Photoshop and Gimp

[wulf]

Originally Posted by Aperture Nine

If you only need to adjust levels, curves and saturation then GIMP is fine. Using Photoshop more or less like a professional means so much more than that.

I use The Gimp as a professional webmaster - granted, that is not the same as being a pro photographer but it still requires reliable, flexible and creative software for image editing.

Wulf

[Mr Guy]

Originally Posted by Aperture Nine

It is a question about money. Photoshop IS better and it is ridiculous when open source enthusiasts claim that "it is better than Photoshop". Some argue that you can do the same in GIMP as you can in Photoshop, and some funny guy answered correctly that you can also dig the Panama Canal with a shovel. Poor countries would, and rich would use state of the art machine and get the job done!

Couple quick things I wanted to point out. The first being being that hyperbole isn't flattering on either side. The GIMP is not better or the same as Photoshop, but neither is it a shovel. You can also dig the Panama Canal with nuclear bombs, but we all know it isn't the power that's important, it's being able to harness it. What people argue is that The GIMP is sufficient for most users, most of the time with its main drawback being user friendliness.

Photoshop is expensive - but woth the price if you can afford it. Working in 16b-bit mode, LAB mode and with none destructive layers and vector masks is extremely productive. GIMP can't do this. Yet. GIMP is also much slower. Unsharp mask on pictures takes some time but is applied instantly in Photoshop CS3. Photoshop is also more - a world of plug-ins, awesome photostitching and Adobe Camera Raw fx. But still... the full version of Photoshop is expensive.

The second thing is that you have to address the target audience when answering a question. For example, the non-destructive layer thing may have value for some users, but unless you're in the situation of passing around an image to edited by multiple parties, there's not much value in it for the non-professional user. I just don't think there's a great deal of value in point out obscure features as evidence one is better than the other.

Finally, I'm not sure how valid all your points are. LAB mode is there (The version currently on my machine is a 2.2 version compiled for Windows), unless there's some additional trick to it that I'm unaware of that makes you unsatisfied with the way they handled it. The GIMP is more tolerant of low end machines, in my experience, then Photoshop is, but it's speed does depend on the platform. Many things that take a while on the GIMP on lower end machines will fail entirely in Photoshop on the same machine, so for me it's really a wash to say one performs better or worse than another.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but there's still very few things that Photoshop has an edge over the GIMP, and if you happen to need one of them, that's fine. Or, if you find the GIMP too unfriendly that's fine too. What rankles me though is sentences like this:

Speed, flexibility and further advances. You'll find this in Photoshop.

Mostly, because they are in the GIMP too, for the sufficiency of a huge proportion of users.

Short version of this whole post: If The GIMP is not sufficient for you, that's fine, but be extremely sure of what your reasoning is, because most users that thing it's insufficient are incorrect.


*Edit* Sorry if this came out overly harsh, it's a professional funny bone. I'm a software designer with a degree in Business Systems Analysis and the difference between what people will actually need and what they believe they need is a major pet peeve of mine. If Photoshop is something you've accurately determined you "need" because you regularly use the very limited set of features that it has the GIMP doesn't share, by all means, it is the correct choice for you, but please don't claim that makes one a better choice in the abstract case.

[cwphotography]

I have never used gimp, so I don't have anything to say about that.
I have used Photoshop for years and of course like it. I also use Lightroom and like that too, but I feel it should be used more for RAW.

[Jamesc359]

Save As... A novel idea to say the least.

[Aperture Nine]

Originally Posted by Jamesc359

Save As... A novel idea to say the least.

Yeah, then quit the program... and how to continue editing exactly where you left it later? It is about having a file with all your current work on the image, the original image in the bottom, several layers on top. Unhappy with one layer? Remove it, the others layers are still there and are still applied. Whatever you do you can revert to the entire original image or just remove single layers.

And oh, in programs like RawTherapee (and Lightroom) you can make 1000 versions of the image; basically it is