PDA

View Full Version : Photoshop or GIMP?



cometa2k7
July 3rd, 2008, 10:47 PM
Ok, I recently had a discussion with a friend who said that Photoshop was much better than GIMP, but is it better? And if so, by how much?

The waay I see it is that although Photoshop may be better for some purposes, it isn't really any better than GIMP for the average user, or even the above average user. GIMP is free, Photoshop is not, is that not a major benefit for the casual user?

jnw222
July 4th, 2008, 12:37 AM
gimp is free and justy as good as the 100$ photoshop

dodle
July 4th, 2008, 01:51 AM
I guess it depends on what your are used to. I'm not familiar with Photoshop so of course I prefer Gimp. It does everything I need to it to do, and there is no way I would pay for software while Gimp is available.

rushikesh988
July 4th, 2008, 04:28 AM
there is a good news for ubuntu friends now ........ we can use photoshop on our ubuntu desktop now ...just download application named as :KS"wine doors":KS and it gives us a chance to download photoshop for free not only this we can play windows games on linux too so go gaming :popcorn:and producting too.......:guitar:

mcduck
July 4th, 2008, 12:06 PM
As a multimedia designer I'd say that if you forget about the price, Photoshop is slighly better. But knowing that Gimp is free makes it a lot better option for most uses.

Both programs are definitely capable of professional-lever work, and are far beyond what a regular user might ever need..

Photoshop has a bit more easy, simple tools for specific tasks, like automatic extraction tools etc, while with Gimp you'll mostly need to be able to do such tasks manually.

Photoshop is also lot better for print work,a s color profile and CMYK support in Gimp is still somewhat lacking.

I actyually use Gimp more than Photoshop, although mainly because I don't like booting to Windows unless I really need, and most of the time I can do what I need to do just as well with Gimp.

So, unless you're a professional designer you'll be able to do everything you need with Gimp. If not, it's not because the program couldn't do it but because your own skills are lacking ;)

dominiquec
July 4th, 2008, 12:12 PM
Not having any Windows, I've been using GIMP for all my photoediting jobs, and it's been adequate.

I've had to look over someone's shoulder while he was working on Photoshop, and I'll admit to some envy over the available tool set (in particular, the way it smooths over the picture after you enlarge it.) But on the whole, I can get by with GIMP, and I'm even more familiar with its controls than I would be with Photoshop.

Amiamasochist
July 4th, 2008, 12:17 PM
Having used photoshop and photoshop elements, it took a short while to get used to The Gimp, but I find it a lot better than Photoshop, and I'm using it in Vista, as I cannot get a safe way into Linux despite all the geeky hype...sorry Linux Fans.

Spaceman9
July 5th, 2008, 08:26 AM
PhotoShop; $649.95, MS OS; $239.99, Total Cost; $899.94

GNU Image Manipulation Program; Free, Linux OS; Free, Total Cost; Free

mazz72
July 5th, 2008, 03:36 PM
PhotoShop; $649.95, MS OS; $239.99, Total Cost; $899.94

GNU Image Manipulation Program; Free, Linux OS; Free, Total Cost; Free

and you forgot....the fuzzy feeling you get inside when you think of never having to use windows again for the rest of your life:

Priceless. :-D

cometa2k7
July 5th, 2008, 05:53 PM
and you forgot....the fuzzy feeling you get inside when you think of never having to use windows again for the rest of your life:

Priceless. :-D

I don't know if you are allowed to advertise Mastercard on this forum, but you'd definitely need it to buy photoshop and Windows :P

Kimmik
July 5th, 2008, 06:06 PM
Ok, I recently had a discussion with a friend who said that Photoshop was much better than GIMP, but is it better? And if so, by how much?

No home user needs Photoshop. Tell your friend he is a little software pirate bitch.;)

insane_alien
July 5th, 2008, 06:09 PM
i think gimp is better, mainly because i've never really used photoshop for anything big.

imho its like driving on the left or right side of the road, neither is better than the other and its hard to switch to the other side if you've been driving on one side for your whole life.

sayakb
July 5th, 2008, 06:12 PM
Reminds me of:

And GIMP is a piece of junk. It lets me do almost everything Photoshop does, but, again, what's the catch? Why didn't I have to pay $200 for it? Because it's a piece of junk! That's why!

</sarcasm>

cotcot
July 6th, 2008, 10:42 AM
I do all the work with Gimp. The only feature I miss is 16 bit, but this will obviously come with gimp 2.6 (GEGL).

