Gimp, Useful or Not?

[thomas_hardy1]

I've tried to use this product off and on for awhile, but really

have not been able to do much with it. Does anybody actually use

this program? It seems much more difficult than say PS Elements 3.

I couldn't get it to view CR2 files, it acted strange when I tried

to look at a PSD file.

 

What does it do that PS elements 3 or 4 doesn't. Sorry I know there

are archived questions about Gimp, but I'm looking for recent

experience since there seems to be multiple versions out.

[ravi_swamy]

GIMP is an open source program. That means the program is free and the source code is available. Some of us care about that, others could care less. Some people don't like Windows and prefer to run Linux and GIMP is the standard photo editor on Linux systems. I use it everyday and I'm quite happy with it.

 

Photoshop definitely has more features, plugins, etc. but last I heard Photoshop Elements did not have curves and GIMP does.

 

There is a program called dcraw that I've used to convert Nikon NEF RAW files, maybe it will work on CR2 files. I don't have Photoshop so I've never tried it on PSD files. I'm assuming Photoshop would have a tough time with GIMP .xcf files too.

[don_e]

I use gimp in linux for web graphics only, due of the lack of color management and 16bit support. It is very capable for that and if it had the two features it lacks, I would use it much more often as I prefer its and linux's interface to anything else. Ufraw is a its raw plugin (there is also a standalone version of ufraw). Dcraw can be used as well. Canon crw's are not a problem in my experience. I've had no problems with psd files although I doubt all psd features are supported.

[serge c]

I think from an average user point of view the main problem with Gimp (other than the horrible user interface design) is the lack of adjustment layers. And then the color management. I think Cinepaint is color managed though and Gimp itself can be made colormanaged...

 

You can find a Gimp offshoot that handles 16 bits, too (like Cinepaint I've mentioned and some others).

[serge c]

Cinepaint was used a lot by movie studios before Pfotoshop fully supported 16 bit from what I remember.

[glenbarrington]

Gimp Useful? Yes, definitely.

 

BUT it is a 'bare bones' editor. In other words it does all the things you need it to do and does them reasnably well. What it lacks, is the level of handholding that PSE provides or what PSP provides, or even what Serif PhotoPlus provides. No wizards, help section not that great. You can't just jump in and start using it. It takes a committment in time and effort to learn. And frankly, quite a bit of experimenting.

 

It's a good editor and it is free, but it isn't for everyone.

[dano1]

I use it quite often as I prefer Linux over Windows. My thoughts are as follows...

 

Advantages:

 

1. Histogram built into both levels and curves. I cannot express how vitally important this is when working with negatives. Trying to color balance a sunset shot without knowing where to clip the highlights in the red channel for example is a major problem. My other photo editor that I use in Windows, Paint Shop Pro X, does not have this feature.

 

2. It's 100% free as in beer. Considering it gennerally costs about $100 for Paint Shop Pro X, which only has a few features that GIMP does not, it's a great deal.

 

 

Disadvantages:

 

1. Lack of 16bit support.

 

2. Lack of easy scripting, batch processing, and batch renaming as in PSP X.

 

3. Hard to get used to interface.

 

4. Mouse wheel does not zoom in / out unless used in conjunction with the ctrl key, as of the latest version (beta).

 

5. No interpolation in the main window, film grain gets accentuated when viewed at 50% or less.

 

 

Some day I would like to ditch Windows entirely, but that day has not come.

 

Dan

[scott_eaton]

Maybe we can get Scott McNealy/Sun Corp to secretly fund Gimp with the intention of hurting Adobe the same way they've pumped capital into Open Office to hurt Microsoft {smirk}. <P>

While I use a lot of open source tools that work pretty good, Gimp is not one of them, at least the last few times I've tried it. Even with CS2's crippled performance Gimp feels like I'm using a Photoshop 3x or something. Linux may be free, but the fact Photoshop doesn't run natively on it doesn't impress me much. <b>Real</b> computer users pay for software, <b>real</b> computer users require decent applications ahead of operating systems, and <b> real</b> computer users get a paycheck for writing good software.

[Karim Ghantous]

I use the GIMP now and then and so far the only thing I don't like is that you can't draw primitive shapes (or at least I haven't found that tool yet). Even MacPaint lets you do that! I only use PhotoShop to mess around with filters. For all my graphics so far I've used the GIMP.

 

Otherwise it's a great tool. ATM if you need something like PS you simply have to spend money. Linux has allowed us free and excellent Web servers and the like but as yet we don't have a PS 'killer'. It will take some time before open software dominates this market segment.

[ravi_swamy]

Sorry Scott, you can throw <b>real</b> in front of everything but that doesn't make it true. I design <b>real</b> computer chips for a living and I use software that costs $1 million and other software that is absolutely free. Why? The $1 million stuff has no free equivalent. The free stuff I use is faster, has less bugs, and more features than the commercial equivalents. Real people care about getting real work done, not the amount of money they spent to get it done.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I use photoshop 3.0 more than Gimp! ; and run PS 3.0, 5.5, 7, CS, and CS2, plus old photostyler and several ps elements versions. Gimp is not bad for a free program. I feel like I am farting around too much when using GIMP, many because Photoshop is like an old shoe, used since version 2.5 on the PC. It is cool that Gimp exists. I dont hate it or anything, just find that have not found it to the the most productive program.