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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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'.
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...)
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
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.
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.
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)
* @ 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
This my friend is the only thing i could think off after reading your article, then i busted out laughing...
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 ;-)
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.
GimPhoto is GIMP modification with:
- based on GIMP 2.4.
- new menu layout like PS.
- new shortcut like PS.
- CMYK separation.
- Layer Effects.
- new brushset and gradientset.
- packed many plugins to fill missing PS function on GIMP like Save for Web.
- packed with many photographic filters like Noise Reduction, B/W and IR.
http://www.gimphoto.com
I never bothered with graphics editors before I tried Gimp, they were always too cluttered and looked far too complicated. It was always hard to work out which icon did what, but now I am using gimp, I have never turned back. I have used inkscape and blender to, but I stil haven't figured those out yet, while I am almost pro at gimp.
Yes...Gimp is great.
you have given statements that, strangely, also seem to be directed to "everyone" aside from the statements which you gave for everyone. ... Let me ask who would not want something, if not everything, for free?"
And you proved his point. "Free" here means "having freedom," not "without cost." Free software is sometimes called libre software.
GIMP sucks.
No CMYK support makes it USELESS for print design. And that's just the start. (The differences are well documented other places on the internet.)
Photoshop does not have a single superfluous feature, by the way. I earn my paycheck using Photoshop everyday and have used every feature before. They are all -- ALL -- useful. Photoshop is incredible.
I don't mean this harshly, but this article is clearly written by a non-professional.
the author is a professional, IT pro to be exact. points included here are mentioned in general: Desktop users of all age, profession, etc.
*penguins rock!!*
someone who makes such as statement is one who has not explored PS to its fullest.
like saying a subcompact car is better than a midsize, or cheap denim is better than designer jeans.
z
Yes you might be a professional in IT, but thats a world away from anything us Graphic Professionals do. I have been using photoshop for a very long time, (I still have the original install disks for v2.5).
I am also been a beta tester for some Autodesk software.
Speed and efficiency are my concern, yes photoshop takes time to start up, but this is by far offset by a streamlined and well considered interface and usability, this is my main reason aside from the obvious lack of features (re: lack of cmyk support and other proper colour management)
But to those that use gimp good on you. I'm sure for some people it meets all their needs. I hope the best of luck to the gimp, maybe with the open source community it will one day become a contender for photoshop's crown.
Photoshop has come a long way in the 16 or so years I've been using it, gimps future is bright if it can manage some of the same.
I look forward to future developments of both programs.
Maybe it will give some of the arguments in proper perspective.
Thanks for posting this a bringing it to more public attention.
someone who makes such as statement is one who has not explored PS to its fullest.
like saying a subcompact car is better than a midsize, or cheap denim is better than designer jeans./*
I think the author in the first paragraph stated his position and opinion. Then List the reasons why HE thought GIMP was better than PS for HIM..not graphic professionals...
Why would a short person get a mid size car instead of a compact OR a farmer get designer jeans to work in the fields instead of cheap jeans.
That is his point. He didn't say he prints so he doesn't need CMYK nor any of the other things professional uses. He is looking for what he uses and compared the two and came to his conclusion.
If you took a full list of features from the latest versions of each program you will see clearly why photoshop is worth over $1000!
The author himself states that he only occasionally needs to edit photos and so himself renders the rest of the package useless.
but when it comes down to the better more advanced program there is NO contest.
Gimp is no better than any of the free photo editors that come with your new camera or scanner.
Take a features list from both programs and hold them next to each other. You'll need a ladder for the photoshop one.
also, I am a qualified graphic artist/designer, I have been working professionally straight after college for 8 years now and I don't htink there has been a tool in the program I HAVEN'T used (even in the first 6 months of working) I even download 1 or 2 new tools absolutely free every week... will be getting CS4 very soon, I've been saving
Well done me :P
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/03/8-handy-tweaks-to-make-gimp-replace-photoshop/
The speed, GUI...EVERYTHING!!
._____________.
/ . O . . O . \
| . . . . . . |
| .\ . . ./ . |
| . \____/. . |
|_____________|
I have 2 GB of RAM, Standard for today. Photoshop uses as much as it gets and this is good, because it uses the RAM efficiently and it computes MUCH faster on heavy computations.
What do you do with all your RAM? 128MB for GIMP, 64 MB for all the processes, a few MBs for Music and Browser. I'm happy when a program uses my RAM, if it uses it efficiently and speeds up my workflow.
The GIMP has lots of potential, but sometimes I get a bit frustrated when it takes me more effort than is neccesary to complete a graphic design work. The User Interface is simple and clean, and once you start to get a hang of it, navigating through the interface can be done almost unconsciously.