BeBoBli
July 6th, 2008, 10:47 AM
There's a lot of pending factors. For the price The Gimp is a damned awesome deal. And it's not that far behind Photoshop. If you take away the price though Photoshop is undeniably better. I can't think of a single thing that The Gimp excels over Photoshop with other than the price. Maybe more conservative resource use?

zipperback
July 6th, 2008, 10:49 AM
Both are really excellent applications.

Use which ever tool meets your needs the best.

abuakel
July 7th, 2008, 05:29 AM
and there is no way I would pay for software while Gimp is available.

^^ There is no way in hell that I will pay for software as long as Ubuntu and open-source software are available ;)

Linux is very effective in stopping users from pirating software... :popcorn:

Ninja Krow
July 7th, 2008, 03:06 PM
I honestly think that Gimp > Photoshop. in almost every way. Gimp also uses Python for scripting new shortcut things and save you from having to do a lot of clicking to get the same effects done.

One thing i wish was possible would be to be able to convert Photoshop Plug-ins into Gimp Plug-ins.

Most people can tell if you made an image with Gimp or Photoshop just by looking at the image displayed. if you got the skill for Photoshop you got the skill for Gimp. you just have to do things a bit differently between the two programs.

alegallo
July 7th, 2008, 03:19 PM
I work with both and like both.

I'm used to Photoshop since years now, so sometimes I am a little lost on Gimp, but for my daily tasks both or them are adequate just the same.

When I'm at work I use Photoshop (you know, we paid for it, so why waste money?) but at home I do the same with the Gimp in my private Ubuntu box ;)

cometa2k7
July 7th, 2008, 08:28 PM
Linux is very effective in stopping users from pirating software... :popcorn:

That's a little bit like my answer to cutting crime rates. Abolish all laws, then you have no crimes to be committed.

Ope-source removes the ability of software pirates to pirate the software, because they simply get it for fee, can modify and redistribute it as they like.

antirem
July 8th, 2008, 09:13 PM
I am a web designer and would not be able to do my job if all I could use is GIMP. Hopefully it will catch up to photoshop but it just isnt there yet.

Mattaus
July 9th, 2008, 03:33 AM
I hav'nt read through all the responses here so sorry if I'm repeating someone...

Anyway, I love GIMP. I have used it extensively over the last year or so concurrently with Photoshop and I have to say Photoshop is a better application.

Fair enough GIMP is free and can perform 90% of the tasks Photoshop can however I believe photoshop is more 'user friendly'. That might not be the right term but I just feel less frustrated with Photoshop some times. Photoshop is faster to work with as often with GIMP I find that I have to many more steps to achieve the same result as Photoshop. Also Photoshop has many more features and can perform some very powerful functions I am yet to find equivalents of in GIMP.

At the end of the day however I must make it clear I have been using Photoshop for a lot longer than GIMP and therefore I am obviously more comfortable with what I know best. So in all likely hood I like photoshop better just because I feel more comfortable with it.

kaola_linux
July 9th, 2008, 06:28 AM
Hey guyz, I've voted here for GIMP simply coz it's has balance and FREE!!! With its capability, you can't ignore it that it would be a nice replacement if not a substitute for PHOTOSHOP for an average user and for the pro as well if they would try...And as for gaming, yeah someday Linux will benefit gaming with it's projects making it possible...Hope for it for someday coz I will change totally on Linux...Apps also are a behind for us especially third party apps...IMO, what made Windows commonly used and made it popular was the KILLER APPS it possess which companies and individuals get used to use...CHEERS

matza55
July 9th, 2008, 06:12 PM
I guess it depends on what your are used to. I'm not familiar with Photoshop so of course I prefer Gimp. It does everything I need to it to do, and there is no way I would pay for software while Gimp is available.

I think You have a good point there. I'm using it at home, and in the beginning it was not easy with Gimp, but also Photoshop is hard to learn.
And: Gimp is free!

NovruzeliH
July 10th, 2008, 12:35 PM
PhotoShop; $649.95, MS OS; $239.99, Total Cost; $899.94

GNU Image Manipulation Program; Free, Linux OS; Free, Total Cost; Free

yp already paid for that :P, well a friend of mine got it for my birthday present, along with 3 xbox360 games :P

zipperback
July 10th, 2008, 09:30 PM
PhotoShop; $649.95, MS OS; $239.99, Total Cost; $899.94

GNU Image Manipulation Program; Free, Linux OS; Free, Total Cost; Free




Software should not cost more than an entire computer system required to run it!

- zipperback
:popcorn:

rylleman
July 10th, 2008, 10:47 PM
Software should not cost more than an entire computer system required to run it!
...

Why not? They have spent a lot developing it, they want to make a profit and people are willing to pay for it.
For me the software is worth way more than the hardware. I'd manage with just about any decent hardware from any manufacturer but I do care a lot about which software I'm working in.

