Adobe PhotoShop VS. Gimp

Post Reply New Topic

Gimp. You can edit the menus, redesign the interface. You can write filters for it that run natively and recompile it.

And its the best price of all.

Your not alone Orwell, I have no use for that software either.

GIMP, and if I'm on Windows then I'll also use Paint.Net

Ha ha ha! Actually I found it on msn.com years ago, I liked it and saved it. It was associated with a pet artical... or something like that

Ether way, I am sure that the original artist of this image used photoshop.

I have used both, and my personal opinion is that PS is better.
Why? GIMP is free and has more functions.
But, PS is more user-friendly, is simpler, and certain things such as brushes, liquefy, and heal brush is easily available.

GIMP has a heal brush and something akin to liquefy. As for the PS style brush previews, thats pretty iconic of photoshop and they are likely avoiding treading those waters.

What gimp does need is better filter previews.

There's a boatload of brushes available on Deviant Art that have been 'ported' from Photoshop to GIMP. Not sure what the process is, but I went overboard and loaded up a few hundred. GIMP takes about a minute to boot, but then I'm dangerous...

Well I use both, preferably photoshop because I find it easier to use than gimp but when I don't have photoshop handy I use gimp.

I use Photoshop 4, under WINE in Ubuntu 9.10 (any passing geek will translate for you) - P4 is massively inferior to GIMP - I mean it won't even handle animated gifs... But it's always my first choice when I've simple resizing, sharpening and cropping to to...

I occasionally use GIMP, but I find its interface really heavy, thick and dark - and some of the scaling features suck badly in their usability... I suppose if I spent more time learing how to use GIMP - it would probably seem better. GIMP is certainly an impressive bit of free software...

When I've got heavy duty work to do - I always use Photoshop CS4 Extended, running in a Virtual Box - and it absolutely rocks in every way... £1200 is a lot of money - but it really is worth it...

The beta version for the new gimp apparently has animated brushes now, in the PS sense, and I saw a check mark to swap to what i think is an integrated program. It does away with all the floating gimp windows.

I only had it installed for a little bit before I reinstalled my linux.

It depends on what you want to do with it.
I tend to make pictures first, then use Gimp to make thumbnails, or some light 'script-fu' to enhance a picture. In the crowd I hang with 'post-work' is considered cheating...

Still, I actually have a copy of PS 7 somewhere, but Gimp does what little I need...and I use Corel Draw 8 (hey, it's even legit... for various signeage and things...

Gimp for the price alone is worth it. Never used adobe. The cost on anything software companies think you might make money using is over the top, like charging $300 for a hammer cause you might make a house. I use open source stuff whenever I can.

I chose GIMP because I am most familar with it. I use it when editing photos, screenshots or designing wallpapers for my computers and MP3 player, a Cowon D2. best of all, it's free! I have nothing against Adobe. I've used Photoshop before, but I prefer GIMP bcause it just works for me.

Photoshop, schmotoshop!

When you can make stuff like this with PSP 10....

Why use anything else?

Ditto. I've got an old version of Paint Shop Pro which does more or less what I need except icons. I tried GIMP for editing icons but just couldn't get my head around using it and gave up in the end in frustration and deinstalled it. I just don't have lots of hours on my hands to play with this sort of software and learn how to use it properly. I didn't find Gimp intuitive to use at all and the associated help was crap.

I have to go with Gimp. Simply because I very seldom edit images. So Photoshop costs too much for that.

And also, I love open source software.