Would you like a native version of Photoshop?

[v8YKxgHe]

Hey,

Would you like a native version of Photoshop? This is not a Photoshop vs Gimp thread, just wondering how many people actually would like a native version of Photoshop for Linux.

[an.echte.trilingue]

For the sake of the free software ideals, no.

[meng]

I don't think Photoshop for Linux would compromise free software ideals to any significant degree. But I personally don't see the need for it. At the same time, I recognize that other users feel they must stick with Photoshop, and I can't quibble with that.

[IYY]

Yes, I would like it, but no, I would not use it. Even when I used Windows, I used Gimp because it's free, open source and good enough for almost any task. However, there is a huge crowd of graphic designers who I would like to switch to Linux, and they need Photoshop (in fact, Gimp doesn't have all the features required for many commercial purposes, like print media.)

[mushroom]

Krita serves my needs well, and I'm not a huge fan of paying hundreds of dollars for software.

[v8YKxgHe]

However, there is a huge crowd of graphic designers who I would like to switch to Linux, and they need Photoshop (in fact, Gimp doesn't have all the features required for many commercial purposes, like print media.)

Yep, and I'm one of them - well not a graphic designer but I do a lot of 3D work and most textures I hand-paint or tweak - this is where Gimps brush engine fails, badly.

[mostwanted]

Not personally, but yeah.

[mushroom]

I don't know much about that, but you are aware of Blender, right?

[aysiu]

I think it'd be great, but only people serious about graphic design (i.e., they do it for a living) would need it. GIMP works just fine for everyone else, and it's free and Free.

[v8YKxgHe]

I don't know much about that, but you are aware of Blender, right?

Yes, I have tried it and quite like it. Though I use 3D Studio Max for my 3D work ( which is keeping me tied to Windows, untill I learn Maya ). But still then, I use Photoshop for textures and post work, not 3DS Max.

[v8YKxgHe]

I think it'd be great, but only people serious about graphic design (i.e., they do it for a living) would need it. GIMP works just fine for everyone else, and it's free and Free.

Oh yeah the majority wouldn't need Photoshop as Gimp works fine for small every-day things .

[sloggerkhan]

I love free software, but I also think that sometimes if you truly want the best tool for the job, there's no shame in a little commercialism. I'd usually apply this mainly to things such as specialized engineering software that has a very limitied market but takes a large amount of developmental resources. But photoshop is such a good piece of software that I would probably get a mac just to use it if I were a pro photographer. It also has the best user interface (in my opinion) of any photo software.

Right now, i use GIMP and Inkscape for everything. Photoshop is nice, but I don't need it enough to make it worth the price.

My list of software that MIGHT be worth paying for:
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe InDesign
Solidworks/SolidEdge or similar (mechanical drafting/design software)
POSSIBLY Softimage (Interface is SO much better than Blender, though I do like a large # of free/open modelers like wings)

As it stands that is my complete list....

[banjobacon]

I have no need for it (I hardly use The GIMP), but many people do, so I am in favor of it. It would compromise Linux's ideals about as much as Doom 3 does.

[yopnono]

Yes I would like to see more applications like photoshop. More stuff like that = means more people can and will use linux based system. I would like to see dreamweaver for linux.

[dbbolton]

not really.

[hoagie]

Personally I don't need it. Gimp is fine for me, but maybe this way more professionals will come to Ubuntu or at least it will be easier for them if they ever make the step and try to switch.
Then again, the average simple user, who struggles to remove the red eye effect from his/her child's photo is fine with the Gimp.

[coder_]

No. Not open source.

The ONLY thing non-open source package (That I'm aware of) installed on my computer is... *sigh* The nVidia drivers... Sadly, without those, there is no Beryl, and the nv drivers are just generally slow.

[nalmeth]

I voted yes, but am posting to say I wouldn't use it.

I know people who would, and I think it would be for the better, but I would just use the GIMP.

Lame as my skills are with it, my Photoshop skills would be even worse.

[nmincone]

Sure, I'd take it- esp if it were reasonably priced. Because right now it is no where near reasonable. I would love to have everything I was running in XP in Ubuntu. That's my wish- the world filled with PC's running linux & free/commercial apps. I am just tired of Windows and all the none sense that's attached to it.

[Polygon]

i think we should concentrate on making gimp / inkscape better rather then begging adobe for a port. When they feel threatened, then maybe they will consider making a linux port, and dropping their prices. Right now, they have no one near them to compete with, so they can jack up the price all they want.

