Picture editor

[Freeman]

I have recently been introduced to GIMP the free, beautiful photo editor. I must say that I like it so far even though it is taking me a while to figure out because I am used to Photoshop. Which photo editors do all of you use?

[lainlives]

Photoshop>Gimp

I use the gimp unless i need a feature that the gimp dont have, because photoshop takes forever to boot...

[Twey]

I've never used Photoshop. GIMP is free, Free, actually runs on my OS, and, in occasional conjunction with Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/), does everything I need it to (although admittedly I'm not a heavy graphical artist).

[boxxertrumps]

I use the Gimp also.


Photoshop>Gimp
wouldn't it be photoshop < gimp?

[djr33]

No. Photoshop>GIMP is right.
But GIMP is free.

[Twey]

What features does Photoshop have over the GIMP?

[lainlives]

per layer blending options (when i port a psd into the gimp all this is lost)

[Twey]

It may be a bug with the import code, as I'm fairly sure the GIMP has this (see the "layers" dialogue).

[djr33]

Photoshop is much smoother than GIMP, at least on my system.

For the price, GIMP is better. But Photoshop, regardless of price, is better.

I just like Photoshop more. Ask any real graphics artists. Or you could argue it's just a trend, but you'd think there would have been time by now for that to fade.


Some features--
healing brush; all of the filters; liquify filter; magnetic lasso; slices; transform with as many options

I can't speak for GIMP, but I doubt it has all of those.

[alexjewell]

Granted, Photoshop is top of the line, but the Gimp does compare. The deal is getting used to its different layout and interface. The problem lies in all the designers who've practically grown up with Photoshop getting used to one, not being broke after getting a new graphics editor and two, the new environment.

I think it's totally a matter of preference. For, I use neither of these. I use Macromedia Fireworks.

[djr33]

I dislike fireworks. But I haven't used it much.

I've used Paint Shop Pro a lot, too, and I find that to be friendly.

And, sure, GIMP compares. But it doesn't beat it. At best, imitates well.

[Twey]

healing brushThe GIMP has this.
all of the filtersSince you didn't list what filters I can't be sure, but the GIMP has a rather extensive collection, with more available via plugins; I suspect there's at least a considerable overlap.
liquify filterIn the GIMP, this is performed by the Distorts->IWarp filter.
magnetic lassoFuzzy Select Tool.
slicesFilters->Web->Slice, or Filters->Web->Image Map.
transform with as many optionsAlso very vague -- what options?
Photoshop is much smoother than GIMP, at least on my system.Not so on any system on which I've tried them, although this is something that's rather difficult to measure.
I just like Photoshop more. Ask any real graphics artists. Or you could argue it's just a trend, but you'd think there would have been time by now for that to fade.There's a "if it's more expensive, it must be better" attitude on the market today, alas. Plus, Photoshop has been around longer and garnered more of a reputation; like yourself, a lot of graphics artists are probably unfamiliar with tools like the GIMP and Inkscape.
I think it's totally a matter of preference. For, I use neither of these. I use Macromedia Fireworks.I tend to use Inkscape more now actually, but since that's vector graphics software it doesn't really compare.
And, sure, GIMP compares. But it doesn't beat it. At best, imitates well.I've met far too many people who've struggled to get used to the GIMP after learning to use Photoshop to accept that the GIMP is an imitation :) Some features the two packages have in common; it's likely that the GIMP copied some off of Photoshop, since Photoshop has been around longer, but as a whole the GIMP is a completely different beast.

[djr33]

I disagree. It seems quite clear that it is simply an unintuitively designed copy of Photoshop, taking it's features. Isn't this the point? Replace PS with an open source alternative?

[Twey]

I disagree. It seems quite clear that it is simply an unintuitively designed copy of Photoshop, taking it's features.This is of course an entirely subjective matter; I was pointing out that the majority of people I've seen seem to think otherwise. If you feel it to be so, then I can't disagree that that's your opinion :)
Isn't this the point? Replace PS with an open source alternative?Not as far as I know. As with most open-source products, it most likely started as somebody's response to a pet peeve. In user interfaces, there are some features that end up being developed anyway; arguing that X11 window managers (although not all of them, admittedly) stole the concept of titlebars from Microsoft who stole them from Apple who stole them from Xerox is irrelevant, as they would probably have ended up there anyway. Likewise, there are many tools that will eventually end up in any decent photo-editing software. You'll almost certainly find them in offerings such as Fireworks as well. Photoshop may well have had an influence, but the GIMP was already being developed when Photoshop hadn't yet found such a wide userbase, and it's most definitely not intended to be a pure Photoshop clone -- in fact, I hear that the GIMP developers got annoyed when GIMPshop, the modification to make the interface behave like Photoshop's, came out because it made the GIMP look like a clone.

Looking around on Google, the only problems that people were complaining about that still exist today seem to be a lack of CMYK and RAW image support. There is a plugin for the CMYK, but it's apparently rather rudimentary. Therefore, if you're intending to do commercial print work or unlucky enough to have a camera that uses a RAW format (I've never seen one, but again, I'm no photographer; it might be more common in big commercial cameras) then it may be worth paying the insane price for Photoshop.

[Freeman]

I've met far too many people who've struggled to get used to the GIMP after learning to use Photoshop to accept that the GIMP is an imitation

I agree with this. I self taught with photoshop and it is taking me a while to figure out how to use GIMP so for me right now it isn't better for me to use GIMP as I do not know how to use it very well. The biggest difference that I don't really like is that all the parts are in different windows. It gets me confused and frustrated for right now. What I have seen in GIMP so far I like.

[jscheuer1]

Looking around on Google, the only problems that people were complaining about that still exist today seem to be a lack of CMYK and RAW image support. There is a plugin for the CMYK, but it's apparently rather rudimentary. Therefore, if you're intending to do commercial print work or unlucky enough to have a camera that uses a RAW format (I've never seen one, but again, I'm no photographer; it might be more common in big commercial cameras) then it may be worth paying the insane price for Photoshop.

Paint Shop has CMYK and RAW support built in, and is considerably less expensive than Photoshop, I think.