Why I like GIMP better than Photoshop CS2

[bernardwest]

<p>jacopo, we had this discussion (among other voluminous discussions) in one of the gargantuan threads in the colour film&processing forum. I posted examples, one 16bit and one 8 bit, same curve to both, the 8 bit shows posterisation. It isn't hard to show this over and over again, it's just that to most people this is so obvious as to not bother wasting their time. The thread is the Film vs Digital dynamic range thread by Mauro Franic. Good luck finding my example images in there! LOL!</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>i would say that i agree with who ever said that; not all images need to be work in 16 bits, and most of the images i work are 8bit..exept when is for a major cosmatic campaing shot by a P45 or P65..then i use all the information possible to make sure that i got all the subtle tone and make up gradient.</p>

<p>for the rest, editorial, fashion image, publicity, ad etc.. most of the time if not all the time i work in 8 bits.<br>

_____</p>

<p>now back to the regular fight : ) gimp vs photoshop!</p>

[godfrey]

<p>lol ... If you want to talk about photography, Bill, go to the Leica Users Group. ];-)</p>

<p>G</p>

[janne_moren]

<p>I have full access to Gimp and Photoshop (my wife is a graphic designer). I prefer Gimp over PS. As our scanner is used through a PS plug-in on one of the Macs, I do use PS to scan film, but as soon as that step is over I save and do my post-processing in Gimp. Why? Overall I like the Gimp interface better, and it feels quite a bit snappier and more responsive. I've used both quite a bit - and I have a semi-expert in the house so to speak, but I get my editing done faster and easier with Gimp. To each his own.</p>

<p>16/8 bit can be a very real issue, but almost always it's a non-issue in practice. Don't forget that PS used 8-bit channels only for years, and graphics professionals were using it anyhow. The bit depth mostly matters in the early steps, when you set the overall tone curve and white balance. You almost always do that as part of your scan or raw conversion. The subsequent edits very rarely have any relevant impact on it. Yes, 16 bit (and higher) editing will be nice once it lands, but it's nothing I'm waiting for with bated breath.</p>

<p> </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>wow Gimp does every thing photoshop does, that is really amazing, not; you get what you pay for. if Gimp satasifies you great, I am happy for you</p>

[kari v]

<p>Ok, GIMP loses in the bit department but otherwise has very good feature set indeed. I tried Photoshop Elements 7 and GIMP side by side for two days (just out of general interest) and it was no contest if you needed even a bit more advanced edits, GIMP wins hands down. Just a point if you happen to want something in the "normal people" price category or for free. (Yes, stealing CS3/4 is a matter of about 30min but that's not the point.)</p>

<p>Somanna, what do you mean? Installing X11 / XQuartz is normal stuff. For Windows you needed to install GTK+2 before the new version came and although it's just two packets to install instead of one it seemed to confuse a lot of people.</p>

[bms]

<p>Bill, thanks for this post. I did not know about GIMP, all my photography friends are non-pros that shy away from a $300-$600 plus purchase, given that stock have tanked etc...... :( ... I will pass the info along.<br>

I guess if $$$ do not matter that much and/or you are pro, I probably would recommend Photoshop. I have CS3 and I think the 8 vs 16 bit discussion is futile, especially for BW conversions (see below, done with Channel Mixer in CS3)<br>

Everyone else, it X-mas time... let's get along :)</p><div></div>

[peter_berger]

<p>Underlying the statement 'GIMP is free' is the the thought that one's time has no value.</p>

 

[les_lammers]

<p>I have tried a few PP programs and all have their good and bad points. *I* am going to use PS Elements because of the published and peer support. The available plug ins are a big plus too.<br>

The VW analogy is quite true. Industry leaders are what the competition aspires to be. :-)</p>

 

[35mmdelux]

<p>I use GIMP for all my online work.</p>

[photobiscuits]

<p>If gimp is your editor of choice that's fine, but I get the feeling you're not too familiar with CS2:<br>

<em>Menu picks are more accessible than CS2, for instance Levels and Curves are at first level.</em><br>

CTRL-L. If you're not into learning shortcuts, you can always create custom menus to remove clutter.<br>

<em>Easier to zoom up and down and shrink/expand the window to fit.</em><br>

CTRL +, CTRL -, CTRL 0, CTRL ALT 0, f, ff, fff - that's prety easy<br>

<em>Most dialogs have fine-grained up/down control over numeric values</em><br>

Yes so does photoshop. Or you can just type numbers in the field.<br>

<em>Curves window includes Levels histogram.</em><br>

Place a histogram palette on the workspace. It changes in realtime with adjustments made to curves.<br>

Photoshop starts up fast enough for me, and I've not had any problems with artifacts.<br>

Enjoy the Gimp. If it works for you that's what matters.</p>

<p> </p>

[nrb]

<p>I fing 8-bit is not enough for film scanning and processing. Sorry!</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>There are lots of image editing programms out there. So what to look for in any such programm?<br>

 

<ul>

<li>versatility</li>

<li>stability</li>

<li>R&D</li>

<li>support and aftersales</li>

<li>price</li>

</ul>

For me that leaves PS as the best option by far.