[PatrickMay16]

It would be ideal if GIMP could become as good as photoshop, but having a native version of Photoshop would be a great help for linux's credibility.

[wesley_of_course]

Even'in People

Merry Christmas to all

and Thank You all .
Most Wanted - Thanks for the link - WHAT MAKES LINUX GREAT...? The TERMINAL of course!
Kinda look'in for something like that . Thanks again !

[AndyCooll]

I voted yes.

In truth I don't personally care about Photoshop. However I voted yes because I would love to see all well known software apps ported to Linux.

:cool:

[RAV TUX]

Hey,

Would you like a native version of Photoshop? This is not a Photoshop vs Gimp thread, just wondering how many people actually would like a native version of Photoshop for Linux.

No.

(without contributing to a GIMP vs Photoshop perspective....I have found the GIMP is easier and more powerful then Photoshop could ever hope to be....for those unfimiliar with the GIMP....try GIMPshop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop).)
GIMPshop! at Plastic Bugs (http://plasticbugs.com/?page_id=294)


GIMPshop is a modification of the free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software)/open source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source) graphics program GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP), intended to replicate the feel of Adobe Photoshop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop). Its primary purpose is to make users of Photoshop feel comfortable using GIMP.
It shares all of GIMP's advantages, including the long feature list, customisability, and availability on multiple platforms, while addressing some common criticisms regarding the program's interface: GIMPshop modifies the menu structure to more closely resemble Photoshop and adjusts the program's terminology to match Adobe's. In the Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows) version, GIMPshop uses a plugin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plugin) called 'Deweirdifier' to combine the application's numerous windows in a similar manner to the MDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_document_interface) system used by most Windows graphics packages. From March 2006, it supports Photoshop plugins, through a host plugin that can run on Microsoft Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows) or Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), pspi (http://www.gimp.org/%7Etml/gimp/win32/pspi.html). All of GIMP's own plugins (filters, brushes, etc.) remain available.
Due to the changes to the interface of the GIMP for GIMPshop, many Photoshop tutorials can be followed in GIMPshop unchanged, and most others can be adapted for GIMPshop users with minimal effort.
GIMPshop was created by Attack of the Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Show)'s Scott Moschella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Moschella). It was originally developed for Mac OS X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X), and requires X11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11) to run on Mac OS X. As of May 17, 2006, the Mac OS X version is a Universal Binary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Binary). GIMPshop has also been ported to Windows and Linux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop


Gimpshop 2.2.11 deb package for Ubuntu Linux (http://www.plasticbugs.com/blogimg/gimpshop_2.2.11-1_i386.deb)

[qamelian]

Personally, no, but I can understand why other would like to see it. I'm one of those rare people who actually doesn't like the Photoshop interface. I "grew up" on Photoshop, but always found the interface to be annoying and difficult to work with. I wouldn't mind seeing a native version for those who like the app, but I would never go back to using it myself.

[sloggerkhan]

i think we should concentrate on making gimp / inkscape better rather then begging adobe for a port. When they feel threatened, then maybe they will consider making a linux port, and dropping their prices. Right now, they have no one near them to compete with, so they can jack up the price all they want.

I agree. If gimp added some more layer-based effects and fixed some of their interface quirks, even many pro-photo people would have no need to use photoshop instead.

As far as inkscape goes, I love it, and probably use it more than the gimp, though it does have it's quirks. I wonder every time I open it why it defaults to such a small window. (Never used illustrator.)

[v8YKxgHe]

think we should concentrate on making gimp / inkscape better rather then begging adobe for a port.

To get Gimp up to Photoshop CS3 standards, which is coming out soon next year afaik, will take _a lot_ of work. Things such as layer-based filters meaning that the original image is untouched and you will always be able to tweak the filter settings at any point, simple folders in the layer window are _very_ helpful, a new brush engine would be needed for the Gimp as it's current one is no where near as good as Photoshop's.

Plus the fact The Gimp doesn't seem to be developing very fast, I can see it dropping even more behind Photoshop when CS3 is released. Don't get me wrong, I like the Gimp and do use it from time to time, but for doing anything serious/productive, well, Photoshop just does it better.

[rowanparker]

I voted Yes.
But that wouldn't be for personal use, it might just make more people (graphics guys) swtich.

I actually use Pixel (http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12) and that is great.

[Bavo]

I voted yes, but that's not because i would buy or even use it.
If someone asks me would you like <insert whatever program you like> to be ported to linux, i'd probably always vote yes, just because the more programs that are being ported, the more adoptable and compatible linux will be.

[mips]

I wish they would finish Cinepaint Glasgow and give it the gimpshop treatment.

