Gimp vs Photoshop

<p>Most Photo editing software packages have at least one feature that even Photohop can't handle. This does not mean that they are as good as photoshop, but it does set them appart. Does Gimp have anything like that just curious... </p>

<p>GIMP wasn't so much "built" as it "jes' growed" like Topsy.</p>

<p>I confess that as an old (started with Photoshop 2.5) Photoshop user, I have looked at GIMP; but for me personally, its learning curve makes Photoshop look like the "kiddie slope" at the ski resort.</p>

<p>I've clearly been imprinted on PS, so for me it's hopeless to think of changing.</p>

<p>I use both, but only because most of the time I am using a Linux OS and it is often easier to use GIMP than reboot into the Windows partition. I prefer PS for serious work, but that is probably because I basically use Gimp for online postings and to send attachments to friends.</p>

<p>I use both, but only because most of the time I am using a Linux OS and it is often easier to use GIMP than reboot into the Windows partition. I prefer PS for serious work, but that is probably because I basically use Gimp for online postings and to send attachments to friends. Also, I find that my 35mm film scanner software doesn't work well with Linux, but works great with Windows.</p>

<p>There is the obvious feature. Photoshop can't handle free. It is far smaller and some say will run on a less capable computer. </p>

<p>There is a sleeper out there in Corel's Paintshop Pro X5. For anyone but an industry professional one could make a really good argument for it. After all we are talking about the difference between about $50.00 and $600.00. For all but the most unusual tasks, Paint Shop Pro would be fine for any photographer. Certainly the support and training materials for Photoshop are far better but for most tasks the engine isn't substantially better.</p>

<p>There is a cult following around Photoshop. It is "state of the art". But. There are very many people using it who would be happier with a copy of Elements or PSP and a new $550.00 lens. </p>

<p>Other than free what feature can PS not do that others can?</p>

<p>I used Photoshop for some months about ten years ago. Since then I have used the GIMP for all of my work, supplemented by UFRaw and Digikam and Phatch. I cannot understand why people almost always say "learning curve" when they speak of the GIMP.</p>

<p>Can you export a PSD in Corel or Gimp?</p>

<p>Corel's PhotoPaint (part of the Draw suite) happily writes PSD files. </p>

<p>I just saved a file as PSD in GIMP 2.6. It can be done: but I do not see why anyone should want to use a proprietary format when TIFF is available.</p>

<p>Because the PSD format can preserve all sorts of information that the TIFF format can't.</p>

<p>I tried GIMP but thought it had the most appalling user interface I have ever used. Of course subsequently I have used Colorperfect which probably has the worst UI known to man....</p>

<p>Currently GIMP only supports 8-bit editing whereas I think Photoshop can do all its editing in 16-bit. I think 16-bit support is just around the corner for GIMP. I think the biggest deal about GIMP (and other open source applications) is documentation, support, and training/learning. Not that these things don't exist for GIMP, its just that you get what you pay for.</p>

<p>Matt Laur: You wrote =" Because the PSD format can preserve all sorts of information that the TIFF format can't." Pl tell what information TIFF cannot preserve as I dont know about it.</p>

<p>One thing Gimp got going for it is its size compare these numbers:<br>

Photoshop Elments vs 10 = 191MB<br>

Photoshop CS5 = 367MB + 5.71(help) + 50MB(extension Manager) + 67MB(device central) + 128MB(Bridge)<br>

Gimp = 38MB </p>

<p><strong>**Duplicate**</strong></p>

<p>Whenever open source software is discussed, the old "You get what you pay for" line is certain to be stated. In this instance, the assumption that expensive equals better, is simply not correct. There is a great deal of fine software that can be downloaded at no cost. In well over a decade with the GIMP, and with Linux and other open source software, I have always received prompt help from other users, and often from the people who wrote the software. Open source software is well supported. We who use it are not necessarily dumb cheapskates.</p>

