a KDE experiment where I use KDE-family applications over others so I'll be trying out Krtia more in the near future.

munishvit
March 6th, 2009, 05:03 PM
For long I have been using Photoshop. I tried GIMP but couldn't manage layers :(, even. I am thinking of to give another try soon...:p

DirtDawg
March 6th, 2009, 05:12 PM
GIMP when I can, Photoshop when I have to.

I have to say, though, the new GIMP GUI is so freaking awful, it really makes it difficult for me to enthusiastically endorse.

EDIT: I want to clarify my comment on the GUI because I see lots of Photoshop users gripe about the GUI as well. I actually think the GIMP GUI/menu layout is better than Photoshop in that it is set up much better for efficient workflow (IMO).

However, with GIMP 2.6, they removed, what they considered, redundant menu options (ie File, Edit) and replaced it with some idiotic GIMP face that you can drag and drop files into. Who the hell drags and drops!? Not only that, but you could drag and drop into the toolbox to open files in previous versions anyways, so I really don't understand what the point of that change was.

Even worse, they removed the ability to minimize the toolboxes AND the toolboxes are "always on top"! Why!!?? What point could that possibly serve? As a result, if I'm working on a fullscreen pic, I am forced to move the stupid toolbox(s) to hide them off the screen rather than minimize them. This is incredibly inconvenient and really two steps back in the GUI department, which never got rave reviews to begin with. Really poor decision making on the part of the developers, IMO.

PixelLord
March 6th, 2009, 05:47 PM
100% GIMP.
I tranied for 7 years in Photoshop and Painter (Photo Mastering and digital Painting) but gimp is free, open and cross platform. I tweak my UI as much as I can to be as productive as possible. It's not what you use, where you study or even what you know...It's what you do with what you know folks. Dont believe me? Check my screenshot below
|
|
|
V

Ben Crisford
March 6th, 2009, 06:05 PM
You said Photoshop is more professional, on what basis did you come up with this conclusion? If it is because it cost money, then you do not have a understanding of computer related tools.
Photochop and Gimp are both extremely good programs, but it is the USER which makes the graphic into something to behold, not the tool.

I use Gimp myself, and could create anything somebody using Photoshop or Inkscape can do. but then again, I have been using Gimp for eight years now, and i am familiar with the program and how to get the effects I need.

Even today, I am impressed with what people can do with MS Paint, yes, I said MS Paint...

MS Paint Car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUWqRhReaZk&fmt=18)

Mona Lisa using MS Paint (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU&fmt=18)

So from just a couple of videos, you can see that it is the talent of the individuals, and the tools they have to work with which makes the graphics professional looking.
If somebody told me they use MS Paint because it is more professional, I would have to believe that individual is a professional with that tool, and not that the tools is actually any good for my use.

Gimp or Photoshop?

Neither, they are just tools.

:O Ok, i've learnt my lesson :s.

Forgive me! :p.

paullinux
March 6th, 2009, 07:05 PM
If you like to work with 'online'-photoshop-clone then try this one:
http://www.sumopaint.com/web/#/news/

I'm really surprised by this online-tool, it's a very advanced online-app. It basically does most things -and uses the same menu's- as photoshop, so you feel right at home with it.

Try it !
;)

Ben Crisford
March 6th, 2009, 07:08 PM
If you like to work with 'online'-photoshop-clone then try this one:
http://www.sumopaint.com/web/#/news/

I'm really surprised by this online-tool, it's a very advanced online-app. It basically does most things -and uses the same menu's- as photoshop, so you feel right at home with it.

Try it !
;)

Nice, but not much better than GIMP or paint.net I think.

Gazok
March 6th, 2009, 07:12 PM
Emphatically Photoshop.

binbash
March 6th, 2009, 07:14 PM
Most people will say photoshop because of piracy.I moved to Gimp, but photoshop is better :D

Sand & Mercury
March 6th, 2009, 09:39 PM
Photoshop is a better program but it'll be a long time before I can justify the cost to buy it. I use GIMP for web & graphics designs and it has served me well so far.

Pretty much everything you see on my porfolio page (link (http://sandandmercury.net/portfolio.htm)) has been done (or mocked up) in GIMP.

Ben Crisford
March 6th, 2009, 10:38 PM
Photoshop is a better program but it'll be a long time before I can justify the cost to buy it. I use GIMP for web & graphics designs and it has served me well so far.

Pretty much everything you see on my porfolio page (link (http://sandandmercury.net/portfolio.htm)) has been done (or mocked up) in GIMP.

I'm very impressed with your portfolio ;).

dtom2444
March 6th, 2009, 11:45 PM
I use Gimp all the time (although i am not that good at it). I do like Photoshop, but because of he cost, i just use Gimp. It's great!

Ben Crisford
March 6th, 2009, 11:51 PM
I use Gimp all the time (although i am not that good at it). I do like Photoshop, but because of he cost, i just use Gimp. It's great!

agreed.

AJB2K3
March 7th, 2009, 02:00 PM
@ Ben Take a look at my sig for help with fonts.

Been using gimp since 0.99 on windows and its changed alot. now on on linux (for 5 years now) still use gimp how ever gimp is still got user issue which stem from the fact that most new users are familure to the win/photoflop interface making gimps very baffeling.


I got the original Grokking the gimp book which is serious help even though its sooo out of date.
If your in the uk try this book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginning-GIMP-Novice-Professional-2nd/dp/1430210702/ref=pd_sim_b_1 as its been printed in DEC 2008

And this site http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html

WatchingThePain
March 7th, 2009, 02:24 PM
Gimp is more than enough for most people as many professionals use it.
I used to use photoshop but I don't want to buy it now because Gimp is so good.

hessiess
March 7th, 2009, 02:52 PM
Gimp on anything(preferably Linux) or photoshop on Mac. PS on windows is garbage bacouse of the interface.

Skripka
March 7th, 2009, 03:01 PM
If you have the money, run Photoshop. It does lots of things Gimp cannot.



Gimp has gotten better interface wise recently...but feature wise PS dominates.

cb951303
March 7th, 2009, 03:11 PM
If you have the money, run Photoshop.
and what if you don't need those features? would you still recommend buying photoshop? :D

The best advice is, if you need what photoshop does by all means buy it. But if you can manage with GIMP's features, why not give it a shot since it's free?



Even worse, they removed the ability to minimize the toolboxes AND the toolboxes are "always on top"! Why!!?? What point could that possibly serve? As a result, if I'm working on a fullscreen pic, I am forced to move the stupid toolbox(s) to hide them off the screen rather than minimize them. This is incredibly inconvenient and really two steps back in the GUI department, which never got rave reviews to begin with. Really poor decision making on the part of the developers, IMO.

I found the perfect solution for this annoying inability:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6718716&postcount=10
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6723891&postcount=12

Skripka
March 7th, 2009, 03:15 PM
and what if you don't need those features? would you still recommend buying photoshop? :D

The best advice is, if you need what photoshop does by all means buy it. But if you can manage with GIMP's features, why not give it a shot since it's free?

Because Adobe probably wants a bailout too ;)


PS has a learning curve, but it is streamlined and many simple things are easy on it...and unless you're a programmer who knows python impossible on Gimp. The combo of Bridge and Photoshop is a winner.

cb951303
March 7th, 2009, 03:18 PM
PS has a learning curve, but it is streamlined and many simple things are easy on it...and unless you're a programmer who knows python impossible on Gimp.

Hmm, why? Do you want to write plug-ins?

I must say I don't agree with you. GIMP is quite easy. I never used any programming language with it even once and I use it professionally.

Skripka
March 7th, 2009, 03:20 PM
Hmm, why? Do you want to write plug-ins?

I must say I don't agree with you. GIMP is quite easy. I never used any programming language with it even once and I use it professionally.
All right,

Take oh let us say 100 shots on your camera move them to a folder.

How long does it take one to process en mass all those images--applying the same White balance, cropping, and saving changes to file? In Photoshop doing so takes about 1 minute to set up and then run...in Gimp you have to know Python to even bother, last I knew.

cb951303
March 7th, 2009, 03:28 PM
All right,

Take oh let us say 100 shots on your camera move them to a folder.

How long does it take one to process en mass all those images--applying the same White balance, cropping, and saving changes to file? In Photoshop doing so takes about 1 minute to set up and then run...in Gimp you have to know Python to even bother, last I knew.