That said I think Gimp is a decent application and I use it all the time to do simpler stuff but it lacks way to much for me to be able to use it in my work.
It has no actions (no I don't want to sit and hard-code python scripts, I'm an artist not a programmer.).
It has no layer-folders making images with more than 15-20 layers a nightmare to work with. In my workflow it's not uncommon with hundreds of layers.
And it's full of small but very irritating bugs, to copy a layer from one image and paste it into a new one you have to copy, make new image, paste, anchor, make image the size of the layer, and if you want to use the empty layer below you have to make that the size of the image. In photoshop there's three steps, copy, new image, paste. That's half the number of steps.
Another small irritating thing is that you can't select several layers at one to move or rotate them. Or that the default PAL-template is wrong but the main developer is to stubborn to admit it and rather closes the bug-report as being wrong than fix it.

On the other hand I love the Gimps selection tool and it's ability to anti-erase.

All things considered I thing Photoshop comes out as winner but I think that the Gimp is learning to run and probably will be a competitor to count with pretty soon.

cometa2k7
July 11th, 2008, 04:24 PM
I just got a new laptop, which runs Vista, so I decided to give Photoshop a trial run, not that I intended to buy it.

It was ok, but it just felt awkward compared to GIMP, which I'm used to now. But on balance, GIMP is pretty tricky to handle on Windows, I hate not being able to always on top and shade the windows.

Photoshop looks good to start with, but I really can't be bothered to learn to use it when I can already use GIMP.

Yes Photoshop has a lot more features, but I still prefer GIMP for the kinds of tasks I do with it. (A wallpaper or two when I want a change)

Vorian Grey
July 11th, 2008, 04:56 PM
It's according to your needs. If all you do is adjust a home photo then the Gimp will do the job nicely and cheaply. Less we forget, Photoshop is for professionals and it has tools those pros need. It's overkill for most home jobs, regardless of the hype.

Also, Photoshop CS2 runs fine in Wine now for those who need it.

I prefer PS because I'm more use to it and I like the single window better.

pcjunkie
July 13th, 2008, 05:15 PM
IF the Gimp had photoshops tools then yeah I would use it always but it doesn't, close but not close enough.

Gimps main advantages / disadvantage for me and what I do.

Selection tools in the Gimp are clunky though its color selection and erase are better than PS.

In PS I can very quickly cut out complex shapes. It takes allot longer in the Gimp.

PNG compression in the Gimp is the best and you can easily edit gamma profiles. In PS this is not so easy and its a requirement to do so as web browsers will render a different color if you don't. (e.g. IE (POS) will render gamma slightly brighter than FF, this results in grey #404040 appearing as grey #414141.
Eraser tools in PS are slightly better.
Healing brush, patch tools are better in PS.

CMYK and 16 bit (color indexed) (Gimp getting there)

PS has slightly faster rendering although Gimp is faster generally, (Much faster in fact)

./

These are the tools I use the most.

Layering -> PS is simple, The layer actions are all there in the module. gimp takes 3 steps to layer down to 0 and that means menu hunting.

Selection cropping and selection tools (freehand, brezier) are where PS leaves the gimp behind. Add to that selection extras like feather and inverse are in the one place and there is no mistaking it in PS.

Te one thing I love with the gimp is color replacement, Its so easy and fast. PS looses badly here adding menu options and hunting into the mix. what for?

PS has an amazing array of third party plugins that I actually need. Dreamy and so on make light work of fast editing. To produce these effects in the Gimp is another 30 to 40 min worth of work.

The only other thing I can think of now it the tool helpers in PS are spot on.

ginnie6
September 1st, 2008, 12:34 AM
novice user here. I started with photoshop elements and used it as long as i was one windows. I use it for digital photos and scrapbooking. I have to say that gimp is just as easy to use as pse.

bsell
September 1st, 2008, 03:01 AM
On Ubuntu, I use GIMP because CS2 under WINE isn't very functional. I've used the GIMP for a few years now and only recently started using Photoshop. The GIMP is powerful, more so than Photoshop Elements, but it really can't compete with Photoshop.

I wouldn't limit myself to a platform just because I hated paying for software. If you can afford Photoshop and like digital photography, that's the way to go. Photoshop does so many more things than the GIMP and does many things simply. Like automatic color correction, rotating while cropping, easily adding presets for better workflow, better typographic design, etc.

You can spend hours trying to do in the GIMP what you can do in Photoshop in minutes. The return on investment in time more than pays for the software, which, with a student discount, costs about $150.

Redache
September 1st, 2008, 03:06 AM
GIMP although I couldn't use all the extra features Photoshop gives so I guess I don't count so much.

