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".
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.
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.
Cause let's face it, Photoshop *IS* expensive.
The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate
knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin
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: (Score:1)
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.