Macfunky
August 13th, 2010, 02:00 AM
I had a conversation with a friend of mine recently who uses photoshop and illustrator. He really only ever does basic, and i mean basic work, on these applications. I do love gimp and inkscape and do quite a bit of work on them. I definitely do more "advanced" work on them than my friend would on his adobe programmes.
While i know that photoshop has some features that gimp doesn't and that illustrator also is the same are they really efficient programmes. I'll admit, whilst using linux and loving it, i am very much a user end person. I have studied photography and am very familiar with photoshop. I am far from a graphic artist but i do dabble in it as a hobby.
What i have found is that gimp and inkscape are VERY lightweight compared to their adobe counterparts. Once again i do know that adobe products may have more features and can do things that gimp and inkscape cant do but really are they heavier than they should be? For intermediate tasks i would not dare go near either as i can get the same results with gimp or inkscape.
My question, though, really is, are they heavier than they need to be? gimp is very fully featured and so it inkscape. In relation to adobe products, the quality, stability and minimal resources these programmes take up is amazing and inspiring. When you look at adobe's latest suite and see how long it takes to load up and then run on very well off hardware it makes me think. I have a lowish end computer that i can easily run gimp and inkscape from whereas if i tried to run photoshop it would halt.
I mentioned adobe and their products. I don't mean to be picking on them but just wanted to make a reference. Does anyone else think big companies like adobe could do a better job as in stability erc?
Any thoughts?
While i know that photoshop has some features that gimp doesn't and that illustrator also is the same are they really efficient programmes. I'll admit, whilst using linux and loving it, i am very much a user end person. I have studied photography and am very familiar with photoshop. I am far from a graphic artist but i do dabble in it as a hobby.
What i have found is that gimp and inkscape are VERY lightweight compared to their adobe counterparts. Once again i do know that adobe products may have more features and can do things that gimp and inkscape cant do but really are they heavier than they should be? For intermediate tasks i would not dare go near either as i can get the same results with gimp or inkscape.
My question, though, really is, are they heavier than they need to be? gimp is very fully featured and so it inkscape. In relation to adobe products, the quality, stability and minimal resources these programmes take up is amazing and inspiring. When you look at adobe's latest suite and see how long it takes to load up and then run on very well off hardware it makes me think. I have a lowish end computer that i can easily run gimp and inkscape from whereas if i tried to run photoshop it would halt.
I mentioned adobe and their products. I don't mean to be picking on them but just wanted to make a reference. Does anyone else think big companies like adobe could do a better job as in stability erc?
Any thoughts?