I see your point. But GIMP does not state such a feature. Sure it's possible to do it via python or script-fu but if you look at stated GIMP features you won't see batch processing. So we're back where we started. IF you need this feature then buy PS by any means :popcorn:

seancarlgrech
March 7th, 2009, 06:54 PM
I have been using Photoshop for a long time, when I converted to GIMP, at first it took me some time to ge used to it, but now that I got used to it I'm more than happy using it;)
GIMP rocks :D

svr2009wwe
March 7th, 2009, 11:05 PM
Photoshop is nice.I dont' know about GIMP.

Sand & Mercury
March 7th, 2009, 11:14 PM
I'm very impressed with your portfolio ;).
Thanks mate. :KS

Mohamedzv2
March 8th, 2009, 02:26 AM
I agree with Ben Crisford. It is amazing what you can do with GIMP. I am starting to make some good works myself, still not great though. Will take a while, how long have you been using it?

Sand & Mercury
March 8th, 2009, 02:57 PM
I agree with Ben Crisford. It is amazing what you can do with GIMP. I am starting to make some good works myself, still not great though. Will take a while, how long have you been using it?
Mm, probably about a year... but I spent a few more years prior using Photoshop as well, and a good knowledge of Photoshop will help you with GIMP as a lot of the concepts are quite similar.

Ben Crisford
March 8th, 2009, 05:46 PM
I agree with Ben Crisford. It is amazing what you can do with GIMP. I am starting to make some good works myself, still not great though. Will take a while, how long have you been using it?

You don't have to use my full name :p.

Feel free to call me Ben ;).

oblivian516
March 8th, 2009, 06:26 PM
Do you guys do your graphics in GIMP or photoshop.

Because obviously photoshop is more professional, but GIMP is a big part of ubuntu culture...

I use GIMP and paint.NET because I don't have the money for something like photoshop or fireworks, but what about you? What do you use?

If only gimp had some way of putting layers in groups (like photoshops groups!) so I can transform (rotate, resize, ect) multiple layers at a time.

Ben Crisford
March 8th, 2009, 07:30 PM
If only gimp had some way of putting layers in groups (like photoshops groups!) so I can transform (rotate, resize, ect) multiple layers at a time.

Yeah, I agree.

Paint.NET does, I think there is an ubuntu version somewhere, but I doubt the add-ons work.

cb951303
March 8th, 2009, 07:34 PM
I think krita has adjustment layers too

Sand & Mercury
March 8th, 2009, 10:35 PM
If only gimp had some way of putting layers in groups (like photoshops groups!) so I can transform (rotate, resize, ect) multiple layers at a time.
You can link layers together if you want to manipulate a few at a time (click in the box next to the eye). That can work in a pinch, though I do miss layer folders for other reasons, mostly just keeping a clean & organized workflow when you're working with oodles and oodles of layers. Still, I can live with it.

Tibuda
March 9th, 2009, 12:24 AM
Have you guys asked for those features (http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/)?

cb951303
March 9th, 2009, 07:01 AM
Have you guys asked for those features (http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/)?

I think adjustement layers are asked so many times that if devs hear it one more they might not implement it :P

conal
March 9th, 2009, 04:03 PM
Hi folks

I used Gimp in a professional capacity as a graphic designer for a couple of years. We produced a commercial newspaper using only open-source software. Having used Photoshop in my previous job at a different newspaper I was pleased to find you can achieve the same things with Gimp, though the processes are often different. my only problem was that you cannot export as a PDF with GIMP which meant loading the advert (without text) as a tiff into Scribus and adding the lettering in Scribus, then exporting as a PDF. This obviously does not offer a straight forward work-flow and making changes to proofs is difficult.

The trouble is that the PDF has become an industry standard. Most agencies and publications expect people to send them PDF's, and commercial printers require pages to be sent as PDF's. In my experience, to achieve the best results on newsprint, you only want the fonts to be flattened at the very last stage - at the printers! If someone designed a PDF export function for GIMP so the fonts did not have to be flattened to pixel-data I think you would see a lot more professional designers using GIMP.

Thanks

Conal

cb951303
March 9th, 2009, 04:28 PM
Hi folks

I used Gimp in a professional capacity as a graphic designer for a couple of years. We produced a commercial newspaper using only open-source software. Having used Photoshop in my previous job at a different newspaper I was pleased to find you can achieve the same things with Gimp, though the processes are often different. my only problem was that you cannot export as a PDF with GIMP which meant loading the advert (without text) as a tiff into Scribus and adding the lettering in Scribus, then exporting as a PDF. This obviously does not offer a straight forward work-flow and making changes to proofs is difficult.

The trouble is that the PDF has become an industry standard. Most agencies and publications expect people to send them PDF's, and commercial printers require pages to be sent as PDF's. In my experience, to achieve the best results on newsprint, you only want the fonts to be flattened at the very last stage - at the printers! If someone designed a PDF export function for GIMP so the fonts did not have to be flattened to pixel-data I think you would see a lot more professional designers using GIMP.

Thanks

Conal

what's wrong with the PDF virtual printer?

Dragonbite
March 9th, 2009, 06:00 PM
I love that I can open and save my Photoshop files in Gimp.

When my wife was using Windows (Photoshop) and I was using Linux (Gimp) this little feature meant I could carry the file from one system to the other with little difficult and still be able to edit it (layers, etc.).

conal
March 10th, 2009, 12:18 AM
what's wrong with the PDF virtual printer?

I was not aware that a virtual printer would preserve the fonts with GIMP. I have tried different virtual printers on different platforms with GIMP and they have not embedded the font data for me, or even saved the fonts as vector graphics (so they can at least be scaled to any size with no loss of quality) The fonts become pixel data instead, if you know what I mean.

If I am wrong and you know how to do this please tell me, it wold be very useful to me!

Thanks

Conal

hikaricore
March 10th, 2009, 01:40 PM
I use GIMP for almost everything at home, however at the office I use Photoshop.

Ben Crisford
March 10th, 2009, 05:12 PM
I use GIMP for almost everything at home, however at the office I use Photoshop.

Same, I use PS at school but gimp at home.

BradwJensen
March 10th, 2009, 07:07 PM
Photoshop for me..

The default shortcut keys are stuck in my head and I use them constantly, they save so much time and effort. Working with Gimp becomes very stressful from all the weird menus/options, when I can do the same things in Photoshop with a couple key strokes..

I also love working with layer properties in Photoshop. So far I have not seen anything like it in Gimp.

There is also the Gimp problem of having three different windows rather than one, like a good unified program would have. Photoshop gives me a nice background for my work to lay out on, and it has a couple hideable tool-bars/tool-boxes, everything is clean and simple in Photoshop.

Tibuda
March 10th, 2009, 08:13 PM
Working with Gimp becomes very stressful from all the weird menus/options, when I can do the same things in Photoshop with a couple key strokes.."weird" is the opinion of someone which just got used to Photoshop, as you said yourself. No GIMP fault.


There is also the Gimp problem of having three different windows rather than one, like a good unified program would have.Good is relative here again. Microsoft itself stopped using MDI windows some time ago, and most modern applications keeps everything in the same window with tabs (but it would not work for Gimp/Photoshop).

Dragonbite
March 10th, 2009, 08:38 PM
I have noticed that Gimp is much more manageable with my 20" widescreen monitor than the 12.1" laptop screen!

Photoshop isn't all that bad on the laptop, and is better, but nothing overly significant on the large screen.

cb951303
March 10th, 2009, 09:07 PM
If you have hard time managing gimp's weird windows try my solution. it really makes a difference once you're used to it.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6854159&postcount=35

Edit: also another trick that will make your life easier: if you work on high resolution images or lots of zoom, try navigating the image with SPACE + Mouse and zoom out/in with CTRL + Scroll Wheel

BradwJensen
March 11th, 2009, 06:29 AM
"weird" is the opinion of someone which just got used to Photoshop, as you said yourself. No GIMP fault.

Good is relative here again. Microsoft itself stopped using MDI windows some time ago, and most modern applications keeps everything in the same window with tabs (but it would not work for Gimp/Photoshop).


Of course most everything in this specific thread is going to be personal preference. I was just stating my thoughts on the subject, like pretty much everyone else here. I even decided to added my idea of some "points" on why I chose the one over the other.

I don't mean to be rude, but your comments seemed to forget the idea that this thread is mostly about personal preference (the title suggests it), and I was just stating my own. I sort of felt like you were trolling on me with your comments. Either way, all is o.k.

