I’m no graphics professional, but like probably most of you, I do need to edit photos from time to time. I used Adobe Photoshop before since it is the most widely used image manipulating software. But when I started using Linux, things changed.Since GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) is included by default in most Linux distros, I had no other choice but to try it. I then became more and more comfortable using it that I completely forgot about Photoshop. I know that I can still install Photoshop in Linux through software virtualization, but no thanks.
Here are my reasons why I made the switch and why I think GIMP is better than Photoshop:
1. GIMP has a simple and easy to use Graphical User Interface compared to a more cluttered working environment in Photoshop.
2. GIMP has a way lighter footprint than Photoshop. You don’t need plenty of disk space to install GIMP. The size of Gimp’s installer is less than 20MB; Photoshop could be around 600MB.
3. GIMP is wicked fast. The minimum recommended RAM requirement to run GIMP is only 128MB. The latest version of Photoshop will probably need 512MB at minimum.
4. GIMP has the right amount of essential features that I need. I think Photoshop is way too bloated and some of its included features are unnecessary.
5. GIMP can read and write most Photoshop native PSD format files, but Photoshop does not support GIMP's native XCF file format.
6. GIMP has a more powerful automation than Photoshop.
7. GIMP's open development model means that it is much more readily available on more operating systems, plugin development is not limited by developers and as such has no need to compete with Photoshop; by comparison, access to Adobe Photoshop's SDK requires authorization.
8. GIMP is available at no cost compared to Photoshop’s hefty price tag.
How about you? Do you also feel that GIMP is better than Adobe Photoshop?
20 comments:
I still miss the CMYK support in GIMP...
I have Photoshop CS2 running pretty perfectly on Ubuntu using Wine. Yet I still prefer Gimp. It starts super fast. Photoshop even on Windows is a pig about starting up. Next is it's much better integrated into Gnome and Ubuntu. Recently I've even discovered hordes of free tutorials on how to use advanced filters with the Gimp, and the Python-scripted filter stacks are quite a wonder if you're willing to investigate deeper.
In the Photoshop world, I guess there are free tutorials but the rule is that you pay for extras like filters and educational courses. With Gimp, the social ethos of sharing and freely giving out techniques and plugins is the rule and that's just so easy and refreshing. The long and short of it is I figure out how to do cool things much easier and for no money. The limitations of Gimp are that there is no 16 bit per pixel support and no CMYK. I don't actually miss that.
What I do actually miss is the resolution-maintaining 'smart objects' in PS which you can use to be able to resize image elements without hard-resampling. You can adjust the size at any point without it degrading the image. That's about it really.
1. No. One window is more manageable than three. I don't think that the most aggressive of Gimp fans would consider it to have a better UI.
2. The PhotoShop app itself on my computer takes up ~200MB. And it takes up more space because it is far more capable.
3. That doesn't explain all the times GIMP used to freeze up on my when doing simple (but heavy) operations in Linux.
4. Well, you're no graphic designer. GIMP does not meet my needs, and I'm a professional designer.
5. PS doesn't support GIMP because it really has no need to (no demand). GIMP absolutely mangles PSDs.
6. I agree, but that doesn't make up for its inherent functional limitations.
7. GIMP indeed is friendlier to plugins.
8. It costs more because it's ridiculously better.
You said "GIMP is Better than Adobe Photoshop," but your needs are limited: "I’m no graphics professional, but like probably most of you, I do need to edit photos from time to time." In other words, you're in no place to make your post title's assessment. For simple needs, it's a little less than equal than PhotoShop because PS has better basic facilities as well, but GIMP is plenty competent for non-professional users.
I use the Gimp and understand it enough, but I'd say its real benefit is the GPL license, which is pretty much what you said in points... eh, 7 and 8?, and maybe others also.
Gimp does all that I need it to do; if I learn all of that and I still need more, I'll consider looking at another program (or just some addon scripts) :) I do wish i understood Krita better tho
Thank you all for the comments.
CMYK is indeed not supported in GIMP, but RGB(A) and greyscale simply works for me. Like ArtInvent, I don’t miss CMYK and I don’t need 16 bit per pixel support.
About PS’s resolution-maintaining 'smart objects', I agree. I hope GIMP should have that basic feature soon. However, I mainly prefer hard-resampling when adjusting image size just for accuracy. So, I still don’t miss those smart objects.
@ Thomas Allen: Thanks for telling us your opinion. You do have a point. Most Graphics professionals will still want the extra features in Photoshop. But, I think GIMP is pretty much capable in producing professional looking works or projects. Have you seen the computer-generated short film Elephants Dream? GIMP was used along with other open source software in creating its stunning graphics.
@ Lefty Crupps: I totally agree with you.
