Adobe PhotoShop VS. Gimp

Post Reply New Topic

well, how much do you understand about professional photography and workflow? The reason I didnt give examples is because it is not that simple and depends on how well you understand how a pro works with photos and flow of photos from camera threw to the end. If you knowledge is limited to knowing only about using the programs and basic photography, then you dont see the big picture of there functionality, and would need to read some books to get a understanding. Even amature photographers like myself who learn this stuff get alot of benifit out of it though. Basic to sum it up, I will try to explain some of it.

First, Photoshop has adobe bridge, that is used to organize and view your photos, but most pros who use photoshop also use Adobe Lightroom, that gives you a ton of power for batch processing your photos. So say you shoot 600 photos in one shoot, and shot all these photos in raw format, thats 600 photos you need to process, adjust, convert, etc. GIMP just does not have the power to do that. Even if you can do batch processes with GIMP, it will take you forever to get threw those 600 photos, and the end result will not be so good.
Second, Photoshops ability to work with camera raw files is top notch, and is always being updated to support new cameras, for a pro who only shoots in raw, this is a must. Gimp does not have that kind of support, sure you can work with raw files in GIMP, if your camera is supported, but generally it does not have enough support for camera raw file formats
Third, Photoshop all around has better, more complicated features that give you better results. That is not to say that you cant get pro results with GIMP, sure you can, but GIMP is limited, it has limited color depth and end results compared to photoshop. Photoshop has many options for scripts and actions, more complicated and much better masking abilities, pro level third party plugins like Nik and OnOne plugins that allow you to do stuff you cant do in GIMP no were near as good (or at all), adobe camera raws ability to work with camera raw of pretty much any new camera etc. There are literlay hunderds of things that a pro photographer uses that are options that are not in GIMP, or dont work as good.

I guess my point is that this arguement is pointless, the two programs are not made to do the same thing, and are made for two totally different users. Photoshop is made for pros, and has a ton of features that the novice would have no need for, or not know how to use, or even know they are there. GIMP is made for the non pro, who just wants to manipulate some of there images, and it works great for that, and has all the features needed for most of the users.

When it comes to photoshop elements, GIMP wins, that is if you dont find GIMP to complicated
For the pro or advanced amature photographer, photoshop CS_ is the program to get, because of some of the reasons I listed above, but for most everyone else, GIMP will probably give you everything you need

Firstly I appreciate you taking the time,

I'm an amateur, I guess. I am just getting into high speed images. I have a canon rebel, additionally a sigma macro lens and just got a slave/remote flash unit so that I can do bulb exposed images timed by the flash instead of shutter.


Oh ok. In my linux install I have f-stop(comes installed with the system) and likely acts in a similar way to this bridge. Thumb nails, renames and moving them around, right? I can preview and select one or multiple to open in GIMP. I activated a plug in to adjust raw images before they get into GIMP as well. I doubt its nearly as good of course, but I can adjust the colorspace, simulate f-stops and stuff. Likewise there seems to be some lightzone and bibble applications,but again, i doubt they are as good as lightroom. I dont know if lightroom runs in wine either. Maybe?



You are right. Not being a pro these are rather vague. Resizing? Adjusting exposures, noise reduction, stuff like that? I can pre-process those things without reducing the raw bit depth.

I can, yes. I know of three ways, either a mouse trained macro sequence, writing a script or actually making a plug in. A fourth I will mention later.


Here you seem to be either suggesting a memory/processing problem, or a clunky interface. Not sure which. Can you clarify?


How so? Bit depth? GIMP now incorporates GEGL which extends the bit depth per channel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEGL



I'm not sure what obscure cameras you are speaking of. The UFRaw plug in supports these: http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Cameras.html Now thats only about 350 cameras, but...


Could you list any of these features by name? Your statement is somewhat vague.


Agreed. People used to make excellent use of photoshop 1 after all. Talent and training trumps tools, right?


Vague on the end results and untrue on the color depth as stated earlier. I can excuse the vagueness on the end results because we both agree one cannot get into detail on the myriad permutations possible in art.


Saying 'many options' is like tooth paste commercials saying "more dentists prefer x". They dont say "most".. they cant.

Lets agree: A plug in may be written: true of both GIMP and PS. programmed actions: true of both. Scripts: again, both feature this. Gimp uses a type of lisp incidentally. Does PS have a forth mechanism?

As for masking, I am unsure what special masks PS has that GIMP lacks?


I'll have to look those up. Here is a surprise for you. Most PS plug ins are going to work in gimp. The API is public knowledge so reverse engineering happened years ago.

Here is a tutorial on how. You dont have to actually read it.. just know that its true. http://www.instructables.com/id/Photosh ... _The_GIMP/


Well I already gave you that compatibilty link for camera types. But I'll let you in on a secret: my system preview knew how to decode the canon raw format from the moment I plugged the camera in. I had to activate the UFRaw plug in just for the raw adjustment software.


Now dont exaggerate. There are only a few hundred buttons and menu selections in photoshop. GIMP has more than 2 buttons.




I can agree with what you have said here.


Haha, yes. But elements is foot in the door software. They just want you to hunger for the full experience. Its nerfed and cant be expected to compete with gimp, which has no reason to hold back anything. I agree with you again.



Yes, more than likely for the pro. Industry needs standards. I dont know where they get off charging so much though.

I'll give you one thing that I wish you had brought up. I'm rather surprised you didnt mention it, because it is a weak point in gimp. When you apply bevels and stuff, it tends to happen instantly, whereas gimp takes a bit of time to calculate it. I think its a design philosophy thing. GIMP assumes you are going to follow through, where PS takes the assumption that you just want a preview. It does the correct calculations only when you apply the changes. [edit] oh it looks like that gegl fixes that. [/edit]

In the end, there isnt really any features that PS can innovate that GIMP wont catch up to. The version iteration of gimp is much quicker and because of the open nature of the gimp base code, adobe cannot claim intellectual infringement without opening their open code to the courts.

Here is the very basic UFRaw raw processor. Its done what I need it to do, so I never sought out the better alternatives.
[lau broke this overwide img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3735901/raw_adjust.png[/img]

lol, somehow I KNEW you were going to pick that all apart, every word I said I am not sure why you feel so strongly about this subject to put so much effort into it, but I am not going to put as much effort/time into this discussion. It is much more complicated then you are making it sound, it is simply not just finding a program or addon for GIMP that will do those features for you, you also have to consider the quality and consistency of the end result. This is why I said it is complicated to try to explain, because you are wanting PROOF, and it is hard to give you proof and explain this all without typing up a book in this post. When you go to the store and pick up a magazine, there is a reason why every photo in it was edited in photoshop, or a program like apple aperture, there is a reason why they dont use GIMP. It is not that GIMP is not a good image editor, it is because of the reasons I said in my post.

If you want to use GIMP, great, it is a great program, and obviously does everything you need it to. I am not a pro, and really dont need photoshop and lightroom, I could get everything done with GIMP, but I am a little obsessive with photography. Use whatever gets good results for you, and if you cant justify the price and functionality of photoshop, then you probably dont need it anyway

you don't need to post a book, but I'd be very interested in examples
You can start with one or two and we can have a conversation about it

It is difficult for me to compare Photoshop with Gimp because I don't use Photoshop (I used to with the version photoshop 5 long time ago)
Also not sure if image editing for a children's book is professional enough, but that seemed to be alright for Gimp

Just a little example to start the interesting 'Gimp/Photoshop comparison' to start ? (I have only this little before/after example, but I can post more in the future, not much time this week)

how about this, Fuzzy, Lemon, you take the lead and post WHY you think GIMP is so much better then photoshop? Yes we know it is free compared to photoshop, but when it comes down to it, what makes GIMP better, give me the sales pitch of why I should be using GIMP instead of photoshop! The most I see here is claims that GIMP can do everything photoshop can do.

Fuzzy, the screenshot of the raw program, I can tell you just by looking at it that the program just does not cut it for me (and a little tip, learn how to read that histogram, the bottom one, it is showing major underexposure and detail loss that is obvious from looking at the photo, a underexposure like that cant be fixed with ANY raw program, because so much detail was never recorded to begin with. You know you have a proper exposure when the histogram looks somewhat like a mountain, that just reaches both sides of the box. Look at the histogram on the camera after you take a photo to confirm proper exposure and if you want a slight undexposure, compensate for it but still make sure the histogram at least reaches the right of the box so you get the best detail in your photo.)

Of course I did. You made the most unfounded claims about disparity of features. All that you showed was that you were speaking from lack of experience with gimp. Everything you claimed gimp doesnt have... it does. A spectacular fail on your part.

You see I actually am somewhat familiar with photoshop.



Haha, no its not. GIMP does everything that every version of photoshop did... up till now. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the newest photoshop has features that gimp doesnt, but it should be as plain as the palm on your forehead that industry did fine with, back in the day with, say, photoshop 3. That is to say, the end result of a printed photograph had the same qualities that a photograph developed from traditional film did.

If you had any familiarity with gimp you would have said something about its blatant lack of cmyk colors management. That is a patented thing and they just cannot use it. So you are telling me all about the color white without knowing anything about red, so to speak. Know your opponent before engaging him. Know gimp if you are going to make claims against it.

However, we can save to psd (the photoshop format) and send it to the printers, same as you photoshop dudes. They'll handle the conversion to CMYK.


I really cant help myself it seems. You beg to be picked apart. What 'found' program are you talking about? The UFRaw? Its a plug in, same as those 'found' plug ins you use in photoshop.



Ok, I went to the store and picked up the latest issue of linux journal. Want a screen shot? Shall I give you a list of magazines and books published fully with free software? I can do that. Could anyone tell the difference?



You are pretending that PS imbues pixelated(and printed) photons with some magical particle X. You made some invalid claims which I shot down. You repeatedly made the very funny claim "PS is better but I cant tell you why". That doesnt cut it in debate. If you were running for governor you'd lose.

You claim that end results cannot be discussed. This is false.

Lets break it down:

current version of photoshop is CS4. Is that the one you are speaking about? Is that the one that you own? CS5 will be out in this year(2010).

Is that better than gimp 2.6? (I use a beta of gimp 2.7), but I dont expect you to be able to use a beta photoshop.

Lets say that CS4 [b]is[/i] better than gimp 2.6.

Is CS4 sufficient for professional use? Of course. Is it wide spread use? Why yes it is. We are in full agreement.
How about CS3? Pro use? Yes. Still in use? probably more than CS4. It only came out in 2007.

Is gimp 2.6 better than CS3? It only came out this fall, so it has had 3 years to copy the hell out of even CS3.
Does CS3 have some special access to bits beyond 32, gimp stops at 32 bits, taking into account that 32 bits of color is far beyond the ability of the human eye to render? Lets be clear: the artist cant tell what hes doing at that level. Lets be more clear: his monitor cannot show him.

And cs4 came out in 2008. Time for feature creep. Several iterations of gimp have come since then.
Again, No. So purely from a logical and scientific point of view, yes we can discuss end results in a comparison of GIMP to any of the photoshops.

And we can deduce that photoshop has no magical color space that gimp cannot touch. There is no copyright on color depth.

Is there any functionality that gimp cannot adopt, which PS has? No. Gimp has full access to PS plug ins.

You are arguing that a production ford is better than a production chevrolet. Is there anything a ford can do that a chevy cannot? No. Is there anything that PS can do in a color space that gimp cannot? Again, no.

Will gimp overtake PS? Yes, it seems so(show you why in a second). Does commercial software beat free? No. Now I show you why.

Cinepaint. http://www.cinepaint.org/ Ever hear of it? Its based on gimp.. and its used hugely in the movie industry.

Have a look at the art along the top. I see harry potter, lord of the rings.. The child of gimp, at least, puts lie to your claim that only photoshop is good enough for professional use.
http://www.cinepaint.org/about.html look at studio users. You just assumed those movies used photoshop, didnt you? You thought that non photoshop work would stand out as inferior to your perfectionist eyes.

And that is why I agreed with your claim that gimp and PS have different focuses. There is no reason for gimp to head in the same direction as photoshop. Its child(cinepaint) is already eclipsing photoshop. If you cant taste the difference, there is no difference.