LaRoza
September 1st, 2008, 03:08 AM
GIMP. I use Linux, and Photoshop isn't available for it.

I also don't have hundreds of dollars to spend...

Colro
September 1st, 2008, 03:15 AM
I vote for option #3: Fireworks
It's easy to use, I know my way around it, and it's powerful. I find GIMP to be...lacking, although I do whip it out for simpler tasks every once and awhile.

Prefix100
September 1st, 2008, 03:24 AM
I guess it depends on what your are used to. I'm not familiar with Photoshop so of course I prefer Gimp. It does everything I need to it to do, and there is no way I would pay for software while Gimp is available.

Negate that statement and you have my opinion.

SomeGuyDude
September 1st, 2008, 03:55 AM
If you think GIMP is easy, draw a circle with it without looking anything up.

I like the thing, but it's definitely neither as easy nor as comprehensive as PS.

tepe75
September 15th, 2008, 06:15 PM
there is a good news for ubuntu friends now ........ we can use photoshop on our ubuntu desktop now ...just download application named as :KS"wine doors":KS and it gives us a chance to download photoshop for free not only this we can play windows games on linux too so go gaming :popcorn:and producting too.......:guitar:

Thanks for this. I did not know about this awesome wine program. went to their site and clicked on download. clicked on debian linux and a package automatically installed itself on my ubuntu. Now i am downloading all the programs like photoshop... :KS

Twitch6000
September 15th, 2008, 06:26 PM
As a multimedia designer I'd say that if you forget about the price, Photoshop is slighly better. But knowing that Gimp is free makes it a lot better option for most uses.

Both programs are definitely capable of professional-lever work, and are far beyond what a regular user might ever need..

Photoshop has a bit more easy, simple tools for specific tasks, like automatic extraction tools etc, while with Gimp you'll mostly need to be able to do such tasks manually.

Photoshop is also lot better for print work,a s color profile and CMYK support in Gimp is still somewhat lacking.

I actyually use Gimp more than Photoshop, although mainly because I don't like booting to Windows unless I really need, and most of the time I can do what I need to do just as well with Gimp.

So, unless you're a professional designer you'll be able to do everything you need with Gimp. If not, it's not because the program couldn't do it but because your own skills are lacking ;)

Thank you for getting at what I wanted to :).

Now I will add on.

Gimp is trying to get to a new version (2.6)
Which is planned to have better support for many things it is lacking in.

It will also have a one windows feature,which means everything will be put all in one windows like photoshop and not multiwindows.

So it will be starter friendly.

I myself though think that makes it less friendly lol.

Now Photoshop however does have a good standing ground.

Like it is widely used in the pro photo editing area.

It does have about 3-5 good features gimp does not have yet or atleast doesn't have implemented well.

So at this point in time(we will need 2.6 for an update on this stance)

Photoshop is for the professional field even though gimp can be with about an extra 30 minutes of work.

Gimp is for the average user or whatever is in the middle of pro and average lol.

cookieofdoom
September 15th, 2008, 09:21 PM
Photoshop has more features, not many, but it does have more features. Layer effects, non-destructive editing, and layer folders come to mind right off the bat. If Photoshop was a free (open source) piece of software that worked with Linux, I would us it over GIMP. It's not, and I don't have $700 for software, so I use GIMP.

karellen
September 15th, 2008, 09:29 PM
I'd choose Paint.NET. too bad it doesn't work in Linux

klange
September 15th, 2008, 10:18 PM
I'd choose Paint.NET. too bad it doesn't work in Linux

http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/

ddarsow
September 15th, 2008, 10:33 PM
I am a Web developer and use photo editing software a bunch. I am currently using Gimp and have not found a single thing that I could do with PS that I cannot do with Gimp.

Additionally, making animateg GIF files is extremely simple in Gimp while PS has to export to accomplish the same thing. I suppose it is largely a matter of personal preference and what you are used to. Both are excellent apps.

god0fgod
September 15th, 2008, 10:40 PM
GIMP because it's free and I have little money to spend.

Frak
September 15th, 2008, 11:44 PM
I've never been paid to make a GIMP'd water scene.

http://www.qzoka.com/images/38maqo8r9bcg510ajj.png

I've also made that in GIMP, but it took some deal longer. This is no thanks to some missing features, such as absolute selection measurements. (If you find them, show me).

I take a class on graphics design atm, and I'll upload my Soviet world tomorrow. I will withdraw my opinion if anybody can come close to duplicating it. I will even provide the complete sources.

EDIT
Forgot, no CMYK support. Most of my customers prefer CMYK due to it's definition of black-on-black values. I do have to say though, GIMP beats Photoshop in most uses, however, Photoshop Elements is rearing its head into GIMP's home use.

klange
September 16th, 2008, 12:55 AM
That looks more like something I'd make in Inkscape...