BradwJensen
March 11th, 2009, 06:32 AM
If you have hard time managing gimp's weird windows try my solution. it really makes a difference once you're used to it.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6854159&postcount=35

Edit: also another trick that will make your life easier: if you work on high resolution images or lots of zoom, try navigating the image with SPACE + Mouse and zoom out/in with CTRL + Scroll Wheel


I will give it a try one of these days, thanks.

alex.rayu
March 11th, 2009, 08:56 AM
If edit photos, I can go well with Gimp. In design (web or printed media) I lack vector functionality of Photoshop badly in Gimp and the layer effects and masks that I also use frequently.

cb951303
March 11th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Of course most everything in this specific thread is going to be personal preference. I was just stating my thoughts on the subject, like pretty much everyone else here. I even decided to added my idea of some "points" on why I chose the one over the other.

I don't mean to be rude, but your comments seemed to forget the idea that this thread is mostly about personal preference (the title suggests it), and I was just stating my own. I sort of felt like you were trolling on me with your comments. Either way, all is o.k.

When you're stating personal preferences it's better to state also reasons. Argumentation is the key here. Saying something like I prefer photoshop because gimp menus are weird only leads to flaming in these forums ;)

Also keep in mind that, being different is not an argument at all. GIMP or any other linux application for that matter doesn't imitate their windows/proprietary counterparts and you being used to use photoshop is not GIMP's fault. I think that's what danielrmt was referring to and he/she's not trolling at all.

hikaricore
March 11th, 2009, 01:46 PM
Honestly I've grown to like GIMP more than Photoshop, however the Windows port still feels a little clunky to me. >.<

Dan_Dranath999
March 11th, 2009, 01:57 PM
I use Gimp at home, for my personal work.

But at work (web designer) i need to edit files with tons of layers, and manage each layer content in a NON-DESTRUCTIVE way (where Photoshop's layer effect are a handy tool)

at current time, Gimp can't:
-use layer effects
-Create layer Folders
-manage CMYK

i use the first 2 everyday.

cmat
March 11th, 2009, 03:15 PM
There is also the Gimp problem of having three different windows rather than one, like a good unified program would have. Photoshop gives me a nice background for my work to lay out on, and it has a couple hideable tool-bars/tool-boxes, everything is clean and simple in Photoshop.

X does not have support for Windows style MDI's and there really is no point nowadays. There are really only a handful of applications that still use them on Windows. MDIs aren't as intuitive as they are made out to be and get very difficult to manage when you have many of them open. Not only do you have to manage windows on the desktop, you have to manage and go through a bunch of sub windows in applications. It isn't efficient at streamlining work flow. I use AutoCAD and some other package at work both MDIs, from experience it's not the way to go. This is why tabs are golden in applications with multiple document nowadays.

What I would approve of is tabs in The GIMP. Also a well needed name change.

Tibuda
March 11th, 2009, 06:07 PM
Also keep in mind that, being different is not an argument at all. GIMP or any other linux application for that matter doesn't imitate their windows/proprietary counterparts and you being used to use photoshop is not GIMP's fault. I think that's what danielrmt was referring to and he/she's not trolling at all.Exactly what I mean, thanks cb951303.


What I would approve of is tabs in The GIMP. Also a well needed name change.I don't think it would work. I like to see both images when I'm working with two or more. I believe a splitted window would be better.

Sand & Mercury
March 11th, 2009, 06:43 PM
I don't think it would work. I like to see both images when I'm working with two or more. I believe a splitted window would be better.
Having both is perfectly feasible.

cmat
March 11th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Exactly what I mean, thanks cb951303.

I don't think it would work. I like to see both images when I'm working with two or more. I believe a splitted window would be better.

:-k You're absolutely correct.

ToasterThief
March 11th, 2009, 08:03 PM
I hope the OP is a trick question. Gimp is nowhere near being a real competitor. Gimp lacks essential features PhotoShop had about half a decade ago, and it's quite obvious that it'll never catch up. I don't know any serious digital graphics artist that would honestly prefer Gimp over PhotoShop. But well, Gimp is free.

Tibuda
March 11th, 2009, 08:30 PM
Gimp lacks essential features PhotoShop had about half a decade ago, and it's quite obvious that it'll never catch up.Can you list some of those essential features?

cb951303
March 11th, 2009, 08:42 PM
Can you list some of those essential features?

Ah it's old news. He mainly refers to adjustment layers, different color spaces support and some font management issue.

It's perfectly possible to use gimp professionally without using above features, and GIMP team already works on color space support so don't mind the poster.

he's even sure that GIMP will never catch up, we have a psychic among us I guess.

MickS
March 11th, 2009, 09:09 PM
I wonder where Photoshop would be today if it didn't have the Gimp snapping at it's heels.

Mick

smartboyathome
March 11th, 2009, 10:16 PM
I wonder where Photoshop would be today if it didn't have the Gimp snapping at it's heels.

Mick

Still up there because there would also be Paint.NET and Paint Shop Pro. ;)

Sand & Mercury
March 11th, 2009, 10:34 PM
I hope the OP is a trick question. Gimp is nowhere near being a real competitor. Gimp lacks essential features PhotoShop had about half a decade ago, and it's quite obvious that it'll never catch up. I don't know any serious digital graphics artist that would honestly prefer Gimp over PhotoShop. But well, Gimp is free.
That's precisely what makes it a competitor for me.

Mohamedzv2
March 11th, 2009, 10:38 PM
-use layer effects
-Create layer Folders
-manage CMYK
1.Ya, it sorta can. Dunno what version you have, but 2.4+ has had them.
2.As far as I've seen, I used them when opening a .PSD, even though they were annoying.
3.There is a plug-in for some support for CMYK

Dragonbite
March 12th, 2009, 02:38 AM
For those features lacking in Gimp, what about the alternatives such as Cinepaint and Krita? While Gimp is the most known, maybe it isn't the best open source alternative?

I must admit, though, I haven't used either of them very much and haven't run across much that I've needed that Gimp cannot handle, yet.

Skripka
March 12th, 2009, 02:47 AM
For those features lacking in Gimp, what about the alternatives such as Cinepaint and Krita? While Gimp is the most known, maybe it isn't the best open source alternative?

I must admit, though, I haven't used either of them very much and haven't run across much that I've needed that Gimp cannot handle, yet.

Krita and Cinepaint can do things Gimp cannot...but Gimp has LOTS of plugins and addon liraries available for it that make Gimp better than either. Also Cinepaint, last I used it had the same painful to use interface that the Gimp used to.

DirtDawg
March 12th, 2009, 04:30 AM
I found the perfect solution for this annoying inability:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6718716&postcount=10
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6723891&postcount=12

Thanks for that, I'll give this solution a shot. I hope this, er, "feature," is reversed in upcoming releases.

Najmudin
March 12th, 2009, 01:12 PM
I found this review (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/01/gimp-2-6-review.ars) about GIMP compared to Photoshop in many aspects and tools , its a bit long (11 page) but its really great.

Thelasko
March 12th, 2009, 04:51 PM
I find this type of discussion happens too often. I've found that it's a fundamental difference between open source and proprietary software. I started a Brainstorm page (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/18455/) to look for answers. Please have a look.

cb951303
March 12th, 2009, 06:19 PM
I find this type of discussion happens too often. I've found that it's a fundamental difference between open source and proprietary software. I started a Brainstorm page (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/18455/) to look for answers. Please have a look.

I 100% disagree with you.

Tibuda
March 12th, 2009, 06:42 PM
I find this type of discussion happens too often. I've found that it's a fundamental difference between open source and proprietary software. I started a Brainstorm page (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/18455/) to look for answers. Please have a look.

This dicussion happens because most proprietary software users are too attached to what they already use, and will never be happy with all the effort open-source developers do. Some people will bash Gimp forever, unless Adobe releases a native Linux version. The same applies to many other great open source software, like OpenOffice and Linux itself. I already told you this in your Dreamweaver thread.

There are missing features and bugs in F/OSS? Sure. I just don't think F/OSS goal should be to clone proprietary software. "Linux is not Windows".

Thelasko
March 12th, 2009, 06:57 PM
There are missing features and bugs in F/OSS? Sure. I just don't think F/OSS goal should be to clone proprietary software.

F/OSS should be as good as, if not better than, the proprietary software. Missing features and bugs are inexcusable.

You're basically saying, "Free Software: you get what you pay for."

That attitude gets you nowhere.

Ben Crisford
March 12th, 2009, 07:02 PM
I found this review (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/01/gimp-2-6-review.ars) about GIMP compared to Photoshop in many aspects and tools , its a bit long (11 page) but its really great.

Nice review.

Some good points were made ;).

Tibuda
March 12th, 2009, 07:13 PM
F/OSS should be as good as, if not better than, the proprietary software. Missing features and bugs are inexcusable.Yes, many F/OSS software are as good and better than proprietary software. Proprietary software also have bugs and miss features. This is why new versions are released.


