Why I like GIMP better than Photoshop CS2

[bill_tuthill]

<p>Forgot to say: control-L does not mean Levels, it means formfeed (in ASCII) or clear the screen. I do not use Photoshop often enough to grow accustomed to nonstandard keyboard shortcuts. Kudos to Adobe for using Firefox-standard Ctrl + - 0 for size control.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>As i always said; learn how to properly use a tool before making a complain...</p>

<p>1_JPEG settings I did not mean color, but the worsening of artifacts___<br>

Change your compression setting to 8=10-12 and you wont see any artifact other than those already present in a JPEG. Also, dont look at your image at more than 100% because more than this you will see of course more problem than those really existing.</p>

<p>2_Photoshop has no way of fitting the window to the image___<br>

A well knowend command from version 2 at least 15 years ago; alt + cmd + 0 on a mac</p>

<p>3_ The doo-hickey windows on the right side always get in the way of my image___<br>

Again, another well knowed command; the escape key will hide any menu while you are working.</p>

<p>4_Patrick L claims 2-3 seconds for CS4____<br>

I claim it because its true..Kelly alreay give you the same number some answer before.</p>

<p>5_ I do not use Photoshop often enough to grow accustomed to nonstandard keyboard shortcut___<br>

Well, maybe that is why you think GIMP seem better? Or faster for you... Its easy for me to said that Aperture suck, when i only use it 1hrs in total vs more than thoushand hour for Ligthroom. People often complain about stuff they dont use, or simply use once in a while, and they compare it to another software they better understand..like DPP vs Lr 2 for another example.</p>

[godfrey]

<p>If someone is unwilling to learn, teaching is a waste of time. </p>

<p>G</p>

[silverdae]

<p>I use PS CS3 at work and love it. I use GIMP at home. Why? I run Linux at home. I don't want to dual boot. I don't want to run a windowss emulator. Plus, I'm poor (that's really the main reason LOL!). I do my "artsy" work at home then bring it to the office to do the final curves and color adjustments. I order prints through our pro lab through work. <br>

Easy enough solution. Simply know the limitations of whatever software you use, use it to its full potential, then fill in the gaps with some other program when you can.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>"Patrick L claims 2-3 seconds for CS4"<br>

he's absolutely right. Patrick's on a Mac, I'm on a PC. It's biblical fast and the ease of use is terrific.<br>

Top of the line. Not because anyone here says so. Try a trial version and you'll know.</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>Benjamin,<br /> a suggestion: use sRGB for web, not ProPhoto.<br /> <br /> I don't like severe tonal distortion, but .....a quick 8 bit result using PhotoResampling.</p><div></div>

[bill_tuthill]

<p>Patrick, thanks for trying to help, I really appreciate it. After I get a Panasonic LX3 and start using RAW, maybe I will return to Photoshop. What is Cmd on Windows, anybody know? It took me until now to return to a licensed copy of CS2, but nothing I tried worked. Alt+Ctrl+0 is actual pixels, not the same as Ctrl+E in GIMP. Esc has no effect in Windows. Photoshop CS2 just took 23 seconds to open a 2592x1944 image that took 1 second to open with Irfanview. Can't wait for 3 seconds with CS4! Maybe Photoshop just sux on Windows?<br>

However you are wrong about JPEG. Photoshop's 10-12 quality settings use 1x1 chroma, so they introduce new artifacts when writing 1x2 chroma subsampling produced by digital cameras. Maybe this changed in CS4, but I doubt it. I can prove the superiority of GIMP for this type of editing, and probably will if Godfrey gives me any more guff about refusing to learn something I don't need to learn. GIMP used to be much worse than Photoshop, but now it is better in many ways, that is my report upon returning from the Land of Linux to Photoshop.net.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Bill, im not a scientist nor a mathematician..what i am is a pretty good photo retoucher that base my knowledge on fact.</p>

<p>Maybe you read somewhere that "Photoshop's 10-12 quality settings use 1x1 chroma, so they introduce new artifacts when writing 1x2 chroma subsampling produced by digital cameras" and maybe its true, if you look your image at 300% i dont know. What i know is i dont see any visual difference between my tif or my jpeg when save and print. And thats is for me the real deal. Its like the 8 vs 16 bit fight, i dont said it not good, what i said is most of the time you wont see any difference on screen or on print between them, and since my client i more demanding about quality then the normal Joe, i coul assume that most of the rest of us (i will put myself in the batch) wont see the real difference when printed.</p>

