I don't really have much to say about this review or the article, but I'd like to say, as someone who has been using GIMP extensively for the past six months, it's a really fantastic program and probably one of the best, most reliable, and most useful free/open source software packages I've used. I wish there were something like the GIMP, but for music production.
Amen! I would be happy to see more people being honest about it.
I've been used Photoshop about 15 years and I would say Photoshop should be the first example to teach on the UIX classes. It's so great that even a 5 years old could get around in couple of hours.
I don't want to troll about it, I'm a developer and I can appreciate the hard work of people behind GIMP. And their influence over Linux world with GTK. Still I hate to see people comparing saying "GIMP is waaaay better than PS".
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday February 07, 2013 @05:45PM (#42825077)
Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars.
Ipso facto gimp = winner.
You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.
I could restate the entire comment I made replacing Photoshop=$600 with Elements =$70 and the point would be just as valid. In fact I am willing to bet that GIMP is way more capable then elements. You can make usability arguments, but that does not make it inherently better..
Adobe == buy company to remain relevant. See Macromedia, Cool Edit Pro, and PhoneGap for more details.
Seriously though, what a trip. Between LibreOffice, The GIMP and Linux, you'd think this stuff still matters...
High end print web development and/or print? You are going to use Creative Suite?
Everyone else... The GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, etc. Even then if you work hard enough, and have the right employees, you can make a workflow around thse tools.
People used to bitch mainly about gimp having a multiple window interface while photoshop had a single window (and acted as it's own window manger inside that!). Now both can do both. To sum up "better" is just doubleplusgood for "different".
GIMP allows scripting (lisp, perl, python, and others).
Photoshop has macro recording (called actions). No programming skill required. Photoshop also has Python API's (and probably more) if you really want. This is a big deal.
When did Microsoft Office get macro recording? This isn't a new idea, it is far from innovative, but how many free and open programs even offer a decent scripting API or plugin system let alone macro recording?
I've gotten lazy and gone back to lots of proprietary software. No doubt I'll
As someone who embraces copyleft and is a strong supporter of free software GIMP isn't a replacement for photoshop yet. The roadmap for GIMP should make it possible after 2.10 or 3.0
Here's what I need to switch:
Unified transform tool so I can scale, rotate, shear, etc all with one tool (currently available in 2.9 dev)
On Canvas Preview so I can see what something looks like without having to commit and undo a change over and over again.
16/32 Color Bit Depth (CMYK would be good but not required). This is already in GIMP, but not supported by everything. After GEGL is fully integrated this will be great.
Layer Masks and other nondestructive editing. Massively speeds up productivity and prototyping.
I'd really like an improvement to layers in GIMP. Right now you can't select multiple layers and move them up and down. Layer groups makes it tolerable, but it's still slower than photoshop.
On top of that the UI of GIMP is big and ugly. The menus are in akward places with way too much white space and padding taking up a good chunk of the screen. Some of this can be fixed with icon packs, customized panels, and a new theme, but it's always going to be a little oversized and awkward. Photoshop's menu organization is just about perfect; might as well copy it.
Couldn't possibly agree more. For the curious, it's not just about being able to scale/rotate/shear/etc. with one tool - it's about those operations happening concurrently when finalized. Right now, a scale followed by a rotate is lower in quality than a rorate followed by a scale. So if you ever scale something down to roughly the size you need it to be, then realize it needs to be rotated a bit - you'll have to perform the rotation, jot down how much you needed to rotate it, undo both the rotate and the scale, rotate it by the amount you jotted down, and scale again. And no, the cage deformation tool is not an appropriate alternative - it doesn't do a point-to-point deformation. The perspective tool is also not an appropriate alternative, as you can't retain aspect ratio (why this is still called the 'perspective' tool is anyone's guess).
On Canvas Preview
Preferable using the on-screen pixels for performance sake. This would need quite a few changes under the hood, but GEGL does allow for this.
16/32 Color Bit Depth
Yep - and, with it, appropriate support for RAW files.
Layer Masks and other nondestructive editing.