You're basically saying, "Free Software: you get what you pay for."You know this is not what I'm saying.

cmat
March 12th, 2009, 08:36 PM
I remember my sister freaking out that she didn't want to use GIMP. She said it can't even make a picture black and white. When I told her you can she refused to hear it. It's that kind of hardheadedness that I often see. Okay, if you have really technical reasons for not using it then fine. But if you do graphic design (logos, site banners, posters) or photo editing photoshop is like killing a fly with a machine gun. A good 20% of features you will never use which really makes the difference.

I did this in 1-1/2 hours, guess what software I used...

cb951303
March 12th, 2009, 09:16 PM
nothing really speaks like pictures to show GIMP's pro capabilities.
only a 5 min google search revealed these (continues next post)

cb951303
March 12th, 2009, 09:17 PM
.

PixelLord
March 12th, 2009, 11:04 PM
Well said cb...

Tibuda
March 13th, 2009, 03:17 PM
A friend just told me about this benchmark (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2342736,00.asp). It shows that Photoshop is a lot faster than Gimp when working with a huge image (300MB). It is not something that affects a webdesigner like me (small images = fast website), but Gimp devs should work on it. What do you guys working with huge images think?

cb951303
March 13th, 2009, 05:58 PM
A friend just told me about this benchmark (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2342736,00.asp). It shows that Photoshop is a lot faster than Gimp when working with a huge image (300MB). It is not something that affects a webdesigner like me (small images = fast website), but Gimp devs should work on it. What do you guys working with huge images think?

gimp has lots of preferences like "tile cache" that will dramatically affect the speed of loading and processing huge images. I don't see any tweaking in that benchmark.
BTW a 10MP raw photo is around 10-20MB, I don't see how anyone would need to work with 300MB.

Sand & Mercury
March 14th, 2009, 10:41 AM
gimp has lots of preferences like "tile cache" that will dramatically affect the speed of loading and processing huge images. I don't see any tweaking in that benchmark.
BTW a 10MP raw photo is around 10-20MB, I don't see how anyone would need to work with 300MB.
Basically for anything that needs to be printed; on a screen you only need 75dpi, but for printing you want at least 300 for a decent looking print. A lot of people would settle for nothing less than 600, which will be huge on a screen.

cb951303
March 14th, 2009, 11:14 AM
Basically for anything that needs to be printed; on a screen you only need 75dpi, but for printing you want at least 300 for a decent looking print. A lot of people would settle for nothing less than 600, which will be huge on a screen.

I'm making posters for living. I work on 300dpi and I assure you you won't achieve 300MB even if you work on 600dpi. I just created an A1 page on 300dpi to see the size. 1.7MB for png. There you go.

Aries-Belgium
March 14th, 2009, 12:53 PM
Although I'm an Open Source fan I'm tend to work with Photoshop for designing posters and websites. GIMP is good as wel, as a photo editor. But doesn't have the same features Photoshop has for designing graphics.

Photoshop pro/contra for me:
+ better control over layer effects
GIMP can use effects like drop a shadow or something but some effects can only be applied once and it just creates another layer instead of bundling it with the layer you applied the effect to.
+ layer grouping
I know you can use the anchor button in GIMP to create a group but you can only have one group at once. In Photoshop you can even put a group in a group.
+ dynamic text effects
When rotating a text layer in GIMP it will automatically transform it to a static layer and the text can't be updated anymore. In Photoshop you always have full control over a text layer whether the text is rotated or not.
+ better support for larger images
When creating a 300dpi A1 image in GIMP it uses a lot more memory than Photoshop does and Photoshop is still a lot faster to actually work on that document
- no native Linux support
That is a big issue for me. I don't like using Windows and Mac is to expensive.
- really expensive
There isn't a lot of discussion about this.

GIMP is a good application but it is by far not on the same level than Photoshop.

Ben Crisford
March 14th, 2009, 04:45 PM
Although I'm an Open Source fan I'm tend to work with Photoshop for designing posters and websites. GIMP is good as wel, as a photo editor. But doesn't have the same features Photoshop has for designing graphics.

Photoshop pro/contra for me:
+ better control over layer effects
GIMP can use effects like drop a shadow or something but some effects can only be applied once and it just creates another layer instead of bundling it with the layer you applied the effect to.
+ layer grouping
I know you can use the anchor button in GIMP to create a group but you can only have one group at once. In Photoshop you can even put a group in a group.
+ dynamic text effects
When rotating a text layer in GIMP it will automatically transform it to a static layer and the text can't be updated anymore. In Photoshop you always have full control over a text layer whether the text is rotated or not.
+ better support for larger images
When creating a 300dpi A1 image in GIMP it uses a lot more memory than Photoshop does and Photoshop is still a lot faster to actually work on that document
- no native Linux support
That is a big issue for me. I don't like using Windows and Mac is to expensive.
- really expensive
There isn't a lot of discussion about this.

GIMP is a good application but it is by far not on the same level than Photoshop.

All good points.

But they are small problems and 300 quid or so isn't exactly a small price difference...

Arup
March 14th, 2009, 05:23 PM
Gimp is vastly improving and with all the plugins released, its catching up quickly to Adobe PS. Everyone is forgetting that GIMP unlike Photoshop is true x64 just like Paint.NET. When handling images from my SONY 25MP Alpha 900 both GIMP and Paint.Net are true optimized x64 programs. Also I find that Paint.Net followed by GIMP handle multiple cores far better than Adobe,the 25MP images in RAW are handled quite fast in Paint.Net and Gimpx64 as compared to Adobe PS.

Well I am just an enthusiast, so my opinion here reflects that and is nowhere near the pros but then I guess pros sometimes are too busy to devote their precious time looking for an alternate newer program like Gimp or Paint.Net

Skripka
March 14th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Gimp is vastly improving and with all the plugins released, its catching up quickly to Adobe PS. Everyone is forgetting that GIMP unlike Photoshop is true x64 just like Paint.NET. When handling images from my SONY 25MP Alpha 900 both GIMP and Paint.Net are true optimized x64 programs. Also I find that Paint.Net followed by GIMP handle multiple cores far better than Adobe,the 25MP images in RAW are handled quite fast in Paint.Net and Gimpx64 as compared to Adobe PS.

Well I am just an enthusiast, so my opinion here reflects that and is nowhere near the pros but then I guess pros sometimes are too busy to devote their precious time looking for an alternate newer program like Gimp or Paint.Net

I don't know how you configured Gimp--but it is a single threaded app here, and does not use more than a single core-here.

Aries-Belgium
March 15th, 2009, 01:05 AM
But they are small problems and 300 quid or so isn't exactly a small price difference...

If you are working on large projects those things aren't small problems. For example, if you have a text layer that needs to be rotated and afterwards the client would like to add something to that text. In Photoshop you can simply add that text to the layer without any problem and the changes are reflected immediately. In GIMP you will have to delete the text layer, insert the new text layer and then rotate it again. It's not only a time issue but if your client is watching it as you do it, Photoshop is simply more professional.

I also think GIMP en Photoshop in their current state aren't comparable. GIMP is a great photo editor and as a photo editor it can replace Photoshop without any problem. But Photoshop offers a lot more than just being a photo editor.

Mohamedzv2
March 15th, 2009, 02:09 AM
Not really. Photoshop is more effective, as in it does have a few better features, but nothing overall that would make you have to switch. GIMP's interface is, imo, more intuitive than PS, but it does lack some features, but all of those you can live without. heck, I've been doing tags for a year and just recently did I start doing anything posterlike, I didn't notice any difference in speed, and this is still the default settings

brandon88tube
March 15th, 2009, 02:46 AM
I feel the name sticks true to how I feel about it. I've used both Photoshop and GIMP, but when it comes down to it, I feel as the GIMP is like Photoshop with a gimp. I keep on trying to use GIMP, but I just can't get used to it. I like the fact that it is free, but it still has a ways to go before it can be on par with Photoshop.

Arup
March 15th, 2009, 04:17 AM
I don't know how you configured Gimp--but it is a single threaded app here, and does not use more than a single core-here.

This is on my AMD Phenom machine, in case of my dual quad core Intel, it shows 8. All cores get used.

Skripka
March 15th, 2009, 03:19 PM
This is on my AMD Phenom machine, in case of my dual quad core Intel, it shows 8. All cores get used.

Wierd. Gimp only uses 1 core out of 2 here-using the setting in your attachment. I tell it to use 2 cores-and it still only uses 1.

smartboyathome
March 15th, 2009, 04:14 PM
If you are working on large projects those things aren't small problems. For example, if you have a text layer that needs to be rotated and afterwards the client would like to add something to that text. In Photoshop you can simply add that text to the layer without any problem and the changes are reflected immediately. In GIMP you will have to delete the text layer, insert the new text layer and then rotate it again. It's not only a time issue but if your client is watching it as you do it, Photoshop is simply more professional.

