PDA

View Full Version : Favorite 2d graphics editor



DavidL
09-16-2006, 07:03 PM
What graphics editor do u prefer and why?

Twey
09-16-2006, 07:07 PM
The GIMP is free, Free, and does everything for which I use it. For what more could one ask in a graphics suite?

jscheuer1
09-16-2006, 07:31 PM
PSP - familiarity

shachi
09-17-2006, 06:25 AM
Well, you should have a poll on something like "favourite 2d-3d graphics applet", check this out: http://www-ui.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~takeo/teddy/teddy/teddy.html

Twey
09-17-2006, 10:24 AM
That's very impressive.

shachi
09-17-2006, 11:48 AM
Yep, that's true. :)

mburt
09-17-2006, 05:02 PM
That is very cool, If I might say so myself :p

shachi
09-17-2006, 05:20 PM
Well, it is cool, guess what can be achieved with that in 3d softwares(some option like auto-3dfy).

mburt
09-17-2006, 05:24 PM
I found another amazing 3D graphics program:

http://www.anim8or.com/

I use it now, and it's awesome... but there's one problem. It's too fricken hard to use!
...Sorry about that :p

shachi
09-17-2006, 05:26 PM
Yea I already know about it and used it before getting onto blender, the most facinating thing about that is ... you don't need to install it, it can be used directly with the exe(kinda portable).

djr33
09-18-2006, 06:01 AM
Blender is a great free 3D application.

Neat little program there, but kinda confusing. Interesting, though.

As for my 2D program of choice... depends what I'm doing. I've never used GIMP, though I've heard good things. I use Photoshop generally, but also use PSP. It's not the program but the user. I can do the same things with both... either one is fine by me.
I really don't like Macromedia Fireworks, though.

ItsMeOnly
09-18-2006, 06:04 PM
The GIMP is free, Free, and does everything for which I use it. For what more could one ask in a graphics suite?
Gimp Animation Pack, and Gimp-Perl :)

jscheuer1
09-18-2006, 07:01 PM
Gimp Animation Pack, and Gimp-Perl :)

If you want your opinion to matter, vote! ;)

Twey
09-18-2006, 07:14 PM
I've got GIMP-Perl :) Had trouble getting GAP to work on x86_64, though.

blm126
09-18-2006, 07:15 PM
The GIMP is free, Free, and does everything for which I use it. For what more could one ask in a graphics suite?
A better UI, maybe one that doesn't completely mess up on a dual monitor setup. That is the only reason I don't use GIMP. Personally, I use Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0. Not exactly the best, but its the best I have(or can get for free).

Twey
09-18-2006, 07:27 PM
A better UI, maybe one that doesn't completely mess up on a dual monitor setup.How does it mess up? They're all separate windows :-\ Also, have you tried GimpShop, the PhotoShop UI clone for the GIMP?

blm126
09-18-2006, 07:31 PM
How does it mess up? They're all separate windows :-\ Also, have you tried GimpShop, the PhotoShop UI clone for the GIMP?
That is exactly the problem. When the prgram starts 1 window will be on one monitor and the others will be on my other monitor. Not to bad a problem, I move them over.BUT, then evertime it opens a window it opens it on the wrong monitor
.I have tryed GimpShop, but it keeps the windows together using a plugin called deweirdifier. This plugin constantly crashes GIMP.

McBlackk
10-15-2006, 10:22 PM
I use photoshop! It'is the best for colour printing with separated chanels

techno_race
03-03-2007, 02:11 PM
Paint Shop Pro. Most features.

boxxertrumps
03-03-2007, 10:01 PM
Either Gimp or Paint.net.

i made this with falling sands and a physics file i made, then put it through Gimp.
very fun, but i have to find a something i can run fallingsands with on kubuntu.

Shotgun Ninja
03-05-2007, 12:50 PM
GIMP. It's free, although a bit harder to understand than something like Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop. Plus, it's open source and binary, so it runs on any operating system.

djr33
03-05-2007, 06:16 PM
I must say that I hate GIMP. I've been playing with it and it's very limited.
Anyone who does real graphics editing should agree.
Photoshop is great and has lots of options. Sure, it's expensive, but this seems to be one case where you get what you pay for.