<p>Thakur: Data related to things like layers holding the functions applied by plugins, just for starters. Smart objects tied to other products, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"We who use it are not necessarily dumb cheapskates."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mukul - please don't put words into my mouth. As a user of many open source software programs including some of those discussed here I'm well aware of the support that is available, and yes, much of it is very helpful. My experience with community based support is often very good. Not all paid-for programs come with superior user support systems. The two are simply different and result in different user experiences, and require somewhat different expectations and approaches for obtaining that support.</p>

<p>Mukul,</p>

<p>The Gimp lacks even remotely effective highlight recovery, its Raw handling is barely adequate at best (UFRaw is no ACR), it is not compatible with Photoshop plugins like Topaz DeNoise (Wavelet denoising is not in the same league, GREYCstoration is a usability nightmare) and its 8 bit processing pipeline is a significant disadvantage.</p>

<p>The Gimp's interface - even in release 2.8's single window mode - is horrible.</p>

<p>Regardless of cost (and I'm a big fan, on principle, of Open Source), the simple fact is that The Gimp is sorely lacking in a number of areas that are of specific importance - to me, and to others who have tried it (many times, in my case) and continue to be disappointed by it.</p>

<p>I have Gimp on my netbook. It works okay for making minor changes to already compressed files. As others have said, it is terrible for RAW files. I believe it just got 16 bit support, too ... or maybe they're working on it right now. One of those.</p>

<p>But it cannot be overstated how terrible the user interface is. It's so bad that I think it must have been intentional - making commands and pathways as different from Photoshop as possible to avoid lawsuits and C&D orders. Oh, and I've never used a non-Adobe editing program with better print drivers than Photoshop. I've used programs made specifically for printing that were better, but never an editing program that was better.</p>

<p>Also, if you, a friend, or a family member have a student ID, you can order Photoshop online for something like $180. I don't think it's worth $550 to save some hassle over using GIMP/etc., but it's well worth $180.</p>

<p>I have no trouble accepting what you say, Keith. In return, my good experience as a GIMP user must be accepted by those who do not like the software. It does what I ask of it and I have become used to its ways. As for its user interface, I do not see why that should be called bad because it does not mimic Photoshop's.</p>

<p><em>Most Photo editing software packages have at least one feature that even Photohop can't handle.... Does Gimp have anything like that just curious</em></p>

<p>At least at one time, GIMP offered more / more-precisely user-controllable saving an image as a JPEG than Photoshop did. That of course would rarely be a major advantage. To me, the relevant question is not whether GIMP is anywhere near as good as Photoshop (it's not); the relevant question is what advantages do Elements or Paint Shop Pro or whatever have over GIMP (or for that matter, maybe Picasa) that would justify your paying $75 or $100 for them? And for many people, that is a tough question.</p>

<p><em>Also, if ... a friend, or a family member have a student ID, you can order Photoshop online for something like $180.</em></p>

<p>This is called a straw-man purchase, and it is a type of fraud. If the nominal purchaser is buying it for someone who does not qualify for the advantageous terms of purchase, then the nominal purchaser and the actual purchaser / user are cheating the publisher (Adobe). Do this with a firearm and you can get a substantial federal prison term. Do it with software and you may never get caught, but what you're doing <em>is</em> probably a crime (like theft by fraud or some such) in most U.S. states. And in any case, it's dishonest and unethical.</p>

 

<p>Consider using Adobe's monthly subscription service. You get Photoshop, Lightroom, and a bunch of other apps - including all sorts of other expensive production tools you'd have to spend thousands to get - for cheap, cheap, cheap. I signed up during a promotion, and am only paying about $25/month ... and have thus saved a fortune on the video production side of things.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the nominal purchaser is buying it for someone who does not qualify for the advantageous terms of purchase, then the nominal purchaser and the actual purchaser / user are cheating the publisher (Adobe).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A cynic might doubt that Adobe cares, and suggest that this is just a convenient way of maintaining a 2-tier pricing system - i.e., their real customers, the professionals and corporate buyers who routinely upgrade to every new version, will continue to pay the full price, while a bunch of other people who would otherwise never have considered something as expensive as Photoshop end up paying a lower (but hardly cheap) price because of some tenuous link to education (which pretty much any casual user can come up with).</p>