[ButteBlues]

I think it'd be great, but only people serious about graphic design (i.e., they do it for a living) would need it. GIMP works just fine for everyone else, and it's free and Free.
The same thing can be said for Mac OSX and Windows. Not a valid argument.

There are serious graphic designers on ALL platforms, and I, for one, am forced to use Windows on my Desktop simply because of Photoshop and Flash MX.

[Erik Trybom]

Yes, I would like that.

Linux is an operative system - it's intended to be a platform for your software to run on. The more software that can run on it, the better. That includes both proprietary and open source software.

As long as major applications such as Photoshop fail to run on Linux, Windows will be the only alternative for those who need those applications. I can't see how this could be a good thing.

[Magnes]

I would like but I wouldn't use (no need and no cash ;) ).

[BLTicklemonster]

The stuff you can do in photoshop with 3d effects alone is worth having photoshop instead of gimp. I can quickly set up photoshop so that every line I draw with a brush has a 3d effect whit hilights and shadows, etc AS I AM DRAWING THEM. I have yet to see gimp do this.

[Suzan]

Yes, yes, yes.

Gimp is very good indeed, but no alternative for a graphic designer.

Proper CMYK support is essential for a graphic-programm, if you do images for print products.

At home, I have no need for Photoshop, at work I would love to have Adobe-products for Linux.

[argie]

I would like to see it, just so that all of those people with pirated copies of Photoshop will stop whining about 'Linux not being for the mainstream'. Those people are really annoying. I wouldn't use it though. And naturally, I wouldn't expect it to be free (in both senses).

NOTE: I'm not saying everyone who uses Photoshop here has pirated copies, just that too many people who complain about 'the high cost' of some relatively cheap thing while claiming to have photoshop (300 USD on eBay) just to make 'forum signatures'.

[Stealth]

Yes...

For one, it'd get more graphics people who use it, to be more open to Linux, since their main program is availabe to them.

Second, it might actually get some people worked up and make a decent alternative to it (GIMP can be great and all, but it's quite obvious that some people just don't want it, but a Photoshop clone). Kind of like how the Gaia group came about, for a Google Earth alternative (which was closed source but available natively).

Third, if Adobe starts making Linux products, maybe some other big name companies will pay attention as well.

[aysiu]

The same thing can be said for Mac OSX and Windows. Not a valid argument.

There are serious graphic designers on ALL platforms, and I, for one, am forced to use Windows on my Desktop simply because of Photoshop and Flash MX.
I think you misinterpreted what I said.

I said I think a Linux-native Photoshop would be great. I do think graphic designers and people serious about using Photoshop's advanced features would appreciate having that on another platform.

I also went on to say that most other people (like me) would be fine with GIMP. What part of my original message made you think I didn't want Photoshop ported to Linux?

[BLTicklemonster]

The same thing can be said for Mac OSX and Windows. Not a valid argument.

There are serious graphic designers on ALL platforms, and I, for one, am forced to use Windows on my Desktop simply because of Photoshop and Flash MX.

??? Mac and Windows aren't free and free. I don't get what you're getting at. And any arguement is valid, all you got to do is argue, duh. You don't have kids, do you?

:)

[shining]

As long as it doesn't hurt Gimp in any way (like a decrease of interest in it), I guess it's fine.

[patrick295767]

Nothing better than Photoshop.
I wish I could work with it in Linux, .... just like a dream ;... :( :(
(and it is damn too slow with the emulator wine )

[Arisna]

I'd be glad for this to happen if it would draw more people to GNU/Linux.

[Extreme Coder]

It definitely would be better. Photoshop is one of the most popular programs on Windows, and making it available on Linux would be a step further in the world of Linux :D

[ButteBlues]

??? Mac and Windows aren't free and free. I don't get what you're getting at.

I misinterpretted aysiu's post.


And any arguement is valid, all you got to do is argue, duh.

Only in lands of sunshine, rainbows, and unicorns are all arguments valid. There are many invalid and completely fallacied arguments.


You don't have kids, do you?

:)

I'm seventeen, so I'd like to think not. ;)


I think you misinterpreted what I said.

I think you're right.


I said I think a Linux-native Photoshop would be great. I do think graphic designers and people serious about using Photoshop's advanced features would appreciate having that on another platform.

I also went on to say that most other people (like me) would be fine with GIMP. What part of my original message made you think I didn't want Photoshop ported to Linux?