GIMP is a nice alternative for the price, but it's terrible to use. I was just cropping and resizing parts of images the other day, and it was tedious. In PS, there's a transform tool that makes it easy. In GIMP, it claims to have a tool, but doesn't work correctly as it doesn't allow for locking of the aspect ratio as you resize, so it gets distorted. I was forced to do it with numbers in the control box (or whatever it would like to call that window), which makes it less than efficient.

boxxertrumps
03-05-2007, 10:09 PM
What can photoshop do that the Gimp cant?

tech_support
03-06-2007, 04:27 AM
Put a big hole in your wallet :)

But... I prefer Photoshop anyway.

killerchutney
03-19-2007, 07:08 PM
I voted Photoshop. (does anyone have CS3? Is it much better than CS2?)
But I use Fireworks more often.

p.s. by paint brush do you mean M$ Paint?

Twey
03-19-2007, 11:13 PM
Paint Brush used to be the name for Paint... I think the executable is still called pbrush.exe.

boxxertrumps
03-19-2007, 11:33 PM
mspaint.exe

You havent used windows in a long time, have you twey?

djr33
03-20-2007, 12:04 AM
Paint Shop Pro. Most features.No. Photoshop does have more features. PSP is cheaper and almost as productive, so it's not a bad option, certainly. I like them both.

Frog Brew
03-20-2007, 02:06 AM
What can photoshop do that the Gimp cant?


Can you do this with Gimp??
http://www.lightthelamp.com/logo3.jpg


I have never used it...

Also can it produce this

http://www.lightthelamp.com/

If it can I should take a good look at it...

These were done with Photoshop and Photoimpact but mostly Photoshop CS2

Frog Brew
03-20-2007, 02:08 AM
No. Photoshop does have more features. PSP is cheaper and almost as productive, so it's not a bad option, certainly. I like them both.

Really I used PSP and was never really fond of it...Photoimpact is a good and cheap alternative to Photoshop...

tech_support
03-20-2007, 05:38 AM
That's your choice.

But what I hate about Photoshop is their activation process.

[After being asked to wait on the phone, and gone through their automated activation service, I get to speak to a can't-speak-english-properly person.]

Spokesperson: Sorry, you cannot activate Adobe Photoshop on more than one computer.
Me: But it's the same computer, I had to do a monthly ghosting due to student misuse.
Spokesperson:Ok, but I'd like to speak to your teacher.
[I give the phone to my site manager]
Site Manager: Hello?
Spokesperson: Are you trying to activate Adobe Photoshop CS2?
Site Manager: Yes.
Spokesperson: You cannot activate Adobe Photoshop CS2 on more than one computer.
Site Manager: This is a school. We have to re-image computers on a regular basis, and this is the same bloody computer.
Spokesperson: I'm sorry sir, but you cannot do this.
[Slams the phone and complains]
[Gos to me]
Site Manager: Never do that #$%^ing thing again. Adobe is just a ^&*#ed up bunch of @#$%heads.
Me: Ok. Continue to do my work.

Note: My site manager swears alot.

LOL :D

djr33
03-20-2007, 08:56 AM
Haven't run into that. maybe it's different on a mac, or with different versions. (Just up to 7, at the moment).

Twey
03-20-2007, 11:17 AM
You havent used windows in a long time, have you twey?Not in-depth, no :) I suspect I will be soon. :( It was still called pbrush.exe in Windows ME, at least.
Can you do this with Gimp??Most probably. I'm no artist, so I can't say for certain (since I'm not too sure how the original image has been produced).
Also can it produce this

http://www.lightthelamp.com/I can say "yes" with a much greater degree of certainty here. Looks like most of that can be done just by using gradients, patterns and masks. There are even specialised plugins for doing the lightning and buttons.

When I'm designing complex graphics (like that frog), though, I tend to draw an SVG using Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/) first, then export it as a bitmap and do some editing using the GIMP. This allows for a much greater degree of flexibility.

Vampy
03-20-2007, 11:42 AM
Photo Impact it's accesible .. simple... and does allmost everything

djr33
03-20-2007, 04:37 PM
One interesting thing that I note in this thread is that we are discussing graphics editors, not drawing programs. That could be an interesting discussion as well.

Frog Brew
03-20-2007, 11:06 PM
Not in-depth, no :) I suspect I will be soon. :( It was still called pbrush.exe in Windows ME, at least.Most probably. I'm no artist, so I can't say for certain (since I'm not too sure how the original image has been produced).I can say "yes" with a much greater degree of certainty here. Looks like most of that can be done just by using gradients, patterns and masks. There are even specialised plugins for doing the lightning and buttons.

When I'm designing complex graphics (like that frog), though, I tend to draw an SVG using Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/) first, then export it as a bitmap and do some editing using the GIMP. This allows for a much greater degree of flexibility.