I don't know if this will come to GIMP in the foreseeable future. For the curious, think of this as the old (might still be in there, haven't used it in forever) Adobe Premiere workflow of adding effects in realtime, and then having to 'render' to the final output. So in the above example of scale/rotate - right now if I scale that back up, I get a bunch of blocky pixels (or fuzzy, depending on extrapolator). In a non-destructive workflow, it would reference the original pixels. The down side to this is that you need to keep references to everything and, of course, have to 'render' the final result.
I'd really like an improvement to layers in GIMP. Right now you can't select multiple layers and move them up and down. Layer groups makes it tolerable, but it's still slower than photoshop.
Honestly, I'd keep layers for simplicity sake (for most purposes, it's just fine), but add an additional node-based workflow. I'm guessing you're familiar with node-based workflows, but those who aren't.. google it.. it makes you wonder why we're still using such a simplistic concept of layers in the first place.
Photoshop's menu organization is just about perfect; might as well copy it.
Going to have to disagree with you there. I find no logic in Image, Adjust... to adjust something on what happens to be the active layer, considering the effect it has is on the layer, not on the overall image. That's just one of many little bits that confound me. I'm not saying GIMP's menu and tool layout is better, mind you - just that when looking for ways to improve it, as I said in another comment, not all of Photoshop is gold.
I personally would place the GIMP somewhere between Elements and CS in functionality. That said, for the vast majority of tasks, Elements is quite adequate. If a little more power is needed, then the GIMP is good, and if you really need / want to have the latest wizz-bang image editing tools at your finger tips, then CS is the way to go... although, if you're patient, something similar often turns up in the GIMP later on anyway.
As a professional photographer doing this for my bread and butter, I am actual
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday February 07, 2013 @06:15PM (#42825627)
Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars.
Ipso facto gimp = winner.
You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.
Is your time worthless? Are you one of the few who is not routinely infuriated by a program which has long been the poster child for user-hostile open source software? Is your budget too thin to pay $600 for a good tool, even if you need it? Or perhaps you don't use software of this type more than once in a blue moon and therefore can't justify $600? (or even $70 as Desler points out?)
If any of these things apply to you, Gimp might be better. Otherwise... not so much. Price is not the sole determinant of whether one thing is better than another. Arguing otherwise marks you as a fool.
It exists. You can download Photoshop CS3 from Adobe for free.
[citation needed].
I know there was a story on BoingBoing a couple of weeks ago where Adobe mistakenly let you download a full old version instead of an update or something. But I can see no evidence on Adobe's website that they have free full versions of ANYTHING to download. The only free versions of Adobe products (even something like Photoshop Elements which you used to get for free with scanners or cheap cameras) I have ever seen are pirated versions.
I can do anything I need pixel by pixel...... there are some amazing artists out there who have.
"When you have only hammer everything looks like a nail"
The GIMP is not bad, but it could be much much better, and if you have actually used Photoshop in the last decade you might know that. Adobe is a notoriously paranoid company, worried that Microsoft or Corel or some other bully might steal their lunch at any moment. Adobe is a moving target, always improving.
You're right, the time needed to learn to figure out Photoshop with all its weird ways of doing things (the UI being a mix between MacOS classic and Windows 3.1), needs to be added to those $600.
That makes it Gimp $0, Photoshop $5600.
Learning a different program than one is used to is ALWAYS going to take time.
Actually my time, as charged to clients, is relatively expensive. Therefore I have trained myself (as a web developer) to use GIMP for nearly every occasion, so when needed at the client site I can just download it and get to work without the time or hassle req'd to complete a purchase order and get it approved.
Same is true with Inkscape btw.
In case you are wondering, my clients are mainly enterprises that will balk at a new purchase request of several hundred, or even thousands of dollars worth of software
I can't help but guess it's been awhile since you last tried it. That said, I agree with you, it's not Photoshop.
Still, for someone who doesn't spend their life in Photoshop, I am quick to suggest GIMP for Linux and Windows users, or GIMP or Pixelmator for Mac users.
Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars.
Ipso facto gimp = winner.
You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.
That's a stupid argument. Is a Nissan Micra better than a Lamborghini just because it's hundreds of thousands cheaper?