I also think GIMP en Photoshop in their current state aren't comparable. GIMP is a great photo editor and as a photo editor it can replace Photoshop without any problem. But Photoshop offers a lot more than just being a photo editor.

The only reason Photoshop can do this is because it has basic vector editing features. Since the GIMP team is strictly focusing on raster editing, vector features like these won't be able to be implimented easy at all.

dakal
March 15th, 2009, 05:55 PM
I'm making posters for living. I work on 300dpi and I assure you you won't achieve 300MB even if you work on 600dpi. I just created an A1 page on 300dpi to see the size. 1.7MB for png. There you go.

That's funny, I would have expected more from someone working on graphics for a living. PNG file sizes are not indicative of the pixel size of the image. I just used GIMP 2.4.5 to create an A1 image at 300 dpi, and it saved to a file 224 KB in size. But that's meaningless without knowing what the image looks like; adding random HSV noise to the image and resaving with the same settings yields a file that's 114 MB in size. Almost three orders of magnitude difference even though both the software used and the pixel dimensions of the image are exactly the same.

Working with fairly large images especially as of recently, I can testify to that GIMP has a pretty serious performance (or rather, memory) problem with those, especially when you throw multiple layers into the mix. My PC has 2 GB of RAM and working on the biggest image I'm playing around with currently, which is roughly 100 MB on disk saved as XCF, GIMP easily balloons and uses up all the memory it can get its hands on. Claimed in-memory size is on the order of 1.5 GB. Some tools are also naturally more processor-hungry than others; smudge and airbrush at less-than-100% opacity require more CPU time than do the pencil at 100%.

Myself, I use GIMP all the time. A friend of mine uses Photoshop for largely the same tasks. Other than the license fee and terms, I think what it ultimately boils down to is a matter of taste. And, there is no denying that Photoshop does have some features that GIMP lacks. Myself, I would definitely like to see something like Photoshop's layer grouping/folders in GIMP.

alex.rayu
March 16th, 2009, 10:19 AM
I have been wondering for a long time, why does GIMP team not include a good vector support. People want it.

Aries-Belgium
March 16th, 2009, 12:39 PM
The only reason Photoshop can do this is because it has basic vector editing features. Since the GIMP team is strictly focusing on raster editing, vector features like these won't be able to be implimented easy at all.

Yes, that the reason why I can't use GIMP for my printwork.

Like I said before, you can't compare GIMP to Photoshop on their design features. I think the GIMP team focuses more on developing a photo editor and they are doing a great job on that too but it lacks quite a lot of features to completely replace Photoshop for me.

Thelasko
March 16th, 2009, 03:04 PM
I have been wondering for a long time, why does GIMP team not include a good vector support. People want it.

Because you are supposed to use Inkscape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkscape) for that.

brandon88tube
March 16th, 2009, 03:43 PM
Because you are supposed to use Inkscape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkscape) for that.

Well you could say the same thing about Illustrator and Photoshop.

Thelasko
March 16th, 2009, 03:51 PM
Well you could say the same thing about Illustrator and Photoshop.

There's a Brainstorm page (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/18134/) to make Inkscape and Gimp into a suite like Illustrator and Photoshop. I think it's a good idea.

racerraul
March 16th, 2009, 07:14 PM
That would be a good idea.

I think what would complete the suite is a Dreamweaver type webpage editor.
Many professionals that have come over to webpage design have a strong background with desktop publishing, and lets face it. If you are one with that kind of experience, a webpage editor like Dreamweaver is an invaluable tool.

Tibuda
March 16th, 2009, 08:05 PM
That would be a good idea.

I think what would complete the suite is a Dreamweaver type webpage editor.
Many professionals that have come over to webpage design have a strong background with desktop publishing, and lets face it. If you are one with that kind of experience, a webpage editor like Dreamweaver is an invaluable tool.If what you want is WYSIWYG, Amaya and Quanta Plus are the ones I have heard. I don't know how close they are to Dreamweaver, as I realised how flexible and powerful XHTML+CSS is some years ago. I would guess Amaya would be better (for standard compliance), as it is made by W3C. Not sure, though.

If you use Dreamweaver as an IDE, your options are Aptana and Komodo. I personally don't like IDEs, and I'm happy with Gedit.

Mohamedzv2
March 16th, 2009, 09:44 PM
I have been wondering for a long time, why does GIMP team not include a good vector support. People want it.
I'm learning Python and C right now to try and implement vector into GIMP so you can decide if you want to do vector editing. If I do manage to get it released, a few years is the minimum probably.

alex.rayu
March 16th, 2009, 09:59 PM
Because you are supposed to use Inkscape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkscape) for that.
Am I supposed to? In that case they guys should know better than a user, huh?

When I do a web design in Photoshop, it's a huge combination of raster and vector graphics. And I can freely resize vector images, change their attributes and layer styles. It's beyound consideration for me to have to open another editor, edit a separate design item in it (wow, I would have all design items stored as a separate file - so much for productivity) - edit it in there, rasterize it and import it back. Say, I have a left panel a few pixel too wide. I edit it in a dozen of seconds in Photoshop. And these few pixels would make me switch like mad between applications if I do as the clever guys suggest I am supposed to, opening/editing/exporting/importing each time. And as I do my designs, I spend lots of time doing lots of tweaks until I like the way it all looks together.

Surely, I don't take that "You are supposed" response as the response from the GIMP authors. So, I will save myself time saying, what normal users do when application authors tell them what they are "supposed to do" rather than doing something easy and standard way. And Photoshop is the web design standard. So, it's more like they said, "Hey, we are not interested. We are doing our own thing, and you have wine, with some hope it will run Photoshop CS4 completely in the nearest observable future."

alex.rayu
March 16th, 2009, 10:02 PM
There's a Brainstorm page (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/18134/) to make Inkscape and Gimp into a suite like Illustrator and Photoshop. I think it's a good idea.

I receive PSD files for editing, slicing and dicing. PSD is the industry's given. If I went Inkscape and Gimp without them being able to fully open PSD files, I would be kicked out into the "A web site for my friend's parrot" level of business.

alex.rayu
March 16th, 2009, 10:05 PM
That would be a good idea.

I think what would complete the suite is a Dreamweaver type webpage editor.
Many professionals that have come over to webpage design have a strong background with desktop publishing, and lets face it. If you are one with that kind of experience, a webpage editor like Dreamweaver is an invaluable tool.

Now as for editors, Linux has enough of that good. Take Bluefish. Take Kompozer. Or Aptana Studio - it's awesome and with FTP support. Take Komodo Edit. Also has an FTP support, but weaker than that of Aptana. Take Geany for fast editing. Or Scream. I am fully satisfied here. Probably would only like to have Geany have FTP support without having to save the FTP sessions with Ubuntu. Something like FileZilla integrated into an editor. Can export-import the FTP sites.

alex.rayu
March 16th, 2009, 10:23 PM
I'm learning Python and C right now to try and implement vector into GIMP so you can decide if you want to do vector editing. If I do manage to get it released, a few years is the minimum probably.

Man, your idea is honorable beyond a doubt, but if they wanted vector support they would already have moved in that direction. They need to do something with their UI, organize it more logically, Theirs is a functionality much less then that of Photoshop, yet their interface and menus are quite complex and hard to find what you want in them.

They need to structure them better. On the Toolbox, they have some tools that in Photoshop would fit excellently into a single tool (and in Inkscape) - resize, rotate, skew, perspective. Zoom tool - it's not an editing tool. What's it doing in there? Many tools are brought into sub-tools in Photoshop. They just take lots of space on the screen in GIMP.

Huge foreground/canvas color thing that has left and right space wasted. Blend, opacity, etc - they are all asking, "We belong to the layers! Or at least, the object menu/toolbox!" Then, there is another toolbox - "layers, Channels, paths, undo-brushes..." and only Einstein knows what else. Stick Toolbox next to the "layers, ..." box - and you have lots of space wasted.

The toolbox needs to be minimized, tools need to be structured and sub-structured, blending modes and all such should go to the layers panel. So, the toolbox will look clean and slim. The layers panel should have brushes, strokes, textures, and many other things shown only when a corresponding tool is selected, not all at the same time. I select a paint tool - brushes should get visible.

Oh well. That would take rewriting the whole UI probably. Imagine you learn C++ and APIs overnight and wrote a nice strong vector bundle with PSD compatibility. Where do you put the toolboxes? Shapes? Properties? Another panel?