</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>How does PS Elements compare to Gimp for those who have used both? I've found PSE to be a credible alternative to PS for more casual users and practically free if you get an older version.</p>

[seriousgoose]

<blockquote>

<p>Bill left of the most significant fact about GIMP - it is free! That has enormous appeal to the crowd that makes lens shades from bean cans. <br>

<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>LMAO - nice. <br>

<br /><br>

I took a look at GIMP two years ago. GimpShop was the cool thing then - someone made a branch that simply rearranged the menus and interface to make it easier to migrate from Photoshop. It blew. The toolset is nowhere near as deep, refined, or reliable. Automation is nearly as tedious as doing small batches by hand. IMO it's not a viable alternative. <br>

<br /><br>

Is there any viable alternative to Photoshop? When I did web multimedia development in the late 1990's (that's last centruy, kids!) I tried several apps - Corel Photo Paint, Paint Shop Pro, but none had the depth, usability, and quality of Photoshop. Are there any contendors nowadays? I can't remember the last time I heard someone I respected talking about another editor. There must be someone at least trying to make an alternative.<br>

<br /><br>

At this point it would take a worldwide cataclysmic explosion of buzz/hype to make me even look at another app over someone's shoulder. AFAIK there just isn't anything else close. Even if I did switch to something better, it would take a while to overcome the advantage I have in Photoshop of having worked in the application for so long.<br>

<i>Gratuitous photo insertion removed. Please post only relevant photos.</i>

[mark_satola1]

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4154934">Somanna Muthanna</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a> "...right now I chug along with iphoto... sigh."</em><br>

I use iPhoto for basic stuff myself, and for the most part it's fine, since most of what I do is documentary-style shooting. Nothing wrong with it if you're not looking to do all kinds of after-the-fact work on the image. There are some things it won't do, and some things that you can sort of make happen by fooling around with the sliders. For instance, I forgot to set white balance to tungsten the other day, and was able to bleed out some of the orange glow by upping exposure a bit and bringing down the temperature. Not perfect, but serviceable. I just have to remember to make sure I've got the camera at optimal settings.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I started with punch cards in the 1960's; Fortran.</p>

<p>In the 1970's many computers would fit on a desktop; I got to use some HP boxes with Basic in the later 1970's; had a TI99 at home; a timex sinclar; friends had alot of S100 stuff. I got a IBM PC with a rev "A" board that had 16k of memory and DOS 1.0 The TI99 or HP 9xxx series then was BETTER than the IBM PC for double precision then because early IBM DOS/basic had double precision in + - * / and not trig yet. One got a real 14 digits on the TI99; and only about 7 or 8 with a PC. Later us PC users got double precision in trig functions; we got the "rev B" board that started with 64k and would fill up to 256K; later we got a "six pack plus" card to add more memory.</p>

<p>One would write graphics to the screen by wrting ones own code.<br>

<br /> <br /> GIMP today is totally star trek compared to ancient computer days.<br>

<br /> <br /> The tombstone Mac in 1983/1984 used the 3 century old 72 points per inch spacing as a pixel pitch; this seems to tick off newbies who are ignorant of printing history. Some stupidest comments on photo.net are the 3 century old 72 number is a misnomer; when its older then Ben Franklin. The 72 number is in most 1980's graphics programs.</p>

<p>Here I got into Photostyler then moved to Photoshop on a Mac; then got the PC version with version 2.5. Photostyler got bought out by Adobe; it was a lower cost competitor with many features; Adobe "sort of morphed/gobbled up" Photostyler to be really early Elements; a wimped down photoshop version; often a free bundle with a scanner purchase.</p>

<p>Here I have fooled around with GIMP at times; I sort of feel like its a rental car with weird controls; or that TV remote from hell in a Motel; ie it takes me 10 times longer to do anything. I played around alot with the first versions of GIMP long ago; the one I spent the most time with was 1.2; many early versions were unstable.</p>

<p>Still it was very impressive for a free program; but since Photoshop here has been used so much It is just another program.<br>

<br /> <br /> <br /> Photoshop CS2 loads slower than GIMP because its a lessor program; each version of Photoshop is larger; thus there is more crap to load. On this 1Ghz P3 here Photoshop 3.0 will spool up in 1 second; CS2 takes many.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The customers; friends and photographers I know who use GIMP are very few compared to Photoshop.<br /> Its about the same ratio as folks who drive hybrids, drive electric cars; or have mohawks; or voted for Ralph Nader; or use Alpas; or own Noctiluxes; or did super well in the stock market the last year :).</p>

<p>The GIMP users "I know off" *tend* to be not Mac folks; but more technoid PC and Linux users.</p>

<p>They have the Red Hat decal or Linux decals on their cars instead of the Mac "Apple". There is probably a coupld of orders of magnitude of folks using older Photoshop versions; bootleg photoshop; of elements than using GIMP.</p>

<p>I really dont have ANY hard core photographer customers who use GIMP; its more the farting around technoid and cheap skate crowd.:)</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with free software if it works for your appllication; I jsut find it hard to believe that CS2 would be viewed inferior than GIMP; unless one really uses few features of CS2.</p>