The part where you say "but only people serious about graphic design (i.e., they do it for a living) would need it. GIMP works just fine for everyone else, and it's free and Free." makes it sound very much like you said you think it'd be great grudgingly. Almost that sort of "Sure, knock yourself out but I think it's a waste of time for everyone except a few dudes because GIMP is Free!"

In either case, we both stand by the same side on this.

[aysiu]

My point is really that the differences between GIMP and Photoshop in terms of functionality are apparent only to those who do serious graphics work. Most people don't do serious graphics work. They might make a little smiley face, make a photo slightly darker, take the red-eye out of a family picture, or resize an image for the web. All of these and more can be done in GIMP, and for those peopel a Photoshop port is unnecessary.

See, criticisms like this:
Things such as layer-based filters meaning that the original image is untouched and you will always be able to tweak the filter settings at any point, simple folders in the layer window are _very_ helpful, a new brush engine would be needed for the Gimp as it's current one is no where near as good as Photoshop's. don't mean anything to a layperson like me.


makes it sound very much like you said you think it'd be great grudgingly. Almost that sort of "Sure, knock yourself out but I think it's a waste of time for everyone except a few dudes because GIMP is Free!" It's not grudging at all. Again, I think you've misinterpreted what I said. I said I think it'd be great. That's not grudging at all. It would be great, and would benefit serious graphics people greatly. I didn't say it was "a few dudes," but serious graphic designers, illustrators, and such aren't the majority of computer users or even Linux users. They still matter, but most people will still be fine with GIMP, so we shouldn't make it sound as if not having Photoshop is some major disaster for everyday users. It's a disaster for people who do graphics for a living.

[ButteBlues]

My point is really that the differences between GIMP and Photoshop in terms of functionality are apparent only to those who do serious graphics work. Most people don't do serious graphics work. They might make a little smiley face, make a photo slightly darker, take the red-eye out of a family picture, or resize an image for the web. All of these and more can be done in GIMP, and for those peopel a Photoshop port is unnecessary.

See, criticisms like this: don't mean anything to a layperson like me.

It's not grudging at all. Again, I think you've misinterpreted what I said. I said I think it'd be great. That's not grudging at all. It would be great, and would benefit serious graphics people greatly. I didn't say it was "a few dudes," but serious graphic designers, illustrators, and such aren't the majority of computer users or even Linux users. They still matter, but most people will still be fine with GIMP, so we shouldn't make it sound as if not having Photoshop is some major disaster for everyday users. It's a disaster for people who do graphics for a living.
Agreed, as I said.

[Littleweseth]

As a serious graphic designer (i.e. someone who has had to design complicated things for print and web on a regular basis), the GIMP falls down in many areas (AlexC_ has already enumerated most of my major gripes.)

The lack of features like layer-based effects is not something GIMPshop fixes (at last check.) Photoshop CS2 tends to be annoying to impossible to get working on wine, and Photoshop 7.0, which does work with minimal effort on WINE, is just far away enough from CS2 to be annoying. A native port is the way forwards. (Or if not the way forwards, at least the way diagonally and a bit to the left while GIMP implements some of these features.)

Sidenote : I have a pragmatic approach to free software - free software is a great thing in that it generally trends towards improvement and very powerful, if occasionally arcane programs. However, I have no issue with paying for something like Photoshop if it enables me to earn more money as a graphic designer, either by saving me time (time is money, remember?) or letting me make more prettyful things.

Side-Sidenote : To the person who said 'we should be improving Inkscape' - you're talking about an Adobe Illustrator replacement, an entirely different kettle of fish and not nearly as controversial :)

[RAV TUX]

The stuff you can do in photoshop with 3d effects alone is worth having photoshop instead of gimp. I can quickly set up photoshop so that every line I draw with a brush has a 3d effect whit hilights and shadows, etc AS I AM DRAWING THEM. I have yet to see gimp do this.

Try Blender.

http://www.blender.org/cms/Home.2.0.html

[zanglang]

Hmm, I don't really mind Photoshop. Proprietary or not, it's another extra option the Linux community could have for graphic editing, and I'm sure people would welcome it.

Myself, am really looking forward to the Mono port of Paint.NET though. :)
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Dec-16-1.html

[BLTicklemonster]

I can use the 3d editor in Unreal Tournament to make all kinds of shapes and things, but never, not once, have I ever gotten anything out of blender or 3dwings other than misshapen basics. :( Besides, I'm talking about taking a layer in photoshop, and editing it for bevel, highlights, shadows, etc., and then you take a brush and chose a color, and voila, you draw a neat sort of... well, I did a few things with it once that looked like I'd taken a tube of toothpaste and drawn my name with the paste. Real neat effect, but gimp won't do that.