Sinkingships7
September 16th, 2008, 01:31 AM
With the factor of cost excluded from the equation, Photoshop CS3 is, in every way, a million times better than The GIMP.

The GIMP does more for your money, but performance wise: there is no competition. It's also worth mentioning that for the average home user, there would be no benefit in PSCS3 over The GIMP. That said, nobody can honestly say that The GIMP is better than Photoshop in developing commercial products, or doing any real intense photo manipulation.

Also worth mentioning: I'm certainly not an enthusiast, but I have used both applications equally enough to have an unbiased opinion. AAMOF, I used The GIMP way before I ever touched Photoshop. PSCS3 is just plain better.

*runs away*

saulgoode
September 16th, 2008, 01:53 AM
I've also made that in GIMP, but it took some deal longer. This is no thanks to some missing features, such as absolute selection measurements. (If you find them, show me).
The xy position of the upper left corner of rectangular (or elliptical) selection's bounding box, as well as its width and height, are displayed in the Tool Options dialog (the width and height also appear in the image window's status line while the selection is being made).

Frak
September 16th, 2008, 02:34 AM
The xy position of the upper left corner of rectangular (or elliptical) selection's bounding box, as well as its width and height, are displayed in the Tool Options dialog (the width and height also appear in the image window's status line while the selection is being made).
I mean like creating a predefined, relocatable boundry using predefined sizes with no predefined location.

ODF
September 16th, 2008, 03:22 AM
Photoshop .... no contest.

I still like gimp, but honestly who paid photoshop ?

Killer Cop
September 16th, 2008, 09:39 AM
None of them is good. Gimp is retarded to use, and I've had no special good flavor for Photoshop. Paint Shop Pro FTW.

fatality_uk
September 16th, 2008, 09:55 AM
I love GIMP now.
Like anything, at first use, most people who have used PS freak out and usually their heads explode. But after a while, GIMP does work really well for 99% of the stuff the people want from image editing software.

kikoman
September 16th, 2008, 10:33 AM
The only thing i need on GIMP that lacks is balloon and shapes (square). We need to make our comics now.

newbie2
September 16th, 2008, 11:14 AM
I work with both and like both.

I'm used to Photoshop since years now, so sometimes I am a little lost on Gimp
never heard of GIMPSHOP ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop

2cute4u
September 16th, 2008, 11:57 AM
Thank you for getting at what I wanted to :).

Now I will add on.

Gimp is trying to get to a new version (2.6)
Which is planned to have better support for many things it is lacking in.

It will also have a one windows feature,which means everything will be put all in one windows like photoshop and not multiwindows.



WTF arre you talking about?:confused:
Photoshop has multiple windows. In fact it would be rather limited if it was restricted to working with only one window. Frequently I many images open in photoshop, which i copy from and into another. This would be imposible if I could only work in one window so if Gimp is going to a singe window it would suck even more. If the global menu bar would be made a standard part of Gnome, then GIMP could have a decent multi-window interface, without doing stupid things as putting the menubar in the tool pallette window.

Of course GIMP is still missing too many features that I use constantly, (such as the history brush), and i really hate how the menus are organized on GIMP. Photoshop is just much easier to work with.

Kabezon
September 16th, 2008, 12:27 PM
I see many people saying the GIMP is better because it can do everything an everyday user wants and it's free. That was not the question. IMO Photoshop is better.

ronnielsen1
September 16th, 2008, 12:39 PM
I know someone that's a professional photographer and he tried out gimp and he said it was really good for a free program. He thought photoshop had features that gimp didn't but if he knew about gimp before he bought photoshop he wouldn't have bought it.

HungryMan
September 16th, 2008, 12:41 PM
Photoshop pro's:blending options, more brush dynamics, custom shapes, more filters
GIMP pro's:that tool which hotkey is shift+o, it's free, GIMP's windows are not parent-child (which means i can move windows anywhere i like and not confined in the spaces of a parent), i can change a brush with the mouse wheel, i can zoom with the mouse wheel

i'd prefer photoshop if i were some rich kid (no im not talking about the software, most people download that or buy pirated).

i prefer gimp because it's light...>50mb compared to photoshop's 800+mb! and .xcf files are WAAAAY lighter than .psd (a 200kb xcf files is a 9mb psd file.)

and gimp's startup time >1minute photoshop 1~3 minutes

billgoldberg
September 16th, 2008, 12:46 PM
Ok, I recently had a discussion with a friend who said that Photoshop was much better than GIMP, but is it better? And if so, by how much?