[dmz17]

<p>Here's my 2 cents' worth: using Photoshop carries the for me unbearable cost of having to use Windows (Mac is not an option for me, although I gave one to my wife just last week). Gimp runs on Linux. So do Bibblelabs Bibble Lite and Bibble Pro.For my purposes Gimp is fine. The reason I use Bibblelab products is that none of the other RAW converters I have tried under Linux are very good IMHO.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>RE<br /> <em>;GIMP starts up so fast I don't need to make an espresso, thus reducing caffeine consumption</em></p>

<p>Here is some time to spool up Photoshop; by version.</p>

<p>Its with an obsolete computer Its on the old PC that I am on now</p>

<p>. Its a 2000 IBM 6565 P3 computer with a 100Mhz bus; it came originally with a 667MHz Coppermine CPU; now it has a 1.0Ghz CPU and 1 gig of ram. The hard drive is now a 160 gig unit; it once was just a 20gig. Its got an older IDE controller; a 66 speed not a more modern 133 verision of higher. Its actually a nice computer for photoshop work. The box has win2000 SP4. the box is fast enough to play any video and still be on the internet.</p>

<p>The data below is with the box being on the internet; I am downloading files/manuals on from a FTP site; it has 7 Firefox 3.0 browsers open; one "the world" browser open; two Opera browsers open; wordpad open; and windows explorer.</p>

<p>CS2 loads in 28 seconds<br /> CS loads in 21 seconds<br /> PS7 loads in 9 seconds<br /> PS5.5 loads in 5 seconds<br /> ps4 loads in 3 seconds<br /> ps 3 loads in 1.5 seconds</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>If you have a boatload of fonts photoshop can spool up slower;<br /> <br /> or if one has a virus program that "looks at" each new exe that is spooled up;<br /> <br /> or it can be with just a slower CPU or slow 1996 controller like a 12megs/sec Busmaster.<br>

<br /> Each main EXE file of photoshop is larger with each newer version; thus the data set I have presented is typical;<br /> <br /> a newer version of photoshop "spools up" slower with your upgrade on a give box.<br /> <br /> As one loads up more crap many programs can load slower; as the box gets impacted with crap in the bowels of the registry;<br /> <br /> or some virus program is police-ing the exe's that spool up.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>I tried GIMP and I was pretty disappointed... in some cases it's got some nice features, but it's got a few quirks and issues that even the old Shareware Coreldraw didn't have. PaintShopPro is pretty awesome though, for much less than Photoshop... also... I can't get PS CS to load on my computer at all because it crashes during the registration phase because they decided to open the separate registration program DURING the loading of Photoshop and it runs out of memory every time. That's just bad programming. PaintShopPro reminds me of the much friendlier, pre-CS Photoshops of the olden days... when I've used them on other people's computers the new interface just annoys me to no end. </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Patrick, my LEGAL copy open fine...or i would have call them and report this problem..you certainly have done so?</p>

<p>Also, it seem that a lot of people complain about speed, but rarely mention that they got a old computer with not many ram installed..so speed is not the real issue; old computer that need to be update is more the real problem.</p>

<p>My CS4 open in less than 3sec, on Mac Intel, 4gig and 6gig ram...anyone find that slow?<br>

In the end, you dont have money to spend on a software, and for that reason GIMP is the answer. You have money to spend for various reason, and want the biggest support, tutorial, book, lesson etc.. you go with Photoshop, a software vastly use by pro, and by many hobbyst around the globe, on mac and pc..for decade.</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>GIMP vs Photoshop. Great. Just what we need, another subject to draw a line in the sand over. As w/ everything else in photography, what works for one person doesn't work for another. Thank goodness we have all these cool choices to pick from.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

<p>Thanks everybody for the great information and entertainment! This thread is probably too long for me to post serious replies at this point, but here goes, in order.<br>

Patrick L, when I talked about JPEG settings I did not mean color, but the worsening of artifacts. JPEG artifacts are magnified insignificantly if you save files at the original quality and chroma settings. Photoshop cannot do this, especially JPEG from digital cameras with 2x1 chroma subsampling, a setting Photoshop CS2 cannot produce.<br>

Somanna, what about X11? Also you could install VMware Fusion or Parallels Desktop and run GIMP in a Linux virtual machine, retaining the ability to copy&paste between OSes.<br>

Benjamin, thanks for your 8-bit versus 16-bit B&W samples, which were convincing. I can't help but think that this could be avoided by working in color and then converting to B&W at the last minute, but I am not very interested in B&W, so I have not investigated.<br>

Peter Berger, time value is exactly what I'm talking about: for me GIMP is more efficient.<br>

Mike, thanks very much for the Photoshop shortcuts. I did not know about f ff ff. However what I mean is that Photoshop has no way of fitting the window to the image (does it?) to avoid scroll bars. I dislike Photoshop's take-over-your-entire-desktop paradigm. The doo-hickey windows on the right side always get in the way of my image. Bottom line, and this is important for Adobe product managers, their product has lost its leadership to GIMP in my opinion.<br>

Kelly F, have you timed CS3 or CS4? Patrick L claims 2-3 seconds for CS4.</p>