Has anyone used the GIMP as a photoshop alternative?

[brendan_s]

Hello all

 

There is an image manipulation program called "The GIMP".

http://www.gimp.org/

 

A fully functioning version can be downloaded from:

http://www.gimp.org/stable_ver.html

 

I was wondering whether anyone has used it, and, if so, whether it's

any good/what its limitations are.

 

Cheers

 

Brendan

[ricardojmendez]

Brendan,

 

I use The VaGimp as my main editing program (aside from things like NeatImage), it's an excellent tool. Main limitations I'm aware of are that it doesn't work with 48-bit images and has no CMYK support.

 

You can find a link to a site with some really good Gimp tutorials here: http://ricardo.strangevistas.net/archive/000026.html These exemplify perfectly why Gimp does work for photographers.

 

Also, do a search for "Gimp" on Photo.net. I'm sure you'll find several posts referring to it.

[mike_wollenberg1]

I have extensive use of the GIMP under linux. It is not a photoshop replacement

(yet) but what it does it does very well. Its main limitations are no 16 bit color, no

fancy tools like the healing brush, no color management (although there are add

ons that may work I've never tried them), LAB color space is not built in, and there

are less third party plugins. I think it excells over photoshop in that many of the

tools/filters work in a more strait foreward way, it has many more filters built in and

any you find on the net are usually free, and all commands/tools are accessed by

right clicking in the picture your working on, which causes a pop-up menu to

appear that is essentially a vertical version of the horizontal menu bar like the one

along the top in photoshop. I like not having to drag the mouse all the way across

the screen to change an option or whatnot. Overall I would say it is a better

photoshop than say photoshop 5 LE, but definately crippled compared to

Photoshop 7. If it had 16 bit color, healing brush, history brush, and ICM I would

use it over photoshop.

[tim_verhoeven1]

<p>I haven't tried it out myself but CinePaint <a href="http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/">http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/</a> looks very promissing. It is based on Gimp but adds things like 16 bit support.</p>

<p>It is targeted to movie studios where it is being used, but not the less looks very useable for the Digital Darkroom.</p>

[tim_verhoeven1]

One think I forgot to add. CinePaint is available for UNIX, Windows and Mac OS X platforms ;-)

[oskar_ojala]

It's a nice program, especially on Linux/Unix. However, I prefer the user interface of Photoshop, but then again, I got used to Photoshop a long time ago. Photoshop also has much better features for professional printing, if you need that.

 

Just try Gimp (or Cinepaint) and see how it suits. It's capable of professional quality, so you needn't worry about that.

[stefan1]

The gimp is very stable and a helpful application on my unix box, but gimp and cinepaint both crash too frequently to be useful on my windoze xp machine.

[edvan22]

I used the gimp while I was employed by a small non profit doing web produciton and graphic design. It is a very capable program but it's not photoshop. I also do agree that it is not as stable on windows... (it hurts to think of all the work I lost) While there were a few things I preferred over photoshop, I would stick with photoshop any day if I had my choice just for the tools and workflow.

[seanb]

The Gimp is fine if you are doing mainly web based work. The big plus of Photoshop for me is in the colour management, in particular the ability to preview images as they will appear on different output devices.

 

The other problem I've found with the Gimp is that some filters, such as unsharp mask, create a new image with the filter applied. This takes some time, especially with big images, and means you can't mess around with the sliders and expect to see instant results. This makes it very difficult to get precise results without a lot of trial and error.

 

Having said that, it is a perfectly adequate replacement for Photoshop Elements and other lower end image editing tools. Pros and serious amateurs are still better off with Photoshop.

 

I would also agree with comments that the Gimp works better on Linux than Windows.

[filippo_giarratano]

<p>The above comments all seem pretty accurate to me.

</p><p>

Stability: I use The GIMP on both Linux and Windows machines. It's rock-solid stable in Linux, but it seems to accumulate junked memory in Windows, leading first to slower performance and, if you persist, to screen freezes. It's not hard to get into the habit of exiting and reentering the program every couple of hours, though (you take breaks, don't you?) -- and as long as I do that, stability in Windows is never a problem.

</p><p>

Interface: It's very different from Photoshop. If you know your way around Photoshop already, The GIMP can be disorienting at first -- it was for me. Both interface approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Photoshop's interface is more conventional and therefore easier to intuit for Windows/Macintosh users. In The GIMP, menus are more contextual; there's a lot less stuff on-screen to choose from at any given moment. You can either like the visual spareness or be intimidated by it. I personally prefer The GIMP's approach, but I'm sure that's because I use it more than Photoshop.

</p><p>

Scripting: Not important for everyone, but a definite GIMP advantage over Photoshop is its superior scripting capabilities. You can automate almost any editing routine in The GIMP.

</p><p>

Anyway, it's free! <a href="http://www.americanstate/comp.html#gimp">Give it a try</a>.</p>

[steven_clark]

The user interface for Cinepaint sucks last time I checked. For example there is NO numerical reference whatsoever when doing curves so the only way to work it is to eyeball it which I find a royal pain in the ass given the human brains ability to adapt to the color given it.