<p>I still think its hard to bash or compare 2 software if you dont know 1 good enough to make a real complain. The problem start with point that are not true, or not applicable to photoshop i should say. They are true for you because you dont know Ps, and now you are talking about combo key that are not the same..well of course! you wont have the same key from freehand vs illustrator, qurak vs page maker vs indesign..Ps vs Gimp..and thats normal.</p>

<p>In the end, if Gimp does all you need is fine, but understand that pro like me dont work with it because there more support, more update, more book, more knowledgable people around me that can help with Photoshop vs Gimp. Ps is THE industry standard for now and until a serious competitor show his nose (and even then..i take around 5 years for people to make the quark / indesign transition) i will not move from it just because the key are not the same or because mathematicaly artifact are introduce in a Jpeg.</p>

<p>Im like Thomas, i like to see it with my own eyes before i can believe it; the most problem with people is that they tend to read, and assimilate what they want and keep that as THE thrut..withotu testing it themself and see the REAL result.<br>

For example; you can read that a Apple Cinema Display is not good enough because of this or that and that a NEC monitor is way better for the same price. To be honest, i ahve both, and for years as a pro (a pro mean that ALL my income come from photo retouching) i use a ACD and it was rigth on the target everytime when i receive final proof from the commercial printer. Godfrey still use one and im sure he knows what good or not. When i got my NEC, i was happy to see that my image look more natural vs my 3year old ACD, but the color, the transition, the finesse, the sharpness where...the same! If i had only read it, i wouldtn have bought a ACD, but putting those monitor side by side, i could say that any serious photographer pro or simply amateur could be well equip with a ACD 100%.</p>

<p>I would liek to see what you can prove, honestly, i didtn see any variation from a P45 tif 8 bit srgb file, vs saving it as a jpeg quality 10-12, on monitor at 100% or printed and expected up close (neither from my 5D) but you migth teach me something and i will be glad.</p>

<p>" a day where you learn nothing its a lost day " i heard that last week form someone in a café.. i find it pretty good..</p>

[godfrey]

<p><em>I can prove the superiority of GIMP for this type of editing, and probably will if Godfrey gives me any more guff about refusing to learn something I don't need to learn. GIMP used to be much worse than Photoshop, but now it is better in many ways, that is my report upon returning from the Land of Linux to Photoshop.net.</em> <br /><br /> Such 'JPEG superiority' is absolutely irrelevant, Bill. I only use JPEG files for size-reduced, compressed web display, or when clients request them for print-only use. No one can see the difference between the supposedly superior GIMP JPEG quality and Photoshop JPEG quality on the web in a normal sized image or a print made at 360 ppi, if you've done a good job with the rendering in the first place. Pixel-peeping, to use Michael Reichman's term, for JPEG artifacts at this level is a total waste of time and energy. <br /><br /> If you choose not to understand that, well, such it is. <br /><br /> Godfrey</p>

[des adams]

<p>Clearly it would be good to have a viable alternative to Adobe and indeed Microsoft ... no not Apple.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>CS3 five seconds on my five year old, Sony computer, very fast coffee maker or a very slow computer if it takes 23 seconds for your CS2 to load. I am interested in your proof that GIMP is surperior and why should it take any guff for you to prove some thing. I don't have GIMP, but a life time of experience that has taught me that there ain't nothing free in this world, it all comes with a price, we may not be smart enough to know what the price is, but it has a price. Whether tracking our internet habits or some thing else, but a price there is.</p>

[des adams]

<p>Still things can always be improved.  It would be nice to have more choices</p>

[scott_turner]

<p>"GIMP used to be much worse than Photoshop, but now it is better in many ways, that is my report upon returning from the Land of Linux to Photoshop.net."<br>

<br /> OK, I admit I chuckled when I read the "...returning from the Land of Linux to Photoshop.net." phrase, but I also shook my head, because this is exactly the kind of off-hand quip that gets people defensive and turns reasoned discussion into, well...<br>

<br /> That said, I expect Bill's right about the jpeg issue. I say "expect" because I'm not familiar enough with current GIMP to know for sure what they're offering, but I do know what PS does. Good as PS is in most areas, and despite the fact that I personally can't imagine using anything else as my primary tool, it does have some surprising holes in it - holes that I wish photographers would hold Adobe's feet to the fire over a bit more. PS's jpeg codec is, put bluntly, just awful. It lacks any control, other than a simple quality slider, and tends to be poor bang for the buck - that is, it produces larger file sizes with poorer quality than competing implementations.<br>