You know what happens to someone that tries to do everything, right? Jack of all trades, master of none. PS will grow to be a big clunky unwieldy application. GIMP will have children which will fill all the development space formerly occupied by PS.

I personally really really hated GIMP. It's probably my own fault or something, but anything I made just didn't look... well, good. I felt like I was using some version of Photoshop from the 90's, whilst Photoshop CS4 is doing great for me. However, I recently switched to Adobe Fireworks. Photoshop was good, but Fireworks make me work lots and lots faster, it's actually easier, and more... intuitive, I guess. And cheaper! Seriously, if you mostly use your programme for web graphics, or you don't need more than basic edits on pictures, try Fireworks. Photoshop is a bit of an overkill in many cases.

But I'd still prefer Photoshop to GIMP.

Sheesh...they're tools, and regardless of features, they're only as good as the person using them.
Gimp Vs. Photoshop. Poser vs Daz Studio, Wings 3d vs Blender...ti goes on and on...

If Gimp works for you (and it does for me), then use Gimp. If you need Photoshop, then you need it. There's 'spendy' alternatives to it, most likely...

Fuzzy, I dont understand why your getting so hostile and mad, I posted my opinion, without any proof to back it up, mostly because I didnt want to spend the time trying to prove something that I see is sort of pointless to try to prove, as it is not going to acomplish anything. It is obvious your happy with GIMP, and seem pretty against using photoshop, but I am not sure why you care so much what I say, if I believe photoshop "imbues pixelated(and printed) photons with some magical particle X", then that is my opinion that I am entitaled to. You ask me why I thought photoshop was better, I told you, then you started to atack me. I really dont understand WHY you feel the need to attack me and get so mad over this thread?
Is it just me or do you do this to everyone, because this seems to happen every time I post a reply to threads in this forum, you seem to single me out for some reason, and is the reason that most of the time I avoid posting in the Tech forum.

I'm not looking for a competition roadracer, but for an interesting conversation,
why do you think it is lost before trying to?

I don't get it, neither why you think fuzzy is attacking you, I thought you started saying 'Photoshop is so much better that you even don't have to proof it' or something like that, but hey that's ok, everyone his/her opinion. Now only, if this makes people interested and take up a conversation why stop?
Fuzzy is inviting you to say interesting stuff, you have an audience !
(And both Gimp and Photoshop will survive our conversation you don't need to be afraid of that )

Well, I made my avatar with GIMP, and I know the avatar isn't that good, but if you saw the source images I had to use to get it then you might like it more.

At any rate, I prefer GIMP simply because I know how to use it and get good results with it. It works fine for me. I don't need to pay hundreds of dollars for a few extra features which will probably be coded into GIMP eventually anyway.

Not to get involved in your argument, even though that's precisely what I am doing... But... you made arguments about Photoshop being better than Gimp and he answered them with facts. That's debating, not attacking. it seems more like you're weaseling your way out of answering his points...

I thought it was worth a response. I got into a debate where I was out of my league a while back and I just admitted that I knew less and couldn't be bothered spending time to learn the information needed to counter the argument.

Not that I enjoy attacking you.

This thread is really starting to piss me off, I sure hope some of you dont talk to others off-line like this? It is the internet and you sit there and say whatever you like, this is why I held back replying, because I know no matter what I said, since I was the one singled out, everyone will pic my post apart and shoot down EVERYTHING, and just continue to try to make me look like a foll, and just make me end up breaking something (I know, I have some anger issues). This is why I didnt continue, because it is only going to make me mad at the fact that people cant make a damn post without disrespecting the person you dont agree with. There has not been any debating in this thread, I guess poeple dont understand what that it.
So I didnt want to contiue and I thought I made that obvious, but no, now I get people who are going to keep responding with messaegs like this

with the intension of saying I simply dont know what I am talking about and should just admit it, only to try to get a response out of me and to try to get me to respond only so you can continue to try to shred me apart.
You know the difference from a debate, opinion, and attacking, a debate being a factual argument, the exchanging of facts to support what your saying. Opinion being a subjective statement, about how you feel about something or your perspective. A attack (as it applies here) is what was implied in the posts to give me a negative image. It seems here on WP there cant be a debate without attacking a person to try to support themselfs. Most of what I see here is plain arguing and attacking each other and then calling it a debate. I guess people need to learn the difference between them all.
Thats why I didnt respond, thats why I ask them to respond first with information to support what they were saying, and then I would respond with information, so it would be a debate and not what was happening.

