Is It Time For GIMP Pro?

[Mark76]

For most of us plebs the free version of GIMP is perfectly adequate. However... There exists a subset of humanity (you know who you are :p) for whom Wilbur just doesn't cut it as he lacks the professional graphics features found in the market leader for that sort of thing.

So. My question to those of you who do graphics work for a living is this. Would you be willing to pay for an enhanced version of the GIMP that had all the features you need out of the box? Or even pay for those features as add-ons to the basic version? And what features might these be?

The way I see it, you're willing to pay for PS, and then have to either dual boot or run it in Wine/Windows in Virtualbox; so why not!? :p

[LightB]

Most people don't pay for PS.

[Mark76]

Are you saying that they pirate it, or are you just pointing out that their employers pay for it?

[JK3mp]

Are you saying that they pirate it, or are you just pointing out that their employers pay for it?

Pretty much both. I confess i have a cracked version of it. :p . And true , it is the only reason i still dual boot. It and the call of duty series.

[pwnst*r]

Most people don't pay for PS.

most of those people don't really use it.

[DeadSuperHero]

I fail to see the point of a "Gimp Pro". If professional free plugins are produced for GIMP, it'll remain in normal Gimp. There's no point in just forking it off.

For what it's worth, I find GIMP to satisfy all my needs when it comes to just about everything. I have yet to find a task in Photoshop that Gimp can't accomplish.

[MikeTheC]

@ OP:

Well, if it could be handled somewhat like RedHat/Fedora, then that might work out.

[pwnst*r]

Pretty much both. I confess i have a cracked version of it. :p . And true , it is the only reason i still dual boot. It and the call of duty series.

you should be so proud.

[pwnst*r]

I fail to see the point of a "Gimp Pro". If professional free plugins are produced for GIMP, it'll remain in normal Gimp. There's no point in just forking it off.

For what it's worth, I find GIMP to satisfy all my needs when it comes to just about everything. I have yet to find a task in Photoshop that Gimp can't accomplish.

pro, short for professional. in other words, mostly for those in the industry. there's a reason most of the industry uses photoshop.

[DeadSuperHero]

pro, short for professional. in other words, mostly for those in the industry. there's a reason most of the industry uses photoshop.

But the entire mindset of a "Pro" app is that it is limited to specific individuals, and that features would never appear in a normal release. In the Free Software mindset, that is crap.


I just fail to understand that. Gimp works for professionals just like it works for beginning users.

[LightB]

The biggest problem with gimp was the terrible UI. Now that it's being made to be more like a traditional graphics application, it is sure to soothe a lot of potential users who would otherwise be put off. And it's true, most people do not go into photoshop to sculpt pixels; even many "pros" probably just use it for working with print material, which has more to do with colors. If gimp can meet those basic needs it will be used. I can't imagine what a "gimp pro" could possibly offer, nor could I imagine how such a developer team could be both formed and up to the task of delivering something that is worth the fork.

[Sand & Mercury]

If they made a paid Pro version, if the improvements were good enough, I'd gladly pay for it.

[pwnst*r]

But the entire mindset of a "Pro" app is that it is limited to specific individuals, and that features would never appear in a normal release. In the Free Software mindset, that is crap.

I just fail to understand that. Gimp works for professionals just like it works for beginning users.

it should be limited to those that will use it as it supposed to be used. not making retard cat pictures and cropping your home photos.

[DeadSuperHero]

But that limitation itself defies the very spirit of Free Software!

[super breadfish]

Well if you are prepared to pay, why not just buy Photoshop?

[pwnst*r]

But that limitation itself defies the very spirit of Free Software!

i never said there should be a pro version of gimp. i'm strictly talking about the use of photoshop.

[pwnst*r]

Well if you are prepared to pay, why not just buy Photoshop?

because it would probably be a LOT cheaper than PS :)

[LightB]

I can't be bothered with self-righteous sheep.

[dragos240]

Pretty much both. I confess i have a cracked version of it. :p . And true , it is the only reason i still dual boot. It and the call of duty series.

ARR! You be a pirate!

[swoll1980]

Are you saying that they pirate it, or are you just pointing out that their employers pay for it?

Photo shop is a $1000 program. I can say with confidence that 90% of the copies on home computers are cracked. No one in their right mind would pay that much for a program that they didn't need to earn a living. Yet all these people you see crying about Linux not having a version. How many do you think would actually pay for it?