<br /> Patrick's points are well-taken as, for the most part, I don't care about jpeg as I don't use it at any point in my workflow, except... in maintaining my website, I do care, because what I want to display on that site is the highest possible quality, while maintaining reasonable file size. When it comes to saving jpegs for web display, I use something else. It's a minor issue for me, but a real one.<br>

<br /> The other PS tool that I simply don't use, other than for the most casual, quick'n'dirty work, is resizing - most especially downsizing. Bicubic is provably one of the worst methods possible for downsizing images, (bicubic sharper even more-so, despite Adobe's recommendation) especially large images with high detail. Again, when I downsample for web use, I use something else and save my viewers' eyes.<br>

<br /> Photoshop is a great tool, and arguably the best overall choice for serious users, but let's not be blind to its shortcomings.<br>

<br /> Scott</p>

[bill_tuthill]

<p>Whew, I hate it when rationality triumphs in the end! Can't disagree with anything Scott says.<br>

Note that my workflow is: JPEG from a P&S digital camera, edit in GIMP, post JPEG to website. For this workflow, GIMP is far superior to Photoshop. I'm not a professional photographer. My website had ads that earn money, but the photographs do not.<br>

Over the years I have read two Photoshop books, and spent more time inside Photoshop than inside GIMP. The fact that I'm still asking stupid questions indicates to me that Photoshop's user interface design is less than ideal.<br>

I'll post the JPEG study later in a different thread. The differences really are quite stunning, not just at the pixel peeping level.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Biil, maybe if you where shoothing raw (far better then jpeg and less artifact to start with) and use your image for other use then a web site (print for instance) and put more time using a more robust software..well maybe, maybe you would have something to said about quality. The fact that you are still asking stupid question is because you are learning... The fact that you shoot jpeg and resave a jpeg and dont understand by doing that you already loose more quality, thus probably see more artifact in the end should ring a bell.</p>

<p>Again for the zillion time, if you prefer GIMP for your workflow, is fine with me, so i agree when you said "For this workflow, GIMP is far superior to Photoshop. I'm not a professional photographer" but please, dont try to convince me that gimp is far superior from photoshop...its a nonsense, at least for me a professional.</p>

[don_muller]

<p>As a new user and new to photography, (Nikon D70, w18-70 1:3.5-4.5 lens), could someone please explain the difference between 8-bit and 16-bit as a final product in comparison between Photoshop and GIMP. I'd like to start shooting in RAW because as I educate myself it seems the way to go, but I also need the capability to view and possibly manipulate. I am also wanting the best quality black and white I can accomplish. These photos are for my own use and not for sale. Enlargement bigger than 12-15 inches is plenty for now. I haven't used either of these programs and can offer no opinion at this time.<br>

I look forward to any sincere comments anyone with experience has to offer.<br>

Sincerest Regards,<br>

mule</p>

[don_essedi]

"could someone please explain the difference between 8-bit and 16-bit as a final product"

 

The final product will be 8 bit depth in either instance. The value of 16 bit depth is in the post that leads to the final product, if your post work is extensive. An analogy would be: tiff for editing, jpeg for display.

 

Some of the anit-16 bit depth arguments remind me of the dark age (1989-1995) arguments against 8 bit depth. Why do I need 8 bits? After all no one can see 16 million colors, only n millions, and anyway no image will have them all.

 

Back then the cost of a 24 bit board (8 bit depth) was not cheap, it likely required upgrading the computer, as well as buying new software. So, really, cost was their issue. That seems true today, too, regarding 16 bit depth.

 

The Gimp is a well established application. It's been available for about 15 years. It works just fine. If you don't want to spend the money for Photoshop, the Elements version is very affordable, has some 16 bit depth capabilities, and will support a lot of the plugins made for Photoshop. I haven't used it since version 4. Based on it, I'd say it is a value-laden package for the price.

 

Good Luck

[bill_tuthill]

About a month ago I used Photoshop CS2 for converting PhotoCD scans via 16-bit ProPhotoRGB, editing levels and saving 16-bit PNG, which I then color corrected and converted to JPEG with GIMP. Colors were definitely richer, with better tonal transitions, than with 8-bit PhotoCD conversion in Irfanview.

 

Boy oh boy, CS2 on Windows is really buggy! Current GIMP is very solid in comparison. Hopefully Adobe has fixed most of those bugs by CS5. GIMP has a Photoshop plug-in extension, which I have not tried, but some of the best photo software (Topaz Denoise, Focus Magic) works best as a Photoshop plug-in.

 

As a kayaker, let me say that no waterproof camera has RAW mode, so even if I had a RAW workflow, my friends do not.