[Littleweseth]

BLTickleMonster : You speak of layer effects. They have a multitude of uses (most notably making it easy to repeatedly apply a preset effect to a layer, without actually altering the layer itself.)

They're incredibly useful and sadly, absent from the GIMP.

[steven8]

(and it is damn too slow with the emulator wine )

It's damn too slow in Windows!! I hated waiting for all of that crap to load in Windows. I had the trial version, and I let it expire while not using it.

However, a native version of an app of that magnitude would only serve to help Linux in my opinion. I vote yes.

[msak007]

I'm not graphically-inclined by any means so this issue is not relevant to me first-hand, but I voted yes. Free apps such as GIMP and Krita are amazing and fit the bill for most users, but as Photoshop is the "industry standard" and many require it for their work, it would be great to have a native Linux port. One less barrier for those who argue that they can't use Linux because an app they need (not want) doesn't run on it. And it could also be a possible catalyst for other software vendors to follow suit if a big name company like Adobe can show them that commercial software can be successful in Linux. We need to dispel the myth that we're all cheap and won't buy software because we prefer everything free.

[BLTicklemonster]

For me, it's not a myth, lol.

[Efwis]

For me, it's not a myth, lol.

that falls under the age issue.

AS for me, I voted yes. I'm also contacting corel software about maybe making a linux port of their Paintshop Pro software. From what I have seen in their message system, they are seriously interested in making the jump, providing they can get enough proof that it will work. I will check into that in a bit.

I wish Adobe would port all of their stuff to Linux, however, they are reluctant to do so. I don't mean to dispel this thread, and by all means if we make a loud enough uproar about them needing to do it, and let them know people will BUY it, they may finally cave in. However at this time, I feel I must make some quotes, which I don't really like reading.

All quotes are taken from a this thread http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@@.3bc1d4af/0at the Adobe user to user forums.

The original starting comment

think the time is approaching when Adobe will need to consider a Linux version of Photoshop. In just the last few years the use of Linux has exploded, both because of the shortcomings of Microsoft's release cycle, and the massive influx of corporate money into Linux as it is increasingly recognized as a serious computing platform. Take the following:

Google: uses Linux exclusively to run their entire infrastructure.
IBM: massive R&D and $$$ infusion into Linux.
Novell: purchasing and extending SuSE Linux as an enterprise-class platform.

All three entities return to the Linux codebase many improvements that their huge resources can afford. Many end users are seeing the benefits of this dynamic and expanding platform as well. Is it time for Adobe to support some of this effort?

first comment (this is an Adobe employee)

Chris Cox - 9:11pm Sep 29, 06 PST (#1 of 55)

Is the time approaching when Linux has standards for fonts, color management, printing, etc.?

Is the time approaching when Linux has standard APIs beyond POSIX? (in other words: Linux is just the kernel, it's all the other stuff that makes it useful. But all that other stuff varies from distribution to distribution.)

Is the time approaching when Linux has standards for a GUI? (anything based on X WIndows does not qualify... Been there, bought the T-shirt, still got the books, but ain't goin back)

Is the time approaching when Linux has real desktop applications and not just command line apps, one-off ports and server products?

And most importantly: is the time approaching when Linux desktop users are willing to pay for commercial software?

Let me know when you have a serious answer.

And his next comment

Chris Cox - 3:11pm Sep 30, 06 PST (#4 of 55)

So you've got a kernel, and you want applications.

But you want the application developer to write all the other bits (drivers, GUI, common support APIs like printing, color, fonts, etc.) that aren't standard outside of the kernel?
And is every application developer going to have to do this over again?
And each of them will have to support all the bits that they had to add outside the kernel?

Why would anyone spend time or money doing that?
I'm not going to go crazy here, but I think you get the point from them. They aren't interested ATM. the thing that really irritates me in that last quote is how they want us to pay extra for the same thing they do for Windows. Windows doesn't supply The GUI, and the API's that we use on linux are no worse then Windows version.

Anyway, enough with my rant. I have said my peace. Although on a professional side ( I'm one of those graphic designers tied to Windows for software reasons) I would love to see a port made.

[BLTicklemonster]

that falls under the age issue.

Well, I guess in little more than a year when I turn 50 it'll be an age issue. Right now I'm just a cheap bast@rd.

Looks like Chris Cox has some unrealistic outlooks on things. If they make the basic platform, everybody and his uncle is going to jump at a shot to make it work for all distros, you can count on that.