They say GTK3 is coming soon. They will be doing an UI overhaul anyway. WHo knows - maybe they will also make the UI smarter.

null.byte
March 16th, 2009, 10:24 PM
I am using GIMP. I recently needed some graphic processing at my school, so I grabbed GIMP and perfectly made the job.

Mohamedzv2
March 16th, 2009, 10:54 PM
alex:I actually already quite like the GIMP UI. I tried shifting from it to PS CS2, but I quit trying because it was so different and I could really use it to function as well (may have been cause it was a pirated ME version).

Still, I do like GIMP's interface better, it gives me more freedom to work. The PS interface annoys me, I'd rather change it to the GIMP one more

That said, I do agree that PS has some function that are better than GIMP, I still, as a graphics designer (not professional yet) find GIMP to meet all of my needs, no need with CMYK, even though there are plugins for supporting it

JediKnight
March 17th, 2009, 03:15 AM
Such questions and answers are useful, however I must ask this: how many of you are professional designers? Perhaps GIMP is perfect for the average linux user/programmer who wants to create quickly some icon or petty graphic or do an image manip for some web page. But for such question to have valid answers, I would like to see what some professional artists who used both packages would have to say. I still think that Photoshop is more "professional" (and not because you have to buy it) although I don't have the adequate experience for an objective judgement.

I have used Photoshop for years and I am used to it although I know that learning GIMP will save me some trouble (working on a free portable OS while traveling is great!) but learning it holds me back. I don't know if GIMP misses the "right stuff" or I am just too stubborn. I will just give it some time not that I learned how to make tablet work on linux, since I see that people who started with Gimp have the same experience. But the question remains: how many of you are designers or artists?

Also, I believe that the quality of software mirrors the quality of the result, the way that bad paper or color quality can diminish the result of a talented artest. So far I have not seen catchy GIMP works of professional quality, perhaps because "real" artists prefer Photoshop; this should tells us something about GIMP, or about the artists' laziness (and if you happen to know any Gimp masterpieces, please let me know)

Finally, the measure of talent of the artist is no excuse for average (compared to "better") software. I saw the miracles done by that 22 years old gifted indigo demigod with MS Paint (who also uses a mouse!!!) but that doesn't mean that we common mortals should not demand a better package.

To put it in other terms, the fact that you can do wonderful pixelart with MS Paint doesn't make it equal to the best painting program (be it GIMP or PS.

PS. I must say that Photoshop has feats that I never used or I will need, and GIMP must have some, as well.

alex.rayu
March 17th, 2009, 09:39 AM
alex:I actually already quite like the GIMP UI. I tried shifting from it to PS CS2, but I quit trying because it was so different and I could really use it to function as well (may have been cause it was a pirated ME version).

Oh yeah, I do use Gimp too to edit photos. My comment was specific as refering to web design. I know there are guys who do it in Gimp and Inkscape. I know one could do a fair job with these two. But they usually don't because only rarely a designer can afford to spend time interacting between the two. And I use Gimp quite a lot to edit photos. It starts twice as faster as Photoshop CS2 under wine. So when I need to fix levels or colors, I fire it up and get the job done pretty fast. One thing that is also incredible annoying for me. Saving files. It has two lists for some reason (save in a certain format and choose by extension) and sometimes when I select save in jpg it saves in its own format or saves as jpg and does not add a proper extension to it. And I wish the list of extensions was sorted either by name or by extension. When I want to save a 16x16 favicon, I am looking for an "Icon file" not there. Then looking for a "Microsoft Icon" - not there (But there is a Microsoft Bitmap). And the icon is "Microsoft Windows Icon". First two words just blocking the needed one from being easy to spot in the list.

Yeah - I agree one would get used to it after some time. But still, there are very objective things like the ones I mentioned, that the Open Source guys do not have time and money to fix (I suppose). Large companies like Adobe hire divisions of specialists to work on usability and the UI. And in our case, it's the programmer, a tech guy, who ends up also doing the UI. But of course, it tell on the price also. When we speak Gimp VS Photoshop we can't leave the prices out and just speak of functionality. And the prices are huge for Adobe products.

Thelasko
March 17th, 2009, 02:25 PM
When I do a web design in Photoshop, it's a huge combination of raster and vector graphics. And I can freely resize vector images, change their attributes and layer styles...

And Photoshop is the web design standard.

Um, are you sure you aren't talking about Fireworks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Fireworks)?

Last I spoke with my web designer friends (Saturday), they were complaining about opening various programs in Adobe CS to do everything properly. They were saying how Fireworks is the best for web design as it can do both vector and raster where Illustrator and Photoshop can't.

Wikipedia notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics_editor):

The recent versions of bitmap editors, such as GIMP and Photoshop support vector-like tools (e.g. editable paths)

Tibuda
March 17th, 2009, 03:17 PM
But still, there are very objective things like the ones I mentioned, that the Open Source guys do not have time and money to fix (I suppose). Large companies like Adobe hire divisions of specialists to work on usability and the UI. And in our case, it's the programmer, a tech guy, who ends up also doing the UI.

There is a usability consultant in Gimp UI Redesign team (http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign#team)

Aries-Belgium
March 17th, 2009, 03:56 PM
Adobe has the nasty habit to let products join some functionality but not enough so you have to use several programs to be 100% functional. For instance if you are a webdesigner you should have to use Photoshop (design), Illustrator (vector art) and Fireworks (design and slicing). All of these programs have common functionality but aren't as powerful alone than together.

Photoshop was like GIMP a program to do photo retouching. By adding some (limited) functionality of Illustrator to Photoshop it became popular in the (amateur) webdesign industry. Professional (web)designers are actually using more than one application to do their work. Of course an amateur (web)designer doesn't have the budget to buy all those applications so they are using just one an make it fit their needs.

rspk3
March 17th, 2009, 05:43 PM
Photoshop = Several hundred dollars :-(
GIMP = Free :)

So I choose GIMP

alex.rayu
March 17th, 2009, 07:09 PM
Um, are you sure you aren't talking about Fireworks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Fireworks)?

Last I spoke with my web designer friends (Saturday), they were complaining about opening various programs in Adobe CS to do everything properly. They were saying how Fireworks is the best for web design as it can do both vector and raster where Illustrator and Photoshop can't.

Wikipedia notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics_editor):

No no, I meant Photoshop. Fireworks has appeared in 2005, and it has not taken the market yet (and may not even do so). There are some designers who do Fireworks and some do Illustrator for design. But the standard remains with Photoshop. I work for a number of companies, who also work with a number of other companies besides me each. It is a frequent thing for me to make a design, or being sent a ready design to slice and dice. And despite some designers do AI or FW, they send their designs in Photoshop always. And the most design in Photoshop. I am tempted constantly to switch to Windows and install a complete suite, that the companies usually install for their designers/developers. The only things that keeps me on Linux is not ideology, but the fact that I want security. Folks that I work with complain about viruses all the time, despite antivirus software. I find Ubuntu much superior to Windows in many aspects. If only they made Photoshop for Linux!

Vorian Grey
March 17th, 2009, 07:43 PM
If only they made Photoshop for Linux!

Just curious, have you ever tried Virtualbox? That seems the next best thing to me. I have used CS4 in XP on Virtualbox and it ran brilliantly.

More on topic....unless one is a professional and needs professional tools, I see no need for PS. Gimp does everything (and more) that any home user needs. I have used PS for years but I find myself using Gimp more and more. It is different and it takes a bit to get use to, but it is very usable.

The problem is when a home user goes to a photography website and they put down Gimp and declare nothing but PS will do, which is absolute rubbish. Most home users don' know that however, so they start figuring out ways they can buy PS.

alex.rayu
March 17th, 2009, 08:06 PM
I have VirtualBox installed right now, but it loads my CoreDuo for no obvious reason, and behaves lousily with the seamless mode. I cant figure out whats wrong with it. Used to work great on my older laptop.

I am currently doing a redesign for my site, and you can see how lots of vector and raster images are open and how they corellate. And the logo is actually a vector image with two dozen vector layers (so it can be sized right there).

Image below is clickable.

http://striderlance.com/repository/images/st-screen-thmb.jpg (http://striderlance.com/repository/images/st-screen.jpg)

Tibuda
March 17th, 2009, 08:26 PM
But the standard remains with Photoshop. I work for a number of companies, who also work with a number of other companies besides me each. It is a frequent thing for me to make a design, or being sent a ready design to slice and dice. And despite some designers do AI or FW, they send their designs in Photoshop always. And the most design in Photoshop. I am tempted constantly to switch to Windows and install a complete suite, that the companies usually install for their designers/developers.Do you have trouble reading PSD files in Gimp? Of course the support is not perfect. It's not easy to support perfectly a proprietary format. It requires hardcore reverse engineering, and that is not easy. Devs need bug reports (http://www.gimp.org/bugs/) to improve support.


