Should I learn Gimp or PS?

[jernejk]

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm starting my digital photography and I realized there are some things you just can't do just with good lighting and a camera. So I've been evaluating different "digital darkroom software", of which I like LightZone and LightRoom the most (the combination of both would be a killer). I will probably choose LightZone, becouse it's cross platform and currently I use Linux as my primary platform.<br>

I learned, however, that even "digital daroom" is not enough for today's expectations etc. I guess more editing is a must, especially for portraits. So now I'm facing the dilemma, should I learn Gimp or PhotoShop?<br>

Gimp strenghts:<br /> - free<br /> - platform independent<br /> - easyer to put into my workflow<br>

Gimp weakneses:<br /> - there are not so many tutorials for Gimp as PS (or I can't find them)<br /> - it feels clumsy<br /> - i'd have to hunt for plugins, scripts, filters, to get what's already included in PS<br>

I wouldn't like to invest my time into something that's dead end street. What do you recommend?</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>-- "- there are not so many tutorials for Gimp as PS (or I can't find them)"<br>

Try this: http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/<br>

If your main platform is Linux, Gimp is a good choice, albeit it has a number of shortcommings.<br>

Between Gimp and PS (or even PS-Elements) I believe the PS-family is the better choice.</p>

<p>Also ... if you decide to try raw-format ... and since you're on Linux, Rawtherapee is worth a test...<br>

http://www.rawtherapee.com/ ... for the raw-conversion ... the tweaking is still better done in Gimp or PS.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I would learn Photoshop. Compared to how much time you'll invest learning whichever program, the initial cost is small.</p>

<p>If you ever decide to pursue additional training or seminars, you'll be hard pressed to find many classes in Gimp.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>Since you're on Linux, also look at Bibble.</p>

[wing8]

I've been with Photoshop since the 90's. Yes, there learning curve is a bit steep at times but there are a few million others out there that I can ask questions about it, here and on many other online communities too. There are even some good (and really, really bad) tutorials on Youtube for Photoshop and a lot of other photography related subjects too, maybe even Gimp. Just my thoughts, go with the one you feel most comfortable with.

[dave_redmann]

<p>Make no mistake about it, GIMP's current version has much less capability than Photoshop. However, for editing portraits, it should be more than adequate. I use the raw conversion software that came with the camera, save an 8-bit TIFF, and edit in GIMP. It's rare that I miss a capability that Photoshop has but GIMP does not. If you want to use GIMP to do the raw conversion, you can get the UFRaw plug-in.</p>

<p>Since you are just starting out, free seems very good, compared to $600, unless money is not an issue for you. (I cannot see paying for Photoshop Elements with GIMP available for free.) If you were doing this as a business, or planning to do so, Photoshop (the full version) is the professional standard.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>I found a wonderful book on GIMP 2 at the library. Amazon also sells it and you should buy some books anyway. My opinion is for most things photogs do, gimp is satisfactory.</p>

<p>I have CS3 and use only a small portion of it. The problem is there are a few enhanced item commands over the simple commands found in PS Elements for which I paid dearly. Most people will be happy with $99 PS Elements.</p>

 

[luckystokes]

<p>I have seen a couple of books on Gimp in Barnes and Noble. Check Amazon.com too. If I remember, Gimp only deals with 8 bit files, but this should not be a problem unless you are making huge moves. On Linux, as Kuryan suggests, check out Bibble.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Learn what's easily available for you, (sounds like that might be GIMP) and be open to learning the other as well. I've been doing Photoshop steadily since version 3.0 - the Adobe interface can seem a little obscure initially, but once you have it down, all Adobe programs operate the same way (just an FYI).</p>

[janne_moren]

<p>We have both at home - my wife is a graphic designer - but I prefer Gimp, overall. It's more lightweight and to me many tools feel somewhat more intuitive than with PS.</p>

<p>That said, they are actually quite similar in the way they do things. Most of the time spent learning either program is stuff that's applicable to both. The difficult part is not to learn where the tools are, after all, but what they actually do, and which tool to use when. I would go out on a limb here and say that if you learn both concurrently you would probably gain a deeper understanding of editing in general than if you just look at one.</p>

<p>For RAW processing under Linux, get UFRaw. It's very good and it integrates nicely with Gimp (and F-spot if you decide to use that) as well.</p>

 

[john_crosslin1]

<p>The gimp works for me. You could try the gimp for a while, and if it does not work for you personally, switch to PS.</p>