The waay I see it is that although Photoshop may be better for some purposes, it isn't really any better than GIMP for the average user, or even the above average user. GIMP is free, Photoshop is not, is that not a major benefit for the casual user?

I think it is better because I have used it for a while.

I don't feel like relearning everything.

billgoldberg
September 16th, 2008, 12:48 PM
and gimp's startup time >1minute photoshop 1~3 minutes

Gimps opens in 3-5 seconds, photoshop cs3 in around 5-8 seconds.

And that's on a less then avarage 2 year old pc with less than 1gb ram memory.

billgoldberg
September 16th, 2008, 12:50 PM
never heard of GIMPSHOP ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop

Gimpshop will just rearrange the gui and change some names. It will not make the app behave like photoshop.

NWAdawg
September 16th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Photoshop...I can crop, resize a photo in 1/10 the time in PS than Gimp.

jespdj
September 16th, 2008, 01:09 PM
It depends on what you are used to and what you want to do.

If you're used to Photoshop, then obviously Photoshop is better. Photoshop has some great tools and features that GIMP lacks. Especially for serious (semi-)professional photo editing, the GIMP is not good enough because it lacks 16 bit per channel and colour profiles are not implemented properly (GIMP supports colour management, but it's very limited and many of GIMP's tools just ignore it).

For simple photo editing and graphics work, and for 95% the people who just want to do simple adjustments to their holiday photos, GIMP is good enough.

A nice GIMP tutorial website: http://meetthegimp.org/

I still like gimp, but honestly who paid photoshop ?
I did and you should too if you use it.

never heard of GIMPSHOP ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop
That doesn't magically add Photoshop's features to the GIMP.

binbash
September 16th, 2008, 01:44 PM
Of course photoshop.

joninkrakow
September 16th, 2008, 02:40 PM
I do all the work with Gimp. The only feature I miss is 16 bit, but this will obviously come with gimp 2.6 (GEGL).

Sorry, without 16 bit, it is nearly useless for me for photography. Also, I sometimes need CMYK and certainly need RAW support... Without those, PS still wins. If this is true that GIMP 2.6 will have 16 bit support, then I will rejoice, as I will then have one more point where I won't need Photoshop. :-)

-Jon

Sand & Mercury
September 16th, 2008, 03:17 PM
If you take price and value into account GIMP is miles in front. Photoshop has a couple more features, but it's nowhere near worth forking out nearly a grand to get them.

Frak
September 16th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Photoshop .... no contest.

I still like gimp, but honestly who paid photoshop ?
Me
Adobe Master Suite CS3 Master

Partially paid by government grant.

klange
September 16th, 2008, 09:49 PM
Writein: Inkscape.


Of course, that's when I'm lazy. Usually I just write up the PNG code manually and skip past making an SVG...

karellen
September 16th, 2008, 09:58 PM
http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/

I didn't know it has been done. thanks for the tip :)

david_lynch
September 16th, 2008, 10:15 PM
I assume you're asking me as a linux user? So, yeah, gimp wins by a landslide, since photoshop is basically a no-show. Given the choice of buying an expensive windows app to run under wine in linux (because the vendor couldn't be bothered to make it available for my platform) or running a native linux application with somewhat similar capabilities, which also happened to come with my linux install, the choice is easy.

Frak
September 16th, 2008, 10:51 PM
I assume you're asking me as a linux user? So, yeah, gimp wins by a landslide, since photoshop is basically a no-show. Given the choice of buying an expensive windows app to run under wine in linux (because the vendor couldn't be bothered to make it available for my platform) or running a native linux application with somewhat similar capabilities, which also happened to come with my linux install, the choice is easy.
There are a lot of parts that would be have to be remade from scratch. Much of Photoshop runs on existing Adobe components and proprietary Windows compoents, along with those other components that rely on Windows components, it would require a mass rewrite. Add that to the scratch of a Linux population, the creative, does not pirate, professional crowd, you get the idea why they won't make a port.

_sAm_
September 16th, 2008, 11:08 PM
Sorry, without 16 bit, it is nearly useless for me for photography. Also, I sometimes need CMYK and certainly need RAW support... Without those, PS still wins. If this is true that GIMP 2.6 will have 16 bit support, then I will rejoice, as I will then have one more point where I won't need Photoshop. :-)

-Jon


The waay I see it is that although Photoshop may be better for some purposes, it isn't really any better than GIMP for the average user,
I took some photos intended to use in a panorama, witch I will print. I converted the raw files with ufraw on Ubuntu, then used Hugin to stitch them together. When that was done I used Gimp(tiff in 8bits mode) to fine tune the colour and light for all the different shots in the one final tiff image(with layers), added sharpness(curve tool) and cropped it to the correct size.
I did the same again but this time I used PS(tiff in 16bits mode) and not Gimp, then compared the results. The panorama from Gimp looked terrible compared to the one from PS, just a big no go.