The only things that keeps me on Linux is not ideology, but the fact that I want security. Folks that I work with complain about viruses all the time, despite antivirus software. I find Ubuntu much superior to Windows in many aspects.Mac is also a choice, if you want a new hardware, and you can afford it. It is as secure as Linux, and has native Adobe suite. (no, you can't buy a Mac from the company on my sig)


If only they made Photoshop for Linux!Adobe joined Linux Foundation a year ago (http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/press/2008/03/30/adobe-joins-linux-foundation-with-focus-on-linux-for-web-20-applications/), but the goal was to release AIR for Linux. I don't know if they will release their suite for Linux. It would not raise their profits, as the Linux users that would use it are the same that already use the Windows version in Wine/Virtualbox/VMWare/Dualboot.

alex.rayu
March 17th, 2009, 08:37 PM
I don't know if they will release their suite for Linux. It would not raise their profits, as the Linux users that would use it are the same that already use the Windows version in Wine/Virtualbox/VMWare/Dualboot.

Right, I figured out that also.

As for bug reports - that can not be done. full PSD support can not be implemented until the corresponding functions are implemented, like layer styles, clipping layers, and vector graphics. And since the Gimp devs dont aim at that right now, these bug reports will be rejected as non-bugs. These would be called the new functionality requests. And I am not sure if Gimp developers would do that just for the sake of web designers.

cavsome
March 17th, 2009, 09:05 PM
From someone who is new to all of this and has NX2, I wish I had Photoshop mainly because all the support(web/bookstores/blogs)caters to it. You will find more people able to assist you.

alex.rayu
March 17th, 2009, 09:18 PM
From someone who is new to all of this and has NX2, I wish I had Photoshop mainly because all the support(web/bookstores/blogs)caters to it. You will find more people able to assist you.

You will find people in this forum very friendly and helpful, and there are lots of tutorials on the web. If that is what matters for you, you're saved!

Vorian Grey
March 17th, 2009, 11:26 PM
Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you need to be running Windows. I have the same problem. I need MS Access for when I bring work home. So I dual boot. It's not a perfect solution but then nothing ever is.

I see no need to rant against the situation. It is what it is. Access will never be on Linux and I seriously doubt if Photoshop will either. If you need Windows apps, like I do, then run Windows.

alex.rayu
March 18th, 2009, 09:06 AM
I see no need to rant against the situation. It is what it is. Access will never be on Linux and I seriously doubt if Photoshop will either. If you need Windows apps, like I do, then run Windows.

I use Photoshop CS2 to escape need for dual boot.

Oh, just FYI, I installed a non-free VirtualBox from Sun's website yesterday, and it does not overload the processor, like the thing from Ubuntu repos does.

I switched to Windows a few times already - and back. I don't like fonts in Windows, and having to worry about security all the time is so irritating. Besides, I feel tempted by the games in Windows :D

Dragonbite
March 18th, 2009, 02:11 PM
Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you need to be running Windows. I have the same problem. I need MS Access for when I bring work home. So I dual boot. It's not a perfect solution but then nothing ever is.

I see no need to rant against the situation. It is what it is. Access will never be on Linux and I seriously doubt if Photoshop will either. If you need Windows apps, like I do, then run Windows.

I'm lucky, my Office version at home is 2000 and my Photoshop version is 7 so they are old enough they are pretty well supported :)

For work, I've gotten by with Paint.NET for most of my needs. We do, though, have Gimp in our semi-official application repository users can use, but most of them don't.

fela
March 18th, 2009, 09:36 PM
I think that at the moment, intrinsically Photoshop has more features than GIMP. However GIMP has much more potential for fast improvement and added features as a direct result of it being open source. I can't give you a real opinion on how much better Photoshop is because I'm not a big-time artist and GIMP suits my needs just fine.

I have the latest versions of both Photoshop and GIMP, and to tell you the truth GIMP doesn't seem to lack many features that Photoshop has! Also, GIMP is 64 bit compatible on any 64 bit platform, much more compatible with different platforms (you can run it on any platform with GTK, (ie. Linux, Windows, any *NIX operating systems...etc. whereas Photoshop is limited to just windows and MacOS, not even Linux unless you fiddle about with WINE), and in my opinion has a whole lot of potential (as I previously mentioned), all because it's open source.

These are the kinds of benefits you get when you open source an application. Much much more man power, much more compatible and generally just more ethical in my opinion. This is also why I use Linux for my main operating system. My Windows partition is for games (and don't tell me that's sad, I'm only 13 so you can't criticize me for a lil bit of gaming!).

However, if you're an end user and don't feel any benefit with open source, you should go with Photoshop if you really need it's extra features (many of which actually make the app bloated IMHO).

Ben Crisford
March 18th, 2009, 11:22 PM
I think that at the moment, intrinsically Photoshop has more features than GIMP. However GIMP has much more potential for fast improvement and added features as a direct result of it being open source. I can't give you a real opinion on how much better Photoshop is because I'm not a big-time artist and GIMP suits my needs just fine.

I have the latest versions of both Photoshop and GIMP, and to tell you the truth GIMP doesn't seem to lack many features that Photoshop has! Also, GIMP is 64 bit compatible on any 64 bit platform, much more compatible with different platforms (you can run it on any platform with GTK, (ie. Linux, Windows, any *NIX operating systems...etc. whereas Photoshop is limited to just windows and MacOS, not even Linux unless you fiddle about with WINE), and in my opinion has a whole lot of potential (as I previously mentioned), all because it's open source.

These are the kinds of benefits you get when you open source an application. Much much more man power, much more compatible and generally just more ethical in my opinion. This is also why I use Linux for my main operating system. My Windows partition is for games (and don't tell me that's sad, I'm only 13 so you can't criticize me for a lil bit of gaming!).

However, if you're an end user and don't feel any benefit with open source, you should go with Photoshop if you really need it's extra features (many of which actually make the app bloated IMHO).

Not sure I agree.

I know that when I first made this thread I preferred photoshop and was thinking of buying it, but now i'm not so sure. For some things I prefer gimp now.

I think I have learnt that experience is more important than the program you use. So much more important.

Niva
March 19th, 2009, 06:32 PM
I personally love GIMP, I've had to use it professionally because it supports some archaic file formats like XWD which Photoshop does not support.

That being said I'll tell you why GIMP is behind PS for artists:

Linux userbase is small - the number of windows GIMP users are surely less than linux userbase.
UI is not very clean - while it is different and many like it - much more people prefer the way photoshop/painter open in one window. In linux it's ok to take a workspace just for GIMP, in windows where there are no workspaces (stupid windows) it ends up cluttering your app bar.
Brush engine - omg that's my biggest gripe as an artist. NOt that photoshop's engine (or any apps) is perfect, but it is so much better and powerful.


While GIMP has made great strides in terms of adding features it's still behind in terms of some of the exotic features of Photoshop like level and variation adjustments. Photoshop is the 600 lbs gorilla still and will continue to be for a while longer. GIMP is catching up though, when there's a new brush engine and configuring your wacom tablet doesn't take a genius in linux then it will start being more serious threat to PS.

Niva
March 19th, 2009, 06:37 PM
Not sure I agree.

I know that when I first made this thread I preferred photoshop and was thinking of buying it, but now i'm not so sure. For some things I prefer gimp now.

I think I have learnt that experience is more important than the program you use. So much more important.

Many have said about PS being for Pros, I tend to agree, the price is simply too high for the casual user. It is a much more intuitively laid out and powerful applicaiton though, don't kid yourself on that. That being said if you're a pro you should quickly make up the costs of PS. If you can make do with GIMP then by all means, more power to you.

I'll point you to a link: http://forums.cgsociety.org/

When THAT website adds a forum for GIMP, then you'll know it's become a pro applicaiton. Right now it's Photoshop and Painter and they're not even interested in starting up a GIMP forum.

Tibuda
March 19th, 2009, 06:48 PM
I'll point you to a link: http://forums.cgsociety.org/

When THAT website adds a forum for GIMP, then you'll know it's become a pro applicaiton. Right now it's Photoshop and Painter and they're not even interested in starting up a GIMP forum.This does not means anything. There are many programming/computing forums without a Linux subforum. That means Windows is more professional for programming?

s.fox
March 19th, 2009, 07:12 PM
I am happy to use both. Primarily I use GIMP

Ben Crisford
March 19th, 2009, 07:17 PM
That being said if you're a pro you should quickly make up the costs of PS.

