Photoshop or Gimp

I was wondering if photoshop is worth all the money or is gimp just as good.

I have the sense it depends on your needs. I haven’t used photoshop in years, Gimp serves me just fine, but I don’t work with anything like that professionally.

I tend to use Inkscape to support Gimp in certain things.

I choose Photoshop before Gimp as I worked in it for so long now (since v1.03 or something) and also, Gimp isn’t bad, but it lacks here & there compared to PS. But for Vector graphics, I really hate Illustrator, hehe, I was always a Freehand Kinda guy - so I choose Inkscape before Illustrator any day.

But I could absolutely manage with Gimp. I could. So if money were an issue, I’d choose Gimp. :slight_smile:

Gimp is great but in a professional environment you’ll need Photoshop. If you got the money, you won’t regret it
Try the Photoshop CS6 beta http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/photoshopcs6.html

I like Gimp, but at the same time I have a few plugins installed to make it nicer (which is actually a benefit, there are quite a few addons for gimp). If you are working in rgb color space I say gimp is perfectly fine.

Moved from “General Forums > Blender and CG Discussions” to “Support > Other Software”

I spend 5 years on 2D graphics, test bove programs and what can i say. That Actually Gimp is good for some little texturex etc. but:

I will say like that. You got BW render, in photoshop you can create awesome looking image from it with many colors nice feel climate etc. In gimp you just can’t do this or it will take forever to do it.

Photoshop nothing else.

More:
photoshop works on high resolutions Gimp no.

I will say like that. You got BW render, in photoshop you can create awesome looking image from it with many colors nice feel climate etc. In gimp you just can’t do this or it will take forever to do it.

I don’t understand this statement.

BTW there is also krita coming around the bend as a viable option.

Good to know about Krita. Professionals should not hesitate on purchasing PS. It is an industry standard, not having it would be a big mistake. Hobbyists shouldn’t waste their money, unless they just have lots lying around. I agree with Farmfield, if I had to do without PS, Gimp would be a workable solution for most tasks.

U can not compare a skatebord with a Lamborghini.
Gimps a skatebord.
Photoshop a Lamborghini.
Photoshop shold be used with tablets like wacom.a mose would be a waste.
If ya not one hell of a Artist Photoshop ,Wacom still wount do you any good.

Just try both, Photoshop trial version and get Gimp.

If you are able to afford the Photoshop cost, there’s no reason to use Gimp, as Gimp has some weak points (the most important one being the lack of 16/32 bit channels, the promising but current implementation being impractical of the iWrap, the Gimp version of liquify) that Photoshop do not have, and that will stay weak Gimp points at least until Gimp 3.0 in the ( far ? ) future.

Additionally, if after trying you’re interested into Gimp, and you’re on Windows OS, the current version of Gimp (2.6.x) has that awfull floating panel interface that apparently is great on linux, but that on windows has those docks do not reducing themselves when you want to reduce the program in the task bar and that are overall an annoying pain to setup.
I use Gimp since a few year, and i was extremely happy when they finally decide to implement a “single window mode” that fix those annoyances on windows OS.

So if you are on windows and want to give a try to Gimp, ignore the current version and go to Partha website to grab one of his builds from the current source code (so it include the “single window mode”), additionally he has integrated some plugins to make gimp more complete.

And once you get into this, and launch Gimp click on Windows then enable the Single Window Mode to avoid being frustrated by those clunky floating panels.

If you’re interested by painting, not only image editing, give a try to Mypaint, it’s simply amazing, extremely intuitive interface, numerous usefull brushes that feels “real”, it’s the best painting application i ever tried (on windows) :
http://mypaint.intilinux.com/

The only open-source alternative to Photoshop is Krita. Not Gimp.
Krita is the only open-source raster image editor that works natively with CMYK colors.

Krita is the only open-source raster image editor that crashes repeatedly and consistently on the Gnome desktop.

I would test it if it would stay open long enough to do any work with it.

Krita’s focus is on painting, not image manipulation. Try 2.4, Krita is much more stable since 2.3. As a origination specialist, I think the lack of native CMYK support in Gimp is over rated. Use Scribus to collate the origination, to check separations and use the preflight facilities before you hand off a pdf (there is no need for anything other than pdf) and ask for a colour-correct, calibrated proof. If your monitor is properly calibrated (cheap mass produced lcd monitors don’t count), it is pretty easy to match colours to a printed CMYK swatch from you provider (if the press/printer is calibrated too) and to check that your RGB files do not contain colours that are out of gamut.

You do know that CMYK (256 shades each ink) is a pretty piss poor way to represent colour, especially considering the deep desire for 16/24 bits per colour demanded by the professionals/Gimp haters, opposed to say 8-bits per colour for CMYK? Worse considering that offset printers themselves, especially if badly maintained, cannot print the full 256 shades of each colour. I lose 3-4% gamut top and bottom on my best press due to several problems including dot gain. So anything I do is a compromise. Plus the ubiquity of colour laser copiers, my clients expect my offset output to look like over-saturated digital crap.

How would you handle RAW files or OpenEXR when going to print? Same problem, much more complicated. Check out the GEGL/BABL pages to get an idea why integrating these libraries into Gimp is such a good idea, try easy GPU acceleration for all Gimp operations across the board (Eat that Photoshop!). Forget 1-bit/8-bit per 3/4 channels, try 32-bit for one channel, 13-bit for another channel, 7-bit for another, 1-bit for UV Varnish, oops has a gradient change on the fly to 8-bit, add another 8-bit channel for an additional spot colour all in a single file. Arbitrarily variable multi-bit, multi-channel, multi-layer textures for Blender?

For CMYK the only alternative is Krita. But for everything else Gimp is a PS alternative… :stuck_out_tongue:

If you use high dynamic range bitmaps (raw files converted in Lightroom in my case and then saved in native hdr .psd format) in your origination, since we are talking about professionals here remember, the only time you bother to go to CMYK is when you export the final production ready .pdf and cmyk is converted using an appropriate profile which represents the characteristics of the target device. In fact, you don’t even need to convert, just make sure the correct profile is embedded. Why would you even want to paint using such a bad representation of colour always amuses me. The biggest crime in the reproduction industry is the industry wide adoption of the jpeg lossy compression algorithm especially as a storage format for digital colours. Lossy? WTF? As I said, CMYK over rated.

Photoshop has a lot more features and that’s a big plus for me. That being said, however, I used GIMP for 2 years before I got Photoshop on student discount, and I was always pleased with it.

I can do everything in GIMP that I ever need or want to do. Photoshop might be more user friendly and have some cool features but at the end, 95% of stuff people do with it can also be done in GIMP.