I think he tried Linux one time years ago, and got frustrated and has a chip on his shoulder about it. Shame.

[nsleiman]

Gimp is more than enough, it satisfies my needs :)

[Rhapsody]

No. I'd rather see more improvements to Krita and the GIMP.

[Hex_Mandos]

Yes, sure. Having Photoshop would be great for many people. But I wouldn't use it.

[Darell]

photoshop is the only reason why I have an Windows partition on my hardrive, so yes I would LOVE to see a Photoshop port for Linux!

[WiseElben]

Yes, as a native version of Adobe's Photoshop would mean that Adobe is finally realizing the power of Linux, which results in OTHER people realizing the power of Linux, which results in more users switching. Many people on these forums would switch completely if not for Photoshop and other Adobe products.

[v8YKxgHe]

Yes, as a native version of Adobe's Photoshop would mean that Adobe is finally realizing the power of Linux, which results in OTHER people realizing the power of Linux, which results in more users switching. Many people on these forums would switch completely if not for Photoshop and other Adobe products.

This is exactly what I think, and hope would happen if Adobe made a Linux version, or if any other big company that do Window's only apps made a Linux version. I see it as a big chain-reaction, once one goes they will all go - which will be great.

[Efwis]

Well, I guess in little more than a year when I turn 50 it'll be an age issue. Right now I'm just a cheap bast@rd.


sorry BLTicklemonster, I thought I saw somewhere you saying your were 17 YO. My mistake, must have mixed one of your posts with someone else when I was reading it on the forums.

Although, if you're like me you probably wish you were 17 again. at least life was a little easier then. lol :mrgreen:

[graigsmith]

I can't afford photoshop. it would be nice to have. as it is slightly better than the gimp. but. im not gonna pay !!!!!!WOAH!!!!!!!!!!!!! i just checked, thought it was like 300 dollars, which was outrageous. Nope it's like 649!!! which is a jawdropping rippoff, Which makes it a business only app for people who deal with so much photography and digital editing that the time savings you get from having photoshop instead of the gimp are worth it.

so, i voted no, because i cant afford a 649 dollar program.

[montibbalt]

I would love it. Even if it is expensive.
Not only would it bring more attention to Linux, but it would allow much greater things to be done with Linux. Right now I'm dual booting Ubuntu and WinXP, simply because of Photoshop and video games. As amazing and wonderful as GIMP is, it simply does not compare to Photoshop CS2. :-|
Having to reboot to use a piece of software is kind of annoying, and it often ends up with me just staying in Windows, since a lot of the software I use in Linux have windows versions (for example, Blender.)

[macogw]

No, but I'd like a native version of Paint Shop Pro 8. mmm so much better than Photoshop. Photoshop over-complicates EVERYTHING. They don't even have "lighten" and "darken" brushes like PSP does. fie on that! The GIMP is nice, but its missing the ability to make a paintbrush or burn brush (because again, no lighten/darken grrr) that is 75px. I think it maxes out around 20-something pixels. I want to be able to make HUGE brushes, and the GIMP doesn't do that. It's hard to get proper shading on graphics when you can't set it to use the edge of a large brush. I had Photoshop CS on my computer. It's too difficult to use. When I had to use it (and stupid freaking Dreamweaver...grr..wanted Notepad soooooo bad) in a web-design apprenticeship, I had a lot of trouble with it. Then I opened up graphics I drew in PSP and the teacher was surprised by them. I couldn't have done that crap in Photoshop though. The teacher got really pissy about my preference for a text editor over stupid Dreamweaver hehe Just because he doesn't know code...*grumble* That is why Neo had to go back to the Source....because code is where it's at :p

graigsmith, it went down to $649? It used to be like $900.

[v8YKxgHe]

They don't even have "lighten" and "darken" brushes like PSP does. fie on that!
Are you talking about the Burn (darken) and Dodge (lighten) tools as they are in Photoshop.

[macogw]

Are you talking about the Burn (darken) and Dodge (lighten) tools as they are in Photoshop.
No, PSP has burn/dodge (left-click burn, right-click dodge, I think) AND lighten/darken (left-click lighten, right-click darken....I KNOW that one's right).

[v8YKxgHe]

No, PSP has burn/dodge (left-click burn, right-click dodge, I think) AND lighten/darken (left-click lighten, right-click darken....I KNOW that one's right).

huh? But that's exactly what Dodge and Burn do, they lighten and darken. Or do you mean the brush color? As your painting you can alter the lightness/darkness of the brush?