So far what I said was only opinion, my first post in this thread was only opinion, and most of what everyone else said didnt not back it up with fact inorder to make it a debate. If you want a debate at least post links or quotes to support what your saying, but have respect for each other, and leave out the attacking each other simply because of a persons opinions/claims, I refuse to respond to that

I just re-read your previous post: I have argued repeatedly with you in the past in the tech forum? I had no idea and have never singled you out personally. I am sorry you feel that way.

roadracer, I find it helpful to wait a day or so before replying when topics get my blood warm. I'm not hot tempered in the slightest but doing so lets me consider what I am going to say carefully.

I did not know you even existed -figuratively speaking- before you popped up with fallacious claims about GIMP. Those were the points I addressed and if being wrong about gimps 32 bit support(and many other gimp things), makes you feel foolish... so be it; you positioned yourself to the community readers as if you were knowledgeable about gimps features.



If your facts were bang on, I couldnt refute them could I? Its not like we are discussing philosophy. The features are either there.. or not. Your erroneous claims do not define the feature list. The existence of a Gaussian blur filter(for example) is not a subjective experience.



Exactly. Except you dont seem to do it. The traits(or lack thereof) that you attempted to attribute to gimp... were wrong. Simple. And the attributes you claimed for photoshop: you claim you cant articulate. Thats called you not exchanging facts.



Why would I care to give you a negative image? I dont know you and dont remember ever encountering you. You are just some poster that popped up, all of his own accord, and promulgated things he was not evidently familiar with. Its not like I followed you to the thread for the sole purpose of besmirching your reputation. I was already here posting when you made your initial position for photoshop.

My first post in the thread: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:42 am. your first post in the thread: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:47 am. I posted 5 times after that and before you did. It would be a bold claim that I laid in wait(highly visible) for you for six months to ruin your image.

If you end up with a negative image it is the result of hoisting yourself by your own petard. I didnt put any words in your mouth.


The points of difference between the applications that you offered were at the behest of my request for clarification. Unfortunately they were ill informed. You offered your opinion and then *I* asked you for clarification. Not the other way around.

Dont you remember?




You mean like you didnt do with your claims? I seem to recall giving you 3 links (such as one to cameras supported), which is exactly infinitely more than the zero links you offered for your claims. Then I later gave to more to two more(for cinepaint) showing that industry is starting to use gimp based software over photoshop, using it, and achieving block buster movie status. Why do I have to offer links when you dont?

But I did even though you claim I didnt. Your erroneous claims do not define the feature list... of this thread.

All answers can and will be found in the latest text by Fuzzy. I almost didn't bother to check this thread for answers, but I thought it might be amusing.

You STILL haven't answered the points made by Fuzzy by the way. Perhaps you should do that instead of typing about your hurt feelings. At any rate, many of your statements which you desribed as your opinion, which you have every right to have, have been proved wrong, see the evidence in the various Fuzzy posts.

No, I am not trying to attack you, no, I do not hate you, I don't even know you. It isn't personal.

Actually, this thread seems to have derailed and crashed into a tree.

Hmm... I would GIMP is likely to be the end of Photoshop, one way or another. Just to get the thread on topic.

and your STILL doing it, maybe you should reread my last post, evidently you didnt understand what I was saying as this is another good example of it. No need to reply to me and me drag this out anymore


carry on then, I am done derailing it

I suggest not to reply to roadracer anymore, it's clearly not someone who feels like talking about it in detail.

It's a pity, I'd have liked to be a little more informed about Photoshop in a comparative way, especially with examples,
but most people seem to use Gimp here.
Examples of Gimp are just as welcome of course, I'd love to learn a few tricks more.

One of the things I haven't gotten around is automatic scripts (like a simple resize that can be reused for more pictures), is that possible (and or easy) to do in Gimp?