My experience with the GIMP (Score:5, Informative)
I don't really have much to say about this review or the article, but I'd like to say, as someone who has been using GIMP extensively for the past six months, it's a really fantastic program and probably one of the best, most reliable, and most useful free/open source software packages I've used. I wish there were something like the GIMP, but for music production.
Re: (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, it's almost as good as Photoshop 5.0!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I've been used Photoshop about 15 years and I would say Photoshop should be the first example to teach on the UIX classes. It's so great that even a 5 years old could get around in couple of hours.
I don't want to troll about it, I'm a developer and I can appreciate the hard work of people behind GIMP. And their influence over Linux world with GTK. Still I hate to see people comparing saying "GIMP is waaaay better than PS".
Guess what! I
Re:My experience with the GIMP (Score:1)
Re: (Score:0)
Photoshop Elements is $70 and still way better than Gimp.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:0)
Adobe == buy company to remain relevant. See Macromedia, Cool Edit Pro, and PhoneGap for more details.
Seriously though, what a trip. Between LibreOffice, The GIMP and Linux, you'd think this stuff still matters...
High end print web development and/or print? You are going to use Creative Suite?
Everyone else... The GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, etc. Even then if you work hard enough, and have the right employees, you can make a workflow around thse tools.
Re: (Score:0)
"then" not "than"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In which way?
I always read comments like "PS is better" or "Gimp is better", but those are usually just claims without giving any substance.
So please elaborate: What is better in Photoshop Elements than in Gimp?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Support for more than 8-bits per colour channel/plane:
Works with images in non-RGB/sRGB colourspaces:
Re: (Score:2)
To sum up "better" is just doubleplusgood for "different".
Re: (Score:0)
GIMP allows scripting (lisp, perl, python, and others).
Photoshop has macro recording (called actions). No programming skill required. Photoshop also has Python API's (and probably more) if you really want. This is a big deal.
When did Microsoft Office get macro recording? This isn't a new idea, it is far from innovative, but how many free and open programs even offer a decent scripting API or plugin system let alone macro recording?
I've gotten lazy and gone back to lots of proprietary software. No doubt I'll
Re:My experience with the GIMP (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My experience with the GIMP (Score:4, Interesting)
Couldn't possibly agree more. For the curious, it's not just about being able to scale/rotate/shear/etc. with one tool - it's about those operations happening concurrently when finalized. Right now, a scale followed by a rotate is lower in quality than a rorate followed by a scale. So if you ever scale something down to roughly the size you need it to be, then realize it needs to be rotated a bit - you'll have to perform the rotation, jot down how much you needed to rotate it, undo both the rotate and the scale, rotate it by the amount you jotted down, and scale again.
And no, the cage deformation tool is not an appropriate alternative - it doesn't do a point-to-point deformation. The perspective tool is also not an appropriate alternative, as you can't retain aspect ratio (why this is still called the 'perspective' tool is anyone's guess).
Preferable using the on-screen pixels for performance sake. This would need quite a few changes under the hood, but GEGL does allow for this.
Yep - and, with it, appropriate support for RAW files.
I don't know if this will come to GIMP in the foreseeable future.
For the curious, think of this as the old (might still be in there, haven't used it in forever) Adobe Premiere workflow of adding effects in realtime, and then having to 'render' to the final output.
So in the above example of scale/rotate - right now if I scale that back up, I get a bunch of blocky pixels (or fuzzy, depending on extrapolator). In a non-destructive workflow, it would reference the original pixels. The down side to this is that you need to keep references to everything and, of course, have to 'render' the final result.
Honestly, I'd keep layers for simplicity sake (for most purposes, it's just fine), but add an additional node-based workflow. I'm guessing you're familiar with node-based workflows, but those who aren't.. google it.. it makes you wonder why we're still using such a simplistic concept of layers in the first place.
Going to have to disagree with you there. I find no logic in Image, Adjust... to adjust something on what happens to be the active layer, considering the effect it has is on the layer, not on the overall image. That's just one of many little bits that confound me.
I'm not saying GIMP's menu and tool layout is better, mind you - just that when looking for ways to improve it, as I said in another comment, not all of Photoshop is gold.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally would place the GIMP somewhere between Elements and CS in functionality. That said, for the vast majority of tasks, Elements is quite adequate. If a little more power is needed, then the GIMP is good, and if you really need / want to have the latest wizz-bang image editing tools at your finger tips, then CS is the way to go... although, if you're patient, something similar often turns up in the GIMP later on anyway.
As a professional photographer doing this for my bread and butter, I am actual
Re:My experience with the GIMP (Score:5, Insightful)
Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars.
Ipso facto gimp = winner.
You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.
Is your time worthless? Are you one of the few who is not routinely infuriated by a program which has long been the poster child for user-hostile open source software? Is your budget too thin to pay $600 for a good tool, even if you need it? Or perhaps you don't use software of this type more than once in a blue moon and therefore can't justify $600? (or even $70 as Desler points out?)
If any of these things apply to you, Gimp might be better. Otherwise... not so much. Price is not the sole determinant of whether one thing is better than another. Arguing otherwise marks you as a fool.
Re: (Score:0)
It doesn't matter how valuable you think your time is. If you simply _cannot afford_ Photoshop, then it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:0)
It exists. You can download Photoshop CS3 from Adobe for free.
Re: (Score:2)
It exists. You can download Photoshop CS3 from Adobe for free.
[citation needed].
I know there was a story on BoingBoing a couple of weeks ago where Adobe mistakenly let you download a full old version instead of an update or something. But I can see no evidence on Adobe's website that they have free full versions of ANYTHING to download. The only free versions of Adobe products (even something like Photoshop Elements which you used to get for free with scanners or cheap cameras) I have ever seen are pirated versions.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:0)
MS Paint $0 dollars (effectively)
I can do anything I need pixel by pixel ... ... there are some amazing artists out there who have.
"When you have only hammer everything looks like a nail"
The GIMP is not bad, but it could be much much better, and if you have actually used Photoshop in the last decade you might know that. Adobe is a notoriously paranoid company, worried that Microsoft or Corel or some other bully might steal their lunch at any moment. Adobe is a moving target, always improving.
Paying Adobe to get Photoshop beat GIMP forever (Score:0)
No Investment, no gain.
$6000 to GIMP then GIMP get 1 feature currently lacking. http://www.freedomsponsors.org/core/issue/78/add-other-samplers-that-properly-reduce-downsample-and-warp-images [freedomsponsors.org]
Move these $6000 to Photoshop then GIMP lose user and developer delay the progress.
you think 3~4 part-time developers of GIMP could do better job than a team of 20+ full-time developers hired by Adobe?
=> People paying Adobe to get GIMP worse than Photoshop and it is always the point.
Business won.
Re: (Score:0)
You're right, the time needed to learn to figure out Photoshop with all its weird ways of doing things (the UI being a mix between MacOS classic and Windows 3.1), needs to be added to those $600.
That makes it Gimp $0, Photoshop $5600.
Learning a different program than one is used to is ALWAYS going to take time.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually my time, as charged to clients, is relatively expensive. Therefore I have trained myself (as a web developer) to use GIMP for nearly every occasion, so when needed at the client site I can just download it and get to work without the time or hassle req'd to complete a purchase order and get it approved.
Same is true with Inkscape btw.
In case you are wondering, my clients are mainly enterprises that will balk at a new purchase request of several hundred, or even thousands of dollars worth of software
GIMP's interface has improved vastly most recently (Score:0)
I can't help but guess it's been awhile since you last tried it. That said, I agree with you, it's not Photoshop.
Still, for someone who doesn't spend their life in Photoshop, I am quick to suggest GIMP for Linux and Windows users, or GIMP or Pixelmator for Mac users.
Cause let's face it, Photoshop *IS* expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars. Ipso facto gimp = winner. You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.
That's a stupid argument. Is a Nissan Micra better than a Lamborghini just because it's hundreds of thousands cheaper?
Re: (Score:0)
Depends where you want to drive it, I'd expect the Micra to be better for city driving.