What GIMP really needs is good competition from another free and open source graphics editor. I don't recall where I read it, but I remember reading the opinion that there is an attitude of "Oh, we have the GIMP. Let's not spend time making a graphics editor." in the open source community and I agree with it. GIMP's only competition is from closed source proprietary graphics editors, and when open source competes with proprietary, there are lots of hassles of dealing with patents and copyrights. However, when open source competes with open source, innovation always takes place and most of the aforementioned hassles start dissappearing due to clever work arounds, clean room reverse engineering and creativity. An obvious example is the Linux OS. I've read countless opinions and articles about how Linux is supposedly useless and no competition for Windows or Mac OS. While Linux may not have the excellent UI and usability of Mac OS, I have found through personal experience that Linux is much better than Windows and just as capable as Mac OS. In fact, I enjoy using Linux a lot more because it's capable of accomplishing the best of jobs even when running on the worst of machines. In fact, Dreamworks created the movie "Monsters vs. Aliens" on a Linux OS, and most of the world's supercomputers run on Linux.
Recently I learned of an open source editor named Nathive being developed, but it seems the developers are making it only for Linux. However, if Nathive is developed well then it might provide a stimulus to the GIMP to change in some ways. We might even see applications created using code merged from both the projects.
In the end, all that matters is what suits you. After all, you can only be creative if you're happy and comfortable.
Varun
Marc
For the lack of CMYK support, I use Krita in Linux environment.
http://cue.yelowmagic.info/softwares/separate.html
You sound like a pompous a**.
At *Varun Pramanik*
You make a good argument.
---
I'm a fairly new user, I've only been using the app a month or two for editing photos and drawing, but I'm starting to question why most people bother to fork out so much for a propriety piece of software rather than download GIMP and customize it with a few plugins.
I'm actually a student on a gap year at the moment and have no money to buy Photoshop after I deleted from my laptop during a clean-out (I borrowed a friends copy to install it and now that friend is at uni so she can't give me the install disk). So I decided that while I save what little money I have for university and helping with bills, I would try GIMP. I'd heard a couple of friends who had tried it so I gave it a shot.
Originally I was irritated that I couldn't find the Quick Mask tool, but once I'd found it I felt right at home, and now I just wish it was all in one window on my mac and not running under X11. But it's not a major problem just to click twice instead of once.
Plus it runs so much more quietly than Photoshop ever did. :)
Adobe are getting more ridiculous. Why do they keep bringing out new versions of Photoshop when ONE version isn't even stable? Why ask so much for it? The features of the program, as vast as they are, are still not really justification for forking out several hundred pounds every time a new version comes out just to stay up to date and have that TINY new feature that you will probably forget about once you've used it to do what you need to do.
The program is good, I'll give Adobe that, but I felt a lot of it was overcomplicated the entire time I used it during 6th form, and a lot of the time it crashed without reason (a few times upon launch and several times during my coursework). It took several weeks to learn how to use Photoshop, but GIMP took a few hours, not including the testing of the features and messing around with a photo of a friend so he had a cats head (I giggled immaturely the entire time I edited the image...XD).
I suppose that is a little biased as I had, by then, learnt how to use image editors better. But GIMP just seems less fussy to me, while others will say getting things done is more fussy.
I understand some people need photoshop for their work but that doesn't mean the person using it is superior to a GIMP user. If you think that you have your head buried in your colon.
Photoshop and GIMP are NOT the same program, neither were they designed to BE the same program. But with GIMP showing so much promise to home users, it's becoming more popular and getting more coverage. Maybe one day it WILL be the true competitor to Photoshop.
I find it ridiculous to say that GIMP is a Linux version of MS Paint. I can never take those posts seriously, nor can I take a post seriously if someone start to make an analogy about designer jeans.
GIMP is not the best program for professional photographers, we all know that. No point in arguing about it over and over again. But it has all the tools you need to "Photoshop" your heart out as amateur home user. All the selection tools you need, layers, channels and paths, all the transformation tools, curves and levels and a whole lot more color adjustments, dodge and burn, smudge and blur tools, heal and clone, brushes, filters and free plug-ins with even more filter etc etc. Just to name a few things.
To people who say that paint.NET is better or comparable. It's not. You either haven have hardly used any of the GIMP fuctions or you haven't even compared the two programs.
p.s.Is there an equivalent of the ink tool in Photoshop?
Most "photoshoppers" do not buy it, but they pirate it..
I would rather use a legal program that might not be the top-of-the-line, than a pirated copy.
And GIMP suits the "normal" amateurs fine. And the pro's will need/get the program at work for a "lesser" fee than private persons.
P.S: A Photoshop user for 3 yrs..now GIMP does it for me
Photoshop isn't.
End of discussion (:
Personally I am using Gimp and am not familiar pretty much with photoshop.I am trying to be objective.
Maybe photoshop is better solution if you are a professional graphic deseigner and maybe photoshop is better if you are professional photograph who sell pictures.
But what about web design.I would like to hear arguments why photoshop is better.With Gimp you can accomplish professional looking graphic and whatever related to web design and web graphic.
just an idea, try putting "why I THINK..." instead of an absolute, abolutes make you look stupid
Aside from that minor irritant, transparency and masks are much more intuitive in Gimp than in PhotoShop.
I found comparing two products unnecessary. As Gimp is Open Source, there won't be anyone directly you can get support from. Bureaucracy of professional environment requires this. Photoshop is for professionals (as it works perfectly with other Adobe design programs) and Gimp is good for home enthusiastic and small workplace who can effort to do research and contribute help to community to develop GIMP. My time for GIMP is at home, not effort to have it at work.