Personally, I'm a fan of the multiple window idea for the program interface on the many graphic programs I use, both 2D and 3D (and I can understand why the developers continue with this layout); it allows one to easily spread and rearrange windows to one's liking on extended desktops (2-3 monitors). As I always work on multiple windows of the same and other images, it seems rational to have all such windows unlinked to any tools etc. windows (and closing all images does not quit the program). If this setup were so odd, why would Cinepaint (as a good example), persist with such an interface?
There have been for me personally, many reasons in the past as to why I would not use Photoshop even today (cost is not an issue, and I've been editing 32bpp images for a lot longer than CS2 has been available); I remember making comparisons betw PS and Opalpaint way back, to prove a point. (Opalpaint, for those of you whom do not know the name, was a real-time 24bit graphic creation/manipulation appl for the Amiga in the early to mid-nineties).
"Well, you're no graphic designer. GIMP does not meet my needs, and I'm a professional designer."
... graphic designers used to tell me that Macs were a high-end graphics platform and looked blank when we spoke of 'SGI'.
Hello,
I made the same operations on the same images both on PS and GIMP.
GIMP win in web graphics, because it's born for web: more effective compression, higher quality, more web related operation.
PS win in big pictures mgmt, its algs are 10 times faster, ad you notice that on 50,000x20,000 px image, and its CMYK support is intended for hi-end and gigantic paper publishing.
Conclusion: They are quite not comparable,because their different target.
PS: multiple windows are not a problem in linux: you can block them "always on top" and adjust to best suit your need, varying from moment to moment. Just an opinion.
Price is the final argument for web devs: they usually simply cant afford a complete proprietary workstation: I estimated (on the basis of illegal installed workstation) 20,000 to 35,000 USD to have a complete proprietary workset (office, vector, raster, dev language ide, web page-site dev, dev web server, dev database, video editing, appropriate hardware for extreme resource demanding... so on...)
Photoshop on the Mac uses three windows. No Mac users complain about it; it's what they have been using for the past 15 years.
"You said "GIMP is Better than Adobe Photoshop," but your needs are limited: "I’m no graphics professional, but like probably most of you, I do need to edit photos from time to time." In other words, you're in no place to make your post title's assessment. For simple needs, it's a little less than equal than PhotoShop because PS has better basic facilities as well, but GIMP is plenty competent for non-professional users."
thomas, take into account that many (can I say most?) users of PS are not professionals, just users that need to edit some images for whatever reason...
I think he is in a perfectly good position to make his statement that GIMP is better than PS, even if a sector says it isn't
GIMP does it's job very well.. it does most things PS do, you only have to learn how
I have written an answer to this in my blog/videopodcast "Meet the GIMP!". ( http://meetthegimp.org/is-gimp-better-than-photoshop/ )
Summary: It depends on who you are. There is some stuff in Photoshop that I would love to have. But GIMP does the job for me.
Huzzah for the Gimp's triumph today. I'm still using Photoshop CS3. And enjoying it much more than I ever enjoyed using the Gimp. As a web designer, I realized long ago that for professional graphic design, Photoshop (and/or Illustrator) is the way to go.
The Gimp simply does not produce as good quality images as Photoshop - the most obvious example here is in font anti-aliasing and other typography-related design.
To everyone who insists on using the Gimp, I say good for you, I hope you can use it well. But I'm staying with Photoshop. There are people that say "it's not the tool, it's how you use it" and there are other people who say "only the best tools will get you the best jobs". I am residing in neither camp. Both tools and skills contribute to the quality of our work and it's productivity. So I hope no one thinks the "Gimp vs. Photoshop" debate is the biggest deal in the world.
Yea, I really love the GIMP. I was very, very well school in photoshop before switching to Linux for ideological reasons. At first it annoyed me, and I still wish that I could choose to dock individual dialogs together so gimp didn't take up so much toolbar real estate. I understand and respect why it is the way it is, but it sucks when I open up 2 or 3 .xcf's and have firefox open and suddenly there's 8 or 9 tabs on my toolbar.
As a student aiming to become a serious professional, there's only a few things really missing for me. One thing is CMYK support, another is Spot Color support (although I've accepted it will never happen and can live without it). We also need a Color Dodge layer setting, and finally we desperately need adjustment layers. I could probably get dozens of people to switch to the gimp if only it had those 3 main things (excluding spot colors)
You can dock most of the dialogues to the Toolbox. So you have only two windows open, Toolbox and the image. Look at my video at "Meet the GIMP!" or search for "GIMP" and "docking".
I use GIMP & Hugin and sell panoramic photographs for real $$. Does that make me a professional or am I just an amateur since I do not use PS? I've never even so much as seen PS let alone clicked any of its buttons. What the heck is a CMYK anyway? I suppose if you are stuck with the extremely limited desktop functionality of Windows or OSX then multiple windows might be an issue. As a desktop Linux user I am accustomed to ultimate configurability and as such have never seen too many open windows as a hinderance. It is not uncommon for me to have 30 plus windows open at once. If your current desktop offering does make this a hinderance perhaps it's time to step into the 21 century and consider something other than the tired and limited desktop paradigm known as Microsoft Windows.