I will have to give it a look...I try and stay away from plugins though, but am not as talented as some and have to resort to it like most. That web site took alot longer to do the graphics then the frog...although I had a few beers to inspire. :D It's taboo if you mention "plugins" in a place like skins.org ...or it used to be. The guys there are freaks when it comes to graphics Kind of like the core in here when it comes to code. ;)

Myself I guess I was not born to set the world a blaze...jack of all trades master of none??

tech_support
03-21-2007, 05:16 AM
Haven't run into that. maybe it's different on a mac, or with different versions. (Just up to 7, at the moment).
You haven't run into "activation" on the Mac yet?

techno_race
04-06-2007, 10:53 PM
Not in-depth, no :) I suspect I will be soon. :( It was still called pbrush.exe in Windows ME, at least.Most probably. I'm no artist, so I can't say for certain (since I'm not too sure how the original image has been produced).I can say "yes" with a much greater degree of certainty here. Looks like most of that can be done just by using gradients, patterns and masks. There are even specialised plugins for doing the lightning and buttons.

When I'm designing complex graphics (like that frog), though, I tend to draw an SVG using Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/) first, then export it as a bitmap and do some editing using the GIMP. This allows for a much greater degree of flexibility.
I use Windows mainly; it's the only thing I can make work. It's currently mspaint.exe in Vista, but that's pretty much the only thing I have time to explore (my home computer runs Vista, with XP and Ubuntu in Virtual Computers).


Can you do this with Gimp??
http://www.lightthelamp.com/logo3.jpg


I have never used it...

Also can it produce this

http://www.lightthelamp.com/

If it can I should take a good look at it...

These were done with Photoshop and Photoimpact but mostly Photoshop CS2

Actually, it can be done in GIMP, but if you use Microsoft Windows, stick with Photoshop unless you're not planning to upgrade to Vista (it has trouble loading fonts).

deficit
04-21-2007, 07:26 PM
I have used Fireworks since version 4 (circa 2001), and before that I used Photoshop 5 and 6. After I was introduced to Fireworks, being previously an avid Photoshop dude, it didn't take me long to discover that it was better than Photoshop for what I needed to do.

Both Photoshop and Fireworks have their strengths and weaknesses. If you are looking to do bitmap (photograph) editing, perhaps Photoshop would be your best bet. If you are looking to create vectors (web graphics, layouts, etc.), it is a well-known fact that Fireworks is better in the world of vectors.

Photoshop CS2 and Fireworks 8 are so close though that they are like 95% backward compatible (i.e. the plugins can be used in either program, you can import/ export layered source images from one to the other, etc.). It's pretty much all about what you need to do. I'm a web developer, so I build graphics and layouts for the web in Fireworks (plus I like the UI in Fireworks much better than Photoshop - it's... cleaner, or something (can't put my finger on it)).

Hope this helps!

Twey
04-21-2007, 07:38 PM
If you are looking to create vectors (web graphics, layouts, etc.), it is a well-known fact that Fireworks is better in the world of vectors.Ouch! Don't create web layouts with a WYSIWYG editor. They inevitably muck it up, and usually do it using tables or something equally unpleasant.

deficit
04-21-2007, 07:58 PM
Ouch! Don't create web layouts with a WYSIWYG editor. They inevitably muck it up, and usually do it using tables or something equally unpleasant.
Fireworks doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor that builds the actual web layout for you, I was merely speaking in terms of the design aspect of the layout. I design my whole layout as a layered image in Fireworks, then save it as a JPEG and slice it (also in Fireworks), then save the sliced peices of the layout as optimized JPEGs and GIFs. I always build the actual web layout, coded by hand in CSS and XHTML using DIVs.

Sorry if the way I described it above was a bit confusing :P

deficit
04-21-2007, 08:07 PM
But I do know what you mean about WYSIWYG editors - they are a NIGHTMARE! Nothing actually comes out right, some do use tabes, as you said, and some DO actually use DIVs and CSS, but they usually do absolute positioning (eww) and put the CSS right in the DIV tags... I shiver at the thought of those horrid editors. None of them can comply to standards, either, not any good standards, anyways (like XHTML 1.0 Strict). I try my best to make all my code strict standards-based (sometimes there's just no way of getting around say, for example, using a body onload(), which is considered depreciated and will in turn cause you to fail an XHTML 1 Strict standard test). But, I'm getting a little bit off-topic here, just wanted to clear that up.