Nah, i'm no pro...

Dwood15
March 20th, 2009, 12:58 AM
I think that the main problems keeping GIMP from being a pro tool are little things which would be silly and resolved in any other pay for application ->

Why can't we use multiple layers with animation frames?
Why can't we select multiple frames and edit them, say to change the animation speed or whether or not we want replace or combine?
Why is it that when I merge two layers I lose the effects of the above layer?
Why is it that I can't use the scroll wheel or the bar on my Wacom tablet to Zoom in?

And other things. At this point, the things keeping GIMP out of the loop is little interface things/hiccups that massively detract from the user experience.

Also, one other thing is that no one knows what GIMP can do that no other image application can do.

What about allowing to users to draw on the same canvas over the internet?

That one above feature, being free, would catapult GIMP into mainstream extremely fast.

I can't develop or program at all however I know what the Pros and Artists want to see in their image editing programs. I have also noted that The layer and toolbox windows get in the way very often when I am attempting one of my speedpaintings.

I love GIMP, as a starting-out artist and getting a LOT of time with the program, however the above are some big reasons WHY Gimp is not listed as a pro tool. If we had more big artists who could program and do program in Gimp then you would have had a larger number of Gimp adopters.

// Walls of text

Lunx
March 20th, 2009, 07:45 AM
I use GIMP for pretty much all my image work, been using it for several years now as more than powerful enough with pretty well every feature I need. I did have a go at a trial of PS when I was running Windows, and I found it a very good product, however I got quite annoyed at the end of the trial as it was almost impossible to get rid of everything that was installed. Also I can't really see what it offers over GIMP that can justify the price they ask. The other thing I've noticed is that GIMP runs brilliantly on my machine now I've switched to Ubuntu (although it was pretty good in Windows as well to be fair). The interface in GIMP is a bit odd at first, but once you become familiar with it and get your work flow sorted, it is actually very user friendly IMHO. I think one good way to think about it is in the same manner as operating systems, just as Windows isn't Linux, GIMP isn't Photoshop.

villevalorox
March 20th, 2009, 07:51 AM
I am all photoshop. But if you want to use photoshop jsut download the 30 day trail and reinstall it every 30 days :D

Niva
March 20th, 2009, 09:36 AM
Why is it that when I merge two layers I lose the effects of the above layer?
Why is it that I can't use the scroll wheel or the bar on my Wacom tablet to Zoom in?


Heh, I didn't know about the merging layers issue, you sure? Maybe I haven't worked with enough layers to want to merge other than flattening the entire image (which seems to work fine.)

You can configure the wacom tablet to do anything. You need to use a tool called wacomcpl or something like that and set shortcuts for the bar to do soom in/out. I've done this under linux because I do like that particular funcitonality and it doesn't happen by default.

Search the forums for wacom tools and you'll get the answer to how to do it exactly.

Tibuda
March 20th, 2009, 12:32 PM
Heh, I didn't know about the merging layers issue, you sure?It happens with me too in Gimp 2.6.1.

Ben Crisford
March 20th, 2009, 06:52 PM
I am all photoshop. But if you want to use photoshop jsut download the 30 day trail and reinstall it every 30 days :D

That won't work. I imagine it won't anyway.

It probably only lets you download one trial for your IP address, they wouldn't be that stupid I don't think.

Mohamedzv2
March 20th, 2009, 09:38 PM
Only one. Tried for flash. THose guys are smart. Other than that, illegal means are the only way to use it free. But I wouldn't recommend it.

And that merging thing happen to me too

naughtykid
March 23rd, 2009, 09:04 AM
Quiting photoshop for quite sometime already. But I think the major thing which I still love photoshop is because GIMP is still lack of a lot of features and the learning curve for is as long as when learning photoshop.

Most of the time there's disadvantages for GIMP when comparing with photoshop. Photoshop has been running long long time ago and building it's brand in art & design and improved through various software improvement cycles. So most of the people(yes, most of the people on earth) are more familiar with it rather than GIMP. Upon switching to GIMP and face some learning difficulties, user will tends to fall back to photoshop. Just google the artwork created by GIMP, is there anything spectacular? I think it's kind of user problem for that case(no offence, just personal taste).

Well, I am training myself to make full use of GIMP as photoshop. Hope I would be the master soon and hope the day may come. I do wish it's a little bit more user friendly though.

Lunx
March 23rd, 2009, 11:15 AM
Just for those who may not be aware, the latest version of GIMP is 2.6.6 and you can upgrade quite simply by installing the deb packages found here (http://www.getdeb.net/release.php?id=4052). I upgraded yesterday and it worked like a charm.

Dwood15
March 23rd, 2009, 10:59 PM
That won't work. I imagine it won't anyway.

It probably only lets you download one trial for your IP address, they wouldn't be that stupid I don't think.

Works for 3ds max at least.


Heh, I didn't know about the merging layers issue, you sure? Maybe I haven't worked with enough layers to want to merge other than flattening the entire image (which seems to work fine.)


Yes, I am sure. It's been a MAJOR annoyance for me. The issue applies, interestingly, only when the layer had the effect, not the brushes. Try it.

You can configure the wacom tablet to do anything. You need to use a tool called wacomcpl or something like that and set shortcuts for the bar to do soom in/out. I've done this under linux because I do like that particular funcitonality and it doesn't happen by default.
[/QUOTE]

But that's the problem - we can't do that natively in Gimp, which is why it still isn't a "professional" tool. When these and other needed updates occur GIMP's only limiter will be bias. That and GIMP doesn't really have a noteworthy interface. Its interface is still reminiscent of the old Linux days.

In fact, I found an interesting Animation script that imho with better layer management functionality GIMP would be more powerful than Fireworks was in .GIF animation. You probably saw it if you looked at my other thread.

theolster
March 24th, 2009, 04:41 PM
Photoshop (on Mac).

I love Linux, and my favorite flavor is CrunchBang. But all of my pro work is Photoshop based (web design) so I'm stuck with my mac. I would switch to Linux and drop all my Mac software - in a heartbeat - if I could get Photoshop on any Linux/Open Source distro.

Of course I would be even happier if there was a suitable alternative to Photoshop, but it is not GIMP in it's current format.

What concerns me the most is that I'm reliant on a proprietary product, but there's not much I can do about that.

Argama
April 3rd, 2009, 12:21 PM
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/03/8-handy-tweaks-to-make-gimp-replace-photoshop/

conal
April 3rd, 2009, 02:35 PM
I love Linux, and my favorite flavor is CrunchBang. But all of my pro work is Photoshop based (web design) so I'm stuck with my mac. I would switch to Linux and drop all my Mac software - in a heartbeat - if I could get Photoshop on any Linux/Open Source distro.


I see you are running Ubuntu 8.04 in my experience Photoshop CS2 runs flawlessly on Hardy under Wine, I can't do this anymore as I have a power PC (which wont run Wine). But I used to find it useful.

Have you explored this option?

I know CS2 is not bleeding edge, but at least that way you can hop between GIMP and Photoshop on a Linux platform. See:
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?bShowAll=true&bIsQueue=false&bIsRejected=false&sClass=version&sTitle=&sReturnTo=&iId=2631
for instructions

Also:
http://click-now.net/download/Adobe_Photoshop_CS2.htm
seems to still have the trial version of CS2 if you want to give it a go.

Ben Crisford
April 3rd, 2009, 05:11 PM
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/03/8-handy-tweaks-to-make-gimp-replace-photoshop/

Wow, cheers :D.

I have bookmarked that, I will definately be referring to that again.

Cheers :D.

alex.rayu
April 4th, 2009, 03:41 PM
But that still does not make GIMP into a Photoshop - the file format does not change. Just more things you can do now, but no better PSD support.

Ben Crisford
April 4th, 2009, 03:55 PM
But that still does not make GIMP into a Photoshop - the file format does not change. Just more things you can do now, but no better PSD support.

Good point I suppose...

But is PSD support worth 300 quid or whatever photoshop costs.

alex.rayu
April 4th, 2009, 05:02 PM
Good point I suppose...

But is PSD support worth 300 quid or whatever photoshop costs.

It depends on what you want to do =)

Ben Crisford
April 6th, 2009, 03:25 PM
It depends on what you want to do =)

Lol, well i'm happy with gimp :D.

In fact, couldnt be happier :D.

Tibuda
April 6th, 2009, 03:36 PM
It depends on what you want to do =)

That's the wisest thing I've "heard" in this thread.