Adobe PhotoShop VS. Gimp

Post Reply New Topic

I think it would be possible, but I don't know how to do it, I can use GIMP quite well, but not to an expert level. Even without a resize script though, resizing pictures is fairly easy.

yeah resizing one picture is easy, but a script is for more pictures (resizing 50 or 100 or 500 pics is a lot of work)

I've voted for photoshop. My cheapskate company won't buy me a copy, so I have been using Gimp, but I've managed to create some professional looking brochures using that and Inkscape.

However, I have had compression problems with gimp. It seems to make a very large picture annoyingly pixelated when I make it smaller. It drove me nuts for a couple of days, but I just gave up in the end. So the brochures have slightly fuzzy pictures on them. I'm a perfectionist, so this annoys me.

I'm also unaware of a feature in gimp for making photogalleries. Of course I should probably learn to code photogalleries on my own, but I'm lazy and I like the photoshop option. I usually recode them anyway to get them looking how I want.

Erm. I hope you don't mean what you seem to have said. Compression has nothing to do with image scaling.

Also, you should not rescale the image data itself, but keep it with as much resolution as possible, until you get to the print stage.

Hes not, all he is doing is answering your broad sweeping statements about PS


Again he is not attacking or getting mad, the reason WHY he has spent so much time and effort to counter your claims is because he feels they are fallacious, as is so often the case when people compare established commercial products to freely available linux ones. There seems to be a collective thought among Windows users that although Linux comes with thousands of free programs they are really very second rate, this is not so, all Fuzzy is doing is trying to dispel another such myth




Well I have not checked out your previous posts, but if you have previously made broad ranging unsubstantiated claims like you have in this thread, then refer to the paragraph above, and you will have you answer

you came to this late, we were done with this, it is the past already (at least for me anyway), PLEASE dont get this started up again. If you want to talk about GIMP vs Photoshop, sure, talk about it, but what you are replying to is the past, please dont get that started up again

(I thought I would never have to reply to this again, but it is like a recurring nightmare, I learned my leason, never say anything on WP that you cant back up with scientific data to prove your point, time to move on)

Cracking photoshop is illegal.

I love that I can get to use a graphics software that is powerful enough for my home user/game developer needs yet I don't have to commit piracy to use it.

I think that when you pirate , you give too much power to the companies behind the software. Proprietary software companies are afterall the drug dealers of software, and drugs are worse when you steal them, it means you have given your life up for them and you'll owe to the drug dealers, forever.

Also, phtoshop only runs in windows and OS/X and I am not that stupid...

Well yes, that is always a good policy to have in general, not just on WP. If you make broad definite statements, you should have the data to back your point up, and be prepared to make that data available for scrutiny.

Do you know, I didn't realise that. I thought that scaling the picture removed pixels and had something to do with compression. I'm glad I didn't get a question on that in my exams.

Why are my photos going fuzzy when I make them smaller?

Define fuzzy and define smaller - or better, describe exactly the steps you are taking with to the image, and show examples of the results.

One possibility is that you are using a lossy format (such as JPEG) with too low a figure for the quality percentage. My GIMP seems to default this to 85%. I have no idea what Photoshop does (other than, IIRC, inserting a great deal of metadata). Without any change to image size, this will add some degree of fuzziness. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#JPEG_compression

I don't want to upload a photo of something from my work. I'm trying to be anonymous. But I have a photo of a cabinet set at a diagonal accross the image. The original is 4000 x 3000 pixels. I selected Image and then Scale Image in gimp and changed the dimensions to 250 x 188. I'm probably just being stupid and pedantic, but the edge along the cabinet goes along for so many pixels, jumps down to the next row, goes along so many pixels, jumps down and so on. The lines are not smooth.

I think that we don't have the best printer either, so once I've printed off the image it's not going to look too great anyway. Although, I did print off some unedited images the other day and was quite pleased with the real life quality of the image.

Thanks for taking an interest. No one else in the office is all that bothered.

theres your problem, it is becoming 'pixelated' (ability to see the individual pixels) because your making the photo to small, doing away with most of the pixels, then trying to print it! For printing, you dont need to scale the image, just leave it at its default size, and chose the size you want to print it at with whatever printing software you use. A 4000x3000 photo should give you a very nice 8x10. As a general rule, making the photo to large or to small (especially in jpeg format) will degrade the photo.

In "Scale Image...", it sounds as if you have set "interpolation" to "None". You probably want to set it back to the default "Cubic".

As roadracer says, you probably don't want to scale it at all. You may find it convenient to "View"/"Zoom" 1:16 while messing about with the image.

Your printer may be capable of 600 dpi, say, so your image - in its unmodified form, could come out, with total fidelity, as 6.67"x5", which would fit comfortably on A5 paper.