[JK3mp]

because it would probably be a LOT cheaper than PS :)

+1 lol and @pwnster who cares what they use it for...if there willing to pay then whatever. :p . My only issue with gimp personally is that the UI is so much diffrent and i hate having to add plugins that are already standard and more in my Photoshop CS4 Extended. I could switch to gimp, it would just be diffrent, and harder to be productive in.

[Saint Angeles]

pro, short for professional. in other words, mostly for those in the industry. there's a reason most of the industry uses photoshop.
i've been making a living out of web/graphic design for more than a year now so do i qualify as a pro?

and i have yet to find a feature in photoshop that I need or that GIMP can't handle.

years ago, in my windows-using days, I had a full version of photoshop CS (or CS2... i forget how all those names went and i believe it was only a couple hundred dollars for the educational version i used) and I also had GIMP. I would ALWAYS prefer using GIMP. it was easier to use (for me at least) and maybe it was psychological, but I always thought my work looked a lot cleaner in GIMP than it did in photoshop.

now, i know that photoshop has come a long way since the last time i used it, but so has GIMP. a lot of people place a lot of important in the tools of an artist, when really it's the artist who is creating art... not the software.

<derail>
it reminds me of all those poser guitar players who will spend $2000+ on a PRS or $5000+ on a vintage Gibson Les Paul but can barely play bar chords. (i used to run a music store and would see it all the time, it disgusted me.)
</derail>

and, like stated above, if GIMP added some new "pro" feature, it would already be added to GIMP and not forked to some new version. if something like this were to happen, it would take a large linux company (novell, red hat...) to create their own "GIMP division" creating a completely new version (or fork) of GIMP but not the people who create GIMP. lets say its Red Hat... well, they would probably call this new "commercial version" of GIMP by a whole new name (Trilby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilby)?) and it would probably have to be different enough from the original version of GIMP if they were going to charge for it.

I don't know enough about the licensing issues involved, but I'm sure nothing like this would ever happen. but to (finally) answer your question... no. GIMP works fine for what I need to do (create web graphics, manipulate photos of employees, products, equipment, and paintings, and create logos).

[Mark76]

Isn't there an issue with CMYK and transparencies?

Why is that?

[JK3mp]

Isn't there an issue with CMYK and transparencies?

Why is that?

Hmm..not sure what you mean..

[pwnst*r]

I can't be bothered with self-righteous sheep.

**golf clap**

@st angeles, i couldn't tell you if that qualifies you as a pro. i'm guessing yes. but you must've missed the part where i said "MOST".

[Jordanwb]

I was trying to make a logo in Gimp that required the Photoshop equivalent of the dry brush filter. Unfortunetly Gimp does not have this. That's the only time where Gimp could not do something PS could. I would like to see PS's slices implemented in Gimp instead of guides and guillotines.

[Mohamedzv2]

Ya, there are problems with CMYK right now. GEGL is supposed to fix that when it is fully implented. And it should fix the 8 bit limit it currently has so 16 bit and 32 bit can be used and saved in GIMP. It can probably do more with GEGL, but those are the two things that I heard GEGL should do.

Otherwise, I rather like the GIMP UI, hate the PS one and most other programs' UI. I also do manage to work better using GIMP than PS even though having some vector support wouldn't hurt.

[hanzomon4]

Um.. the UI is pretty close to the OS X UI of photoshop imo. I've done some basic processing with the gimp and it's close but not there. I don't like doing a lot of editing but for the little bit I do adjustment layers are a must. I haven't gone much further with the gimp but I feel like I'd run into bigger problems. Over the summer I plan on making a artist book, perhaps I could use the gimp for my edits to really give it an honest shot. Has anyone ever used the gimp on an image they had printed on a Lambda?

[mister_k81]

I'd be happy if they could just give us the option for a one-window UI at this point...

[Mohamedzv2]

^use GIMPShop. Same thing with a PS-like UI

[LightB]

I'd be happy if they could just give us the option for a one-window UI at this point...

That was begun starting 2.6. Works in metacity at least.

[MaxIBoy]

You can find a lot more functionality for the GIMP at this site: http://registry.gimp.org/


I do think that the GIMP could benefit from a steady stream of revenue, and if someone is willing to pay for a boxed copy, more power to 'em. However, I would be upset if any actual functionality was made "pro version only."

[SunnyRabbiera]

No, because as soon there is a charge version people would demand its features to be open sourced...