Twey
04-21-2007, 08:17 PM
You're right about WYSIWYG editors, I've seen them mangle things terribly. It's a when-I-have-the-time pet project of mine to create a decent WYSIWYG editor, probably based around CSS floats.
I try my best to make all my code strict standards-based (sometimes there's just no way of getting around say, for example, using a body onload(), which is considered depreciated and will in turn cause you to fail an XHTML 1 Strict standard test).Using the onload event handler is not deprecated in XHTML 1.0 Strict.

mburt
04-21-2007, 08:26 PM
The idea behind WYSIWYG web editors is to grab people's attention and slam "NO EXPERIENCE NEEDED, CREATE WEBPAGES EASILY" in your face. Despite the fact that they (mostly) have completely invalid markup, and use table layouts.

deficit
04-21-2007, 08:53 PM
Using the onload event handler is not deprecated in XHTML 1.0 Strict.

It must be XHTML 1.1 then, because I remember failing validation because of using onload once before, but the doctype may have been 1.1, I can't recall. If it's not 1.0, I guess it must be 1.1...

deficit
04-21-2007, 08:55 PM
BTW Twey, can you possibly guide me in the right direction in my post here: http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88517#post88517

I'd GREATLY appreciate it... been trying to get this site going, and that problem has been holding me up for about 3 days now. Thanks!

Twey
04-21-2007, 09:07 PM
It must be XHTML 1.1 then, because I remember failing validation because of using onload once before, but the doctype may have been 1.1, I can't recall. If it's not 1.0, I guess it must be 1.1...No, it's still valid in XHTML 1.1. I suspect you may have had a typo. Writing documents for public viewing on the Web in XHTML of any variety is currently a bad idea, though, due to IE's complete lack of support.

boxxertrumps
04-21-2007, 10:48 PM
Thats why i use this:

<?php if (!strstr($_SERVER["HTTP_USER_AGENT"],"MSIE")) {
header("Content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8");
} else { $fail = TRUE; }
?>
Then this at the footer.

<?php if (isset($fail)) {?>
<h1 class="cent caps">
<a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/">Get Firefox</a>
</h1><hr />
<?php } ?>
IE is overbloated with error correction, might as well make use of it.

(source) (http://boxxertrumps.bo.funpic.org/)

Twey
04-22-2007, 11:47 AM
And how about browsers that define themselves as "; like MSIE;" but support XHTML? Or decent browsers masquerading as MSIE?

It's still pointless even if you do manage to do it precisely right and serve text/html only to IE, because you can't use any of XHTML's features for fear of breaking the page in IE: you still might as well be using HTML.

boxxertrumps
04-22-2007, 10:41 PM
And how about browsers that define themselves as "; like MSIE;" but support XHTML? Or decent browsers masquerading as MSIE?
for defining as like MSIE:

<?php if (!strstr($_SERVER["HTTP_USER_AGENT"],"MSIE")) {
header("Content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8");
} elseif (strstr($_SERVER["HTTP_USER_AGENT"],"like MSIE")) {
header("Content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8");
} else { $fail = TRUE;}
error_reporting(E_ALL);?>
Why would they need to pretend to be IE for my site?
Id understand for sites like yahoo, but there's no by browser restrictions implemented on my site...

Twey
04-22-2007, 11:30 PM
That was only an example, it's not a standardised string.
Why would they need to pretend to be IE for my site?I think Opera identifies as IE by default. It's not unthinkable for someone to simply turn on global user-agent spoofing.

boxxertrumps
04-23-2007, 04:07 AM
Okay, I've done more research.
This should send xhtml to every browser except IE...

<?php if (
!strstr($_SERVER["HTTP_USER_AGENT"],"MSIE") ||
strstr($_SERVER["HTTP_USER_AGENT"],"like MSIE") ||
strstr($_SERVER["HTTP_USER_AGENT"],"Opera")
) {
header("Content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8");
} else { $fail = TRUE;}
error_reporting(E_ALL);
$base = "http://boxxertrumps.bo.funpic.org/";
?>
I don't mind losing out on xhtml's features in IE, i rarely use them.

Also, no errors.

Twey
04-23-2007, 05:03 PM
strstr($_SERVER["HTTP_USER_AGENT"],"Opera") That won't work if it's masquerading as IE, will it? It'll have exactly the same User-Agent string as IE.
I don't mind losing out on xhtml's features in IE, i rarely use them.But that's the point: you can't use them, in any browser. If you do, everything will break in IE. There's thus no point in using XHTML over HTML when you serve it as HTML to a few browsers, except in a few very rare cases.

boxxertrumps
04-23-2007, 10:24 PM
I was looking on opera's website, and there is always the string "Opera" in the header no matter what the browser is set at...
the only thing i am really counting on for xhtml is the fast rendering time...

Twey
04-24-2007, 06:57 AM
Last I checked, for most browsers the rendering time for XHTML was slower than that for HTML, although that was a while ago. It might have changed.