[macogw]

huh? But that's exactly what Dodge and Burn do, they lighten and darken. Or do you mean the brush color? As your painting you can alter the lightness/darkness of the brush?
No, I don't use dodge/burn very much, but I know they're there too. I think they have a bit different of a pattern to their lightening/darkening. Like dodge/burn don't dither out at the edges as much as lighten/darken do, so if you use dodge/burn it's more solid of a darker/lighter spot, but lighten/darken act more like shadows where its most concentrated in the center and goes out to a fainter sort of shading near the edges...saves you from going over a bunch of times trying to get a bunch of varying shades of shadow and highlight. I still do add one more layer of dark at the very very edges of my dark sides (using a very large brush on low opacity and just the edge of it....which is my issue with the GIMP: no very large brushes :( ), but two swipes isn't bad.

[Obor]

Since I dualboot with XP only because of Photoshop CS2 I would love to get it for Linux. Yes you can do most of the things on GIMP but what about people that need PS for one reason or another.

I don't see how it would damage anything/anyone if commercial software is available for Linux users who are willing to pay for it. Until then I'll keep suggesting GIMP to everyone even though I'm using PS myself.

[BLTicklemonster]

Metalmusicaddict (?) posted a how to here abouts that shows you how to make your brush scalable to any size at your discretion. Once you do it, good luck getting back to it, though, lol. I did it, and have looked all over gimp, and can't find where I get that going again.

EEBCAM error, not anything to do with anything else, though.

[v8YKxgHe]

No, I don't use dodge/burn very much, but I know they're there too. I think they have a bit different of a pattern to their lightening/darkening. Like dodge/burn don't dither out at the edges as much as lighten/darken do, so if you use dodge/burn it's more solid of a darker/lighter spot, but lighten/darken act more like shadows where its most concentrated in the center and goes out to a fainter sort of shading near the edges...saves you from going over a bunch of times trying to get a bunch of varying shades of shadow and highlight. I still do add one more layer of dark at the very very edges of my dark sides (using a very large brush on low opacity and just the edge of it....which is my issue with the GIMP: no very large brushes :( ), but two swipes isn't bad.

You can change the entire brush you want to use with Dodge/Burn and also set the hardness. If you have a very soft brush then you will get soft edges to the Dodge/Burn

[dckirba]

As a freelance photographer/designer, I really do need some of the features of Photoshop such as CMYK support, and that is one of the reasons XP still runs on my machine.

Yes, I'd love to see photoshop for linux and wouldn't mind paying for it :)

Cheers,
David K

[beefcurry]

As a freelance photographer/designer, I really do need some of the features of Photoshop such as CMYK support, and that is one of the reasons XP still runs on my machine.

Yes, I'd love to see photoshop for linux and wouldn't mind paying for it :)

Cheers,
David K

I Copy that, But at the same time i would love to see Photoshop go Open-source (which im afraid may only remain a dream). Im not prepared to change to another simular program because of the time and effort spent learning advanced techniques on photoshop. CMYK support, RAW support, GIANT tutorial/brush/plugin/filter base...just too many things that another software cant hope to achieve without another 10 years of work. Just remeber using my first copy of photoshop 5 (yes sorry...im not old enough to be using 4 yet...).

But Im still HOPE there will be a Open Source program that will oneday own photoshop at everything photoshop stands for........ Digikam 0.9 is already so feature rich im already abandoning LightRoom, but its only for small tasks. Im still Dual Booting.....and problely will still dual boot in the future..... PLease WINE >.< DO SOMETHING!

[miatapaul]

Of course photoshop is only part of the solution. We still need os level color management and the ability to calibrate printers and monitors. With all that I could give up OS10.

[diskotek]

i think, yes i would like. but may be i didnt had enough time with gimp 2.0. but it also crash on big files mostly...

[Tomosaur]

I would like to see a native version of Photoshop, yes. Would I buy a native version of Photoshop? Probably not. The price tag is way, way too high for me. Perhaps if they reduce the price I would - but the GIMP suits my needs pretty damn well at this point in time. Photoshop is a great piece of software for sure - but it's far, far too expensive for those of us who have needs higher than simply doodling in Tuxpaint or whatever, but lower than professional designers. The GIMP fits into this slot quite nicely - and I'm sure it even extends to the professional level (in fact - I know it does, I've seen lots of very high quality design work done in GIMP).

The GIMP is proof that Photoshop is absolutely not worth it's price tag.

[zubrug]

obviously, it just makes sense to be able to run all software on linux, windows, or mac.

[BLTicklemonster]

Bingo, Zub.