/**********
* @ RON S *
**********/
You are right. I'm tired to receive update about these comments,
You, and the 98% of desktop's users (both personal and professionals) simply don't understand the meaning and the importance of free software.
I'm ready also to pay for good free software, opensource, as Suse and Linspire, that offer the best quality at reasonable and affordable price, even if I prefer to find "no-$" solutions.
But the problem is freedom, liberty.
As it seems you can't imagine the damages that proprietary software is doing to democracy, liberty, and human rights, and I'm not here to help you. Do it yourself.
/*************
* @ everyone *
*************/
Please focus the conversation about not only technical concerns. Free software VS Proprietary is the "problem". See Free Software Foundation.
Do you want to be controlled or to have control? In EVERY aspects of your life! Because software is anywhere.
And please be worry about patent pending about software, medicines, and genetics.
You could discover that your life is not too safe, not as you could believe.
______________
The end
Clouseau, in your last comment which you directed to RON S, you have given statements that, strangely, also seem to be directed to "everyone" aside from the statements which you gave for everyone. What I would like to say is that, it would really be close-minded of you to say that 98% of desktop's users (both personal and professionals) simply don't understand the meaning and the importance of free software. Let me ask who would not want something, if not everything, for free? Statements like the one you gave seem discriminating. Are you implying that these 98% of desktop users are lesser minded than you are? That they do not know what and how it is to be free? If that is how the 2% think (and i hope I'm wrong), then i guess we may have a problem there...it would go beyond the Photoshop and GIMP discussion. Everyone knows what's good and what's not. But I think we should not force others to bend to our will. Instead, we should respect their will as long as it is not interfering with the will of others. Let them have the freedom to choose! If you advocate freedom, then give others the freedom to decide which kind of things they want, whether open source or not. And I think that is the bottom line to all of this.
"Dude my stock Honda Civic totally kick your fully equipped Porsche Carrera ass."
This my friend is the only thing i could think off after reading your article, then i busted out laughing...
What nonsense!
Speaking from a serious digital imaging perspective, the GIMP is, unfortunately, practically useless. Your comparison just reiterates this: Points 1 to 4 state basically the same thing, i.e. compared to Photoshop the GIMP is conspicuously devoid of tools!
My basic workflow is this: 16bit (linear) RAW -> Colour profile assignment -> Colour profile conversion to Prophoto gamut, linear gamma -> conversion to 32bit -> colour, tone adjustments and other editing. All in a fully colour managed working environment. To even wonder if the GIMP is capable of *any* of this is laughable.
If all you need of your graphics app is some simple twiddling with 8bit web images then fine - enjoy the GIMP, it'll probably meet most of your needs, but saying that makes it better than a serious tool is surely a joke? To paraphrase your argument, a sextant is better than GPS 'cos you don't have to press any buttons.
That said, your sixth point has some merit. Photoshop has a handy assortment of automation tools: droplets, actions, javascript, etc, but none of them solves all your likely automation requirements and they don't cooperate well. In fact, the whole frustrating mess seems very poorly thought out and executed. Perhaps the GIMP does have the edge here?
It's not all bad for the GIMP though... the dev's have, at long last, grasped the nettle and integrated the GEGL engine! Yey! GEGL has the potential to utterly trounce Photoshop (as we know it now) ...but years of GIMP development are needed before we start to reap the rewards. I wish the GIMP team had had the courage to make the jump sooner - after the initial pain, the GIMP may by now have become something more than a cute little toy. Instead they seem to have blindly wandered up some cul-de-sac, in a state of mass denial and are only now at the beginning of the true development path, with much needless retooling to perform.
I hope it all goes well for the GIMP, it does have potential, and current development looks VERY promising. Maybe I'll be able to make the switch when CS5 is superseded. Fingers crossed ;-)
two words.....
paint.net
As the two previous posts say, GIMP is just a toy for playing with simple sRGB images. Think of it as GNU's version of MS paint or (as stated above) paint.net and you'll be making a fair and favourable comparison but comparing it with Photoshop is just silly.
The GIMP's developers have a total lack of interest/understanding in serious imageing. Despite recent positive noises about GEGL, I can't see them making any serious prgress any time soon. It's taken them since 2001 to get round to beginning to work on it! lol
Sadly, the only two decent image tools for GNU/Linux are (and for a very long time are going to remain):
Cinepaint - A 7 year old branch of GIMP with additional professional capabilites. It was abandoned when the GIMP people started talking about GEGL but luckily has been independently developed ever since and is actually quite good.
Or:
Photoshop under Wine. CS2 works perfectly for me, CS3 isn't far away.
Post a Comment