I really like Gimp, have learned a lot about it, the interface is good, and its easy to change it to how I want it. It also has more or less all the tools that I need. UFraw or ufraw-plugin for Gimp gives me RAW support. But until they get support for 16bits mode it will not touch my photos again.


or even the above average user. GIMP is free, Photoshop is not, is that not a major benefit for the casual user?
PS is the properly the most pirated software after Windows, so for most its free. Whether or not this is good or bad is another discussion.

david_lynch
September 16th, 2008, 11:21 PM
There are a lot of parts that would be have to be remade from scratch. Much of Photoshop runs on existing Adobe components and proprietary Windows compoents, along with those other components that rely on Windows components, it would require a mass rewrite. Add that to the scratch of a Linux population, the creative, does not pirate, professional crowd, you get the idea why they won't make a port.
Eh? "windows components"? So, how do you explain the mac version of photoshop?

As far as the "problem" of writing code, isn't that what they do? You could make the same tired old argument for any product e.g. oracle, but oracle found that, surprise, surprise, there was a linux market after all. A lot of vendors have that surprise when they decide to offer a linux version of their product.

klange
September 16th, 2008, 11:46 PM
I'm not going to compare Gimp to Photoshop directly, as I have both and use whichever is better for the job at hand, but I'd like to get a list compiled of features Gimp *really* needs that Photoshop has.

Clearly, color modes are a must: CMYK, >8bpc, etc.
Next up is definitely dynamic layer effects. Not bull**** one-time effects, but real, live and quickly generated layer effects like borders, drop shadows, etc.
Moving on, I'd like to see a faster font selection tool. The font list is slow - very slow.

Anyone else want to add something?

2cute4u
September 17th, 2008, 12:52 AM
There are a lot of parts that would be have to be remade from scratch. Much of Photoshop runs on existing Adobe components and proprietary Windows compoents, along with those other components that rely on Windows components, it would require a mass rewrite. Add that to the scratch of a Linux population, the creative, does not pirate, professional crowd, you get the idea why they won't make a port.
Photoshop doesn't rely on proprietary Windows components, the windows version is just a port of the original Mac version, I'm sure that the windows version used some proprietary windows code, but it wouldn't be in the core of the program, since it's a port. And since they were able to extract out thre mac sopecific code, and replace it with windows specific code, then it should be no more difficult to replace those parts with GTK code.

VeeDubb
September 17th, 2008, 01:17 AM
Sorry, without 16 bit, it is nearly useless for me for photography. Also, I sometimes need CMYK and certainly need RAW support... Without those, PS still wins. If this is true that GIMP 2.6 will have 16 bit support, then I will rejoice, as I will then have one more point where I won't need Photoshop. :-)

-Jon

FYI, there are at least two, maybe three, different plugins that give Gimp raw support. I don't use them much, because I prefer Bibble Pro, but they are there, and I used them regularly before purchasing bibble pro. (best $159 I ever spent).

In any case, if 16 bit and raw of the only two things you're waiting for, then you're really only waiting for 1 thing, and it's coming soon.

So, get your party shoes on.

Sephoroth
September 17th, 2008, 01:27 AM
It really depends on who we are speaking about.

I personally find using GIMP to be easier and overall faster than Photoshop plus I enjoy its window layout (though this is primarily because of multiple viewports, I've heard it is rather annoying on Windows) and price-wise there is no comparison. When referring to the professional industries and/or excluding the price then I have little doubt that Photoshop will be seen as superior.

VeeDubb
September 17th, 2008, 01:32 AM
I took some photos intended to use in a panorama, witch I will print. I converted the raw files with ufraw on Ubuntu, then used Hugin to stitch them together. When that was done I used Gimp(tiff in 8bits mode) to fine tune the colour and light for all the different shots in the one final tiff image(with layers), added sharpness(curve tool) and cropped it to the correct size.
I did the same again but this time I used PS(tiff in 16bits mode) and not Gimp, then compared the results. The panorama from Gimp looked terrible compared to the one from PS, just a big no go.......

Well first of all, I have also done this with the same images in both photoshop and hugin/gimp.

Second, as a professional wedding photographer ( http://www.stevecoonsphoto.com ) I'd say your work-flow leaves something to be desired. Both hugin and photoshop will do all the color adjusting and layer blending for you when you stitch the panorama, leaving on the most basic fine-tuning to be done on the final stitched image.