[ShareBuntu]

Photoshop under WINE is always an option but natively Photoshop would be great. I don't see why Adobe hasn't ventured into the Linux environment. Perhaps, like most things Linux, it's a critical mass issue.

[FyreBrand]

obviously, it just makes sense to be able to run all software on linux, windows, or mac.Yep. Personally I feel platform dependent software is an outdated design mindset. The broadest market share possible would seem the wisest business course.

[Tomosaur]

Yep. Personally I feel platform dependent software is an outdated design mindset. The broadest market share possible would seem the wisest business course.

Agreed - but in practice, it's very, very difficult, because operating systems allow software to work. True platform independance means identical platforms. The Java virtual machine, for example, tries to make the platforms as identical as possible, to allow code written on a Windows machine to run on a Linux machine, or vice versa. There are just too many differences between different operating systems to allow real platform independance.

Cross-compiling is always an option however - there's no real reason why Photoshop couldn't be compiled specifically for Linux, just like it is currently compiled specifically for Windows and Mac. It wouldn't be a very difficult job to compile Photoshop for Linux - as Linux and Mac are quite similar already. There ARE key differences, yes - but all it would take would be some compatability libraries to be written, at the very most.

[Adamant1988]

I would like a powerful photo editor, it doesn't need to be Photoshop, the gimp, or Krita. But I want it to be as good as Photoshop, that's what I need in a program for my projects. Same goes for an illustrator clone, I would prefer an open source clone that was actually designed to compete, but I'll deal with the real thing if I have to.

[beefcurry]

Well, Java does have an edge there :P (Photoshop written in java XD can you think about that? XD) I've recently just converted to GIMP, it wasnt that hard to, but GIMP needs to seriously slap themselves together in order to take on photoshop :), right now i would still opt for paying for photoshop if it did come natively on linux. Right now I think GTK apps are falling behind KDE ones, especially if we compare f-spot and digikam. Digikam is amazing! Ive been loving every single second of its new 0.9.1 features, while I do like the browsing method of f-spot. its advanced features are REALLY lacking.

[cowlip]

I've read that the GIMP developers aren't exactly open to making it more Photoshop -like, in terms of interface or features, otherwise we'd be there already considering the features other free software has, no?

If anything happens, it will be Krita or (another) fork of the Gimp. Anything else is just talk!

That message on the Adobe forums ( http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@@.3bc1d4af/0 ) was very interesting. Considering the attitude of the guy who did Adobe Flash 9 [ http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/11/21/2138216 ] (yes, one frickin' developer which explains why the Flash9 port was so late), Adobe Photoshop's Chris Cox's attitude is not a surprise. But that had competition from Gnash. Maybe we'll see in another two years. Or maybe if the GIMP developers get their act together. ;)

But yeah....when people complain that open source developers are awful and mean, I'll surely point them toward this Adobe thread.

[Foudre]

would be nice, for high resource rendering, wine slows and but works. Don't really like the gimps layout, its got its cool side, but i perfer macrodmedia fireworks (well i guess adobe owns it now)

[beefcurry]

I've read that the GIMP developers aren't exactly open to making it more Photoshop -like, in terms of interface or features, otherwise we'd be there already considering the features other free software has, no?

If anything happens, it will be Krita or (another) fork of the Gimp. Anything else is just talk!

That message on the Adobe forums ( http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@@.3bc1d4af/0 ) was very interesting. Considering the attitude of the guy who did Adobe Flash 9 [ http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/11/21/2138216 ] (yes, one frickin' developer which explains why the Flash9 port was so late), Adobe Photoshop's Chris Cox's attitude is not a surprise. But that had competition from Gnash. Maybe we'll see in another two years. Or maybe if the GIMP developers get their act together. ;)

But yeah....when people complain that open source developers are awful and mean, I'll surely point them toward this Adobe thread.

Never thought Adobe guys where such dicks (sorry for the generalization because thats what they seem to be doing to us linux users). Well after reading that I now wont ever pay for adobe software again :) comon GIMP! we can do it!

[lucipacurar]

The lack of Photoshop or Fireworks on Linux is the only reason why I still have Windows and Mac on my PC. Every IDE works fine on Linux.

PS: I hope I resurrected this thread and maybe we'll get some attention from Adobe.

[wolfen69]

PS: I hope I resurrected this thread and maybe we'll get some attention from Adobe.

Adobe is well aware that there's a few linux users that want photoshop. But I guarantee this thread will not help the cause.

[nothingspecial]

.......and we bid you goodnight, goodnight, goodnight.