A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Featured Equipment Deals

Nikon Announces the Df Camera Read More

Nikon Announces the Df Camera

The Nikon Df: Nikon announces a vintage/retro looking camera, reminiscent of the F, F3, FM, and FE that carries on some of the best digital features while also allowing you to use your old...

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

Getting Started in Video Read More

Getting Started in Video

Photographer Ted Kawalerski made the transition from still to motion and has never looked back. Ted takes you through the steps to get started in a medium that will open your photography business to...


Gimp vs Photoshop

Responses


First     Prev     1   |   2   |   3    

Zack Zoll , Mar 03, 2013; 05:20 p.m.

I have Gimp on my netbook. It works okay for making minor changes to already compressed files. As others have said, it is terrible for RAW files. I believe it just got 16 bit support, too ... or maybe they're working on it right now. One of those.

But it cannot be overstated how terrible the user interface is. It's so bad that I think it must have been intentional - making commands and pathways as different from Photoshop as possible to avoid lawsuits and C&D orders. Oh, and I've never used a non-Adobe editing program with better print drivers than Photoshop. I've used programs made specifically for printing that were better, but never an editing program that was better.

Also, if you, a friend, or a family member have a student ID, you can order Photoshop online for something like $180. I don't think it's worth $550 to save some hassle over using GIMP/etc., but it's well worth $180.

Mukul Dube , Mar 03, 2013; 06:53 p.m.

I have no trouble accepting what you say, Keith. In return, my good experience as a GIMP user must be accepted by those who do not like the software. It does what I ask of it and I have become used to its ways. As for its user interface, I do not see why that should be called bad because it does not mimic Photoshop's.

Dave Redmann , Mar 03, 2013; 11:16 p.m.

Most Photo editing software packages have at least one feature that even Photohop can't handle.... Does Gimp have anything like that just curious

At least at one time, GIMP offered more / more-precisely user-controllable saving an image as a JPEG than Photoshop did. That of course would rarely be a major advantage. To me, the relevant question is not whether GIMP is anywhere near as good as Photoshop (it's not); the relevant question is what advantages do Elements or Paint Shop Pro or whatever have over GIMP (or for that matter, maybe Picasa) that would justify your paying $75 or $100 for them? And for many people, that is a tough question.

Also, if ... a friend, or a family member have a student ID, you can order Photoshop online for something like $180.

This is called a straw-man purchase, and it is a type of fraud. If the nominal purchaser is buying it for someone who does not qualify for the advantageous terms of purchase, then the nominal purchaser and the actual purchaser / user are cheating the publisher (Adobe). Do this with a firearm and you can get a substantial federal prison term. Do it with software and you may never get caught, but what you're doing is probably a crime (like theft by fraud or some such) in most U.S. states. And in any case, it's dishonest and unethical.

Matt Laur , Mar 04, 2013; 12:26 p.m.

Consider using Adobe's monthly subscription service. You get Photoshop, Lightroom, and a bunch of other apps - including all sorts of other expensive production tools you'd have to spend thousands to get - for cheap, cheap, cheap. I signed up during a promotion, and am only paying about $25/month ... and have thus saved a fortune on the video production side of things.

Richard Williams , Mar 07, 2013; 04:51 p.m.

If the nominal purchaser is buying it for someone who does not qualify for the advantageous terms of purchase, then the nominal purchaser and the actual purchaser / user are cheating the publisher (Adobe).

A cynic might doubt that Adobe cares, and suggest that this is just a convenient way of maintaining a 2-tier pricing system - i.e., their real customers, the professionals and corporate buyers who routinely upgrade to every new version, will continue to pay the full price, while a bunch of other people who would otherwise never have considered something as expensive as Photoshop end up paying a lower (but hardly cheap) price because of some tenuous link to education (which pretty much any casual user can come up with).

Bill Tuthill , Mar 09, 2013; 11:43 p.m.

I don't read photo.net very often nowadays, but ran across this thread.

Yes, GIMP has better JPEG handling than Photoshop. It can write 2x1 chroma subsampling, as shot by most digital cameras, which Photoshop cannot do. It can determine the JPEG encoding of a file and save at the same quality settings to minimize re-artifacting.

In most ways GIMP is merely a rip-off of Photoshop, with several useful features missing. Ones I miss are 16-bit, smart sharpen, and shadow/highlight tool. I don't miss non-RGB color spaces, or adjustment layer, but some people mention them. I prefer the GIMP menu structure to Photoshop, but in the latest version SaveAs has been replaced by Export, which is idiotic.

Bill Tuthill , Mar 09, 2013; 11:46 p.m.

duplicate (server slow tonight!)

Bill Tuthill , Mar 09, 2013; 11:46 p.m.

duplicate

David Dahlstrom , Mar 19, 2013; 09:14 p.m.

"Consider using Adobe's monthly subscription service. You get Photoshop, Lightroom, and a bunch of other apps..."

Just remember that if you do this and use any of the proprietary features of Photoshop, you effectively not longer have a license to even open your own files the moment you let your subscription lapse (or Adobe goes away). It's cheap for a reason.

Dave Perkes , Mar 23, 2013; 06:29 a.m.

Just remember that if you do this and use any of the proprietary features of Photoshop, you effectively not longer have a license to even open your own files the moment you let your subscription lapse (or Adobe goes away). It's cheap for a reason.

Interesting thought; but LR is currently available on disc; so as it is compatable with ACR edits if you do let your Photoshop licence expire you should be able to read them in LR.
I can hardly describe the Photoshop subscription as cheap; however its less painful to spread the payments.
I convert all my edited images to JPGs or TIFs with backup copies of RAWs; so in the worst case scenario I will still have JPGs or Tiffs. I believe that PSDs can be opened in other apps like Aperture as well; so I'll not get too concerned at this stage.


First     Prev     1   |   2   |   3    

Back to top

Notify me of Responses