My work flow when making a panorama is as follows:

1. Take the pictures. I find a 1/3rd frame overlap gives the best results regardless of the software being used. Less will reduce the number of control points, and more will just waste time.

2. Use Bibble Pro to process the raw images into Tiff of high quality jpeg depending on what I'll be doing with the final image. If you don't have, or don't like, bibble, I would strongly recommend that you find something to use for raw processing besides photoshop or gimp. You WILL get better results by using a program that is solely designed for processing raw files, than by using a full image editor, and you'll get it done a heck of a lot faster too.

3. Load up hugin, and use the fully automated mode to generate my panorama, which is saved as a tiff with the same color depth as the original files. The only thing I select manually is the type of panorama. i.e. rectilinear, circular, etc. I select based on what looks best for the shots I'm working with and the look I'm going for.

4. Crop in gimp, and save as high quality jpeg with no compression (100 quality) and 1x1 sampling. In the RARE event that I need to convert to CMYK or 16 bit, I do the cropping in photoshop.

I have found that this is faster and produces much higher quality final images than using photoshop with ONE exception. That exception, is if I didn't have very good images to begin with. If I had too little overlap, or not enough contrast for hugin to generate control points, I find that photoshop is SLIGHTLY more forgiving, and can sometimes make a mediocre panorama when hugin isn't able to make on at all. Beyond that, hugin has done better every time. That's right, I own photoshop, I'm a pro photographer, and I STILL use hugin over CS3, except in rare situations.

Frak
September 17th, 2008, 01:59 AM
Eh? "windows components"? So, how do you explain the mac version of photoshop?

As far as the "problem" of writing code, isn't that what they do? You could make the same tired old argument for any product e.g. oracle, but oracle found that, surprise, surprise, there was a linux market after all. A lot of vendors have that surprise when they decide to offer a linux version of their product.

Mac version came way before the Windows version, and therefore has a market. Remember that Macs have almost always been about multimedia, so Adobe must support it. As for the converse "If it's Mac code, why is there a Windows port?", remember that Windows controls over 90% of the market, so that is a de facto support share.

You bring up the argument of Oracle, but isn't Oracle focused on Linux servers? Isn't Adobe focused on graphics designers? Isn't an Apple not an Orange?


Photoshop doesn't rely on proprietary Windows components, the windows version is just a port of the original Mac version, I'm sure that the windows version used some proprietary windows code, but it wouldn't be in the core of the program, since it's a port. And since they were able to extract out thre mac sopecific code, and replace it with windows specific code, then it should be no more difficult to replace those parts with GTK code.

The Windows version really isn't as much of a port, as much as it's a clone. The core of the program is very tightly knit into the Operating System, which is why the Wine team had such a hard time maintaining compatibility. The rest of the parts of the program are modules. The core, which runs basic services, loads the modules, such as extensions, basic tools, interface, input recognition, output support, etc. Adobe would have to create a new core, interface, I/O support, etc. Not to mention that some components of Photoshop use other Adobe programs such as Flash and Shockwave for rendering/viewing, and you can already see how many issues they're having with it.

doorknob60
September 17th, 2008, 05:20 AM
For me GIMP. Heck, for what I do, MS Paint and Kolourpaint have more than enough features (crop, resize, change file format). No way I'd spend $100 (or whatever it costs) for an image crop tool :P

kevin11951
September 17th, 2008, 05:48 AM
For me GIMP. Heck, for what I do, MS Paint and Kolourpaint have more than enough features (crop, resize, change file format). No way I'd spend $100 (or whatever it costs) for an image crop tool :P

try $649 USD for a brand new photoshop cs3

Northsider
September 17th, 2008, 06:07 AM
GIMP for me. I find PS way too confusing and bloated...I need something more simple and streamlined. I only use the basic tools anyways. Plus the price is mindboggling!

eentonig
September 17th, 2008, 06:17 AM
Which is better? Photoshop, without a doubt.

Which I use? The Gimp, without a doubt.

If I were a proffessional designer or artist. PS is soo much faster, gives a better workflow, works smoother, has colourmanagement, etc... . But for what I need it, that's no problem. And it's not worth spending the cash.

Frak
September 18th, 2008, 02:31 AM
GIMP for me. I find PS way too confusing and bloated...

For confusing, I guess if you learned how to use Gimp first, you could avoid confusion, but Photoshop seems to have less bloat than Gimp for me... (?)

Northsider
September 18th, 2008, 04:09 AM
For confusing, I guess if you learned how to use Gimp first, you could avoid confusion, but Photoshop seems to have less bloat than Gimp for me... (?)

Yea, not sure what it is. I actually tried a few times to get into PS first. Then I tried GIMP out and it just fit somehow and I was able to more easily do what I needed to do.