...

View Full Version : gimp or photoshop?



nexosis
04-06-2007, 01:02 AM
What is better to use? gimp or photoshop? please explain...

the_scyphe
04-06-2007, 01:30 AM
GIMP is better AFAIK.

_Aerospace_Eng_
04-06-2007, 02:26 AM
GIMP's user interface is hard to learn. Photoshop has a little better interface but has tools that you might not ever use. GIMP is free, Photoshop is not.

NancyJ
04-06-2007, 02:39 AM
You get what you pay for.
GIMP is a far inferior product to photoshop - however, its free.
There is also a much larger range of unofficial support eg. Tutorials, action, plugins for photoshop.
If you've never used either then you're at an advantage - they'll probably be equally difficult and confusing to learn - but as I said, there are more and better tutorials for Photoshop.
In my experience, Photoshop has a much more intuitive interface and is generally more sophisticated in that respect. GIMP does some very strange and unexpected things - and from what I tried, isnt really designed for large images (have to create custom brushes over something like 15px and theres no dynamic brush size slider)
GIMP lacks many of the features that are native to the latest versions of PS. I would say its probably, feature-wise, on a par with PS 6. (latest version of PS would be CS3 (v10))
And certainly, in my experience, GIMP has serious stability issues on windows.

But, decide for yourself, GIMP is free and PS has a free trial - try them both and see what you like.
But I think the fact that no Photoshop is one of the most common software reasons for not using Linux, speaks volumes.

Dont get me wrong, GIMP is a power program for people who otherwise wouldnt have a graphics editors, but in my opinion it doesnt even come close to PS

twodayslate
04-06-2007, 03:54 AM
I use Photoshop, but I should try GIMP.

codemonster
04-06-2007, 06:29 AM
GiMP has nothing to do with Linux, other than they are both OpenSource and (usually) free of cost.

If you want something stable, then use OSX.
Serious graphics development cannot be attained on a Windows box.

I agree that GiMP is not very stable on Windows, but I multiboot my those machines to get tools I need. GiMP does have quite a load of tools. There are MANY more plugins online, like one that creates 3D anaglyph images. The downside is that these are NOT usually for Windows users.

But as far as Photoshop, I know of a very prominent (recognized globally by name) entertainment company that has many Linux boxes that were running photoshop a couple of years ago when I was down there. And no, it wasn't through VMWare.

But that won't help a newbie out. Amateur and professional boundaries rarely align. Photoshop is one of the rare exceptions. CS3 is a really nice package. Photoshop 6 and GiMP were very close..until PS started loading the deck. So now you don't have to purchase things like Genuine Fractal to enhance. The algorithems in PS are much better and they look nice.
What used to take PS+ $600 more in addons can now be done with a stock package.

Is it the holy grail? no. For some raster editing, a user wants something REAL simple...like PainShopPro.
So determine your needs before committing to a package.

Karen S. Garvin
04-06-2007, 05:50 PM
Serious graphics development cannot be attained on a Windows box.


Give me a break. At the risk of starting World War III, I cannot agree with that statement. The software tools are the same, and as for hardware, many Windows computer (mine included) can dance circles around the latest Mac offering. As my husband is fond of saying, "It's the fool, not the tool."

Which means that basically, people put too much emphasis on the stuff and not on the people using the stuff. If you know your stuff, you can do very serious graphics work on a PC platform (or Linux, for that matter).

NancyJ
04-06-2007, 06:03 PM
Serious graphics development cannot be attained on a Windows box.


That hasnt been true for at least 5 years.

codemonster
04-06-2007, 10:42 PM
That hasnt been true for at least 5 years.
Ok, that statement was a bit harsh, but it is not unfounded. Last time I made a curt statement like that was to a key Microsoft employee a couple of years ago about security. It turned into a very deep discussion (not angry or heated) that gave us both a better appreciation of the matter (oh, and that I let them in on an undisclosed Exchange bug that had been around for over 4 years). But in the end, the curt statement was really just blowing steam off to expose a larger perceived problem.

That is the same here. I don't have time to write too much on this, but just understand that I am not some Linux apologist and have been deeply entrenched into the MS camp (like since the 8088).

I have personally led teams to migrate enterprise networks to Microsoft servers off other platforms (like OS/2 Warp--which was a great platform BTW). Based on my Microsoft server environment experience, I have even been awarded grants to develop the Windows 2000 MCSE curriculum for multiple campuses of a state college. (shortly after release of WindowsXP)

All of my personal laptops (and we aren't talking just a few) have some form of Windows on them. My desktops that are for gaming run MS WindowsXP and rarely have any issues. Heck, I still have over 35 Windows 3.11 desktops at the house that run.

I also own boxes that run OSX, OS9, SCO Unix, and Linux.

But let's cut to the chase here. I have worked with a couple of graphics designers that would beat the crap out of brand new WindowsXP desktops and laptops. As soon as they cutover to OSX with equivalent RAM, disk drives, and processor, the problems went away. (still using full CS suite and the Acrobat packages).
The apple platform isn't just software (although the BSD backend is key to its stability). It is about controlled hardware and MUCH better quality control.

And just for trivia fun, care to guess as to which parts of BSD made their way into Windows XP ? (and there isn't any guessing, you can use a hex editor against the infringing files for yourself).

When you realize the what/where/why then you will gain a better understanding as to the instability and insecurity of XP.

nexosis
04-07-2007, 10:03 AM
GIMP is a little harder than photoshop but with more tools, compared to photoshop that is easier but has lesser tools...

50% for each of them :).

swong7
04-10-2007, 10:39 PM
GIMP is a little harder than photoshop but with more tools, compared to photoshop that is easier but has lesser tools...

50% for each of them :).

I agree, especially when someone is used to PS, then making the switch to GIMP, it's a little different

Rudy507
04-11-2007, 03:44 AM
I have no qualms about GIMP - yeah, maybe it isn't loaded with stuff, but it can still do a heck of a lot. It serves my purpose just fine. And best of all, as people have already said, it's free.

Mhtml
04-11-2007, 04:09 PM
GIMP is a little harder than photoshop but with more tools, compared to photoshop that is easier but has lesser tools...

50% for each of them :).
To be blunt - you don't know jack.

If you have the cash to spend, GIMP all the way - it's a decent graphics package for sure, and being free gives it extra points. But honestly GIMP vs. CS3? You can't compare it to software that is backed by a billion(?) dollar company - its programmers have virtually unlimited resources and are amazingly talented (not to say the GIMP contributors aren't talented).

firepages
04-12-2007, 02:14 PM
(although the BSD backend is key to its stability)hmmm strange because mac users have been telling us how much better the mac is for graphics (& everything else) long before OSX ;)

nor IMHO is XP unstable (security on win32 is relative to experience of course ;))


And no, it wasn't through VMWare
so WINE or some app server .. but still using win32 photoshop libs.

I am a linux user these days but I still use flash and photoshop via VMware , flash because I have to ;) & Photoshop because I find it far easier to use than the gimp, even little things like cropping images is a `pain in the gimp` (not hard just a pain compared to PS)

the gimp is brilliant & scripting controls fantastic (though I just use imagemagick instead) but PhotoShop it is not, though it would not take that much work to make it so ? I wish someone would !

Archangel
04-16-2007, 03:54 PM
Photoshop vs. GIMP, honestly it's all up to what you like. Someone who knows Photoshop 5 like the back of their hand will be able to spit out better designs than someone who knows absolutely nothing and is using CS3.

It really just depends on what you are used to. If you're just starting out, I would download GIMP and the PS demo, try both and see which "feels right" for you.

codezmith
04-23-2007, 09:37 AM
it's all up to what you like
totaly or wot u find eaey,est /fastes to reach the "finished project" ..
to b honest aplication of method is probably more of a factor than the aplication ur using => all be it depending on wot ur tring to achive



also wothver platform ur using (m$ or Mac) ur hard disk (eg.location of aplication + os +scratch disk/page file ..ect)
well its late ill let this explain ...


In the last 25 years CPU speeds have increased by 1000x, hard disk capacities have increased by 1000x, memory speeds have effectively increased by 500x, mobo bus data transfer speeds have increased by 400x and floppy disks have been replaced by flash disks, which are 100,000x larger and 1000x faster than a 1.44MB floppy. But hard disk access times and sustained transfer rates and IOPS have only increased by around 5x. So hard disk performance is the last bottleneck in the modern PC. In fact the modern PC has become a ludicrously overspecified mechanical hard disk controller. Every component within it cycles at speeds faster than 200 MHz except (http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/07042003/HD4images1.htm) the hard disk which goes at 120 Hz (7200 rpm) or 166 Hz (10,000 rpm) or 250 Hz (15,000 rpm).
=D
##Solid state DDR soloutions##
-DDR Drive (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=28647)X1 (http://www.ddrdrive.com/index.html)
-i-ram (http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/gigabyte-iram/index.x?pg=1)
-HyperDrive4 http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/07042003/img/hd4board.gif (http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/07042003/hardware.htm#hyperosHDIIproduct)

Vast performance increases are seen for IO intensive applications such a Graphics, Games, Audio processing, Video processing, Code Compiling, large Databases, and large Spreadsheets etc. You can run Windows, your applications and your data all on the HyperDrive4 or use the HyperDrive4 as an extremely fast scratch disk. (http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/07042003/hardware.htm#hyperosHDIIproduct)

#peace;out#

Rocko
04-25-2007, 05:14 AM
What is better to use? gimp or photoshop? please explain...

First of all. What are you going to do with the software? If you are going to make DTP, Photoshop is the choice, it is also a good for your CV if you are looking for a job, but for other purposes there are better tools that may increase your productivity.

By example, if you work with photos for the Web, the best is PhotoImpact, for video is cinepaint.org and Web design is Acdsee Canvas.

Len Whistler
04-27-2007, 12:11 AM
What is better to use? gimp or photoshop? please explain...

Photoshop is far superior to GIMP. If you can't afford Photoshop then GIMP will do.

nolvorite
04-27-2007, 09:07 AM
why don't you people use imagemagick?
It's better than the both of them.

firepages
04-27-2007, 03:44 PM
colour the sata port in pink in the above image and overlay the logo of your choice with perspective on one of the transistors....

thats why we don't use imagemagick for usch work

kewlceo
04-28-2007, 07:17 AM
Serious graphics development cannot be attained on a Windows box.
[Note to self: take all future postings from this user with a grain of salt.]


GIMP is a little harder than photoshop but with more tools, compared to photoshop that is easier but has lesser tools...
What color is the sky in your world?


I have no qualms about GIMP - yeah, maybe it isn't loaded with stuff, but it can still do a heck of a lot.
There's an opinion I can respect. I have used them both, and find Photoshop worth the investment, but if The Gimp does all that you need, then no reason to pay Adobe prices.

My take on it: Photoshop is expensive, but not overpriced.

Drakain Zeil
04-30-2007, 10:32 PM
Gimp.

I've used it for ages, it's never held me back from doing what I want. It's free, I love it's "harder" interface, as it's also much easier for me to use. I can quickly learn difficult interfaces (my favorite game got a 90% PC:G score, but didn't sell because the controls were 'way too complicated' ... but how else do you control a spaceship?! they have 9 axis!).

Photoshop? Overrated and costly. Gimp will out-do them for free within a short while. Nothnig they offer is earth-shattering anymore.

Len Whistler
04-30-2007, 11:30 PM
Photoshop? Overrated and costly. Gimp will out-do them for free within a short while. Nothnig they offer is earth-shattering anymore.

Photoshop is years ahead of GIMP and well worth the money. I have compared GIMP and Photoshop on my computer and deleted GIMP.

sarahbee
05-02-2007, 02:40 AM
I tried using Gimp after using Photoshop, and couldn't figure out why people had been telling me for so long that they were equally good. It seems to me, IMHO, that Photoshop is far superior.

However, I agree with the person who says if you aren't doing serious graphic work, you can't beat free, and Gimp is a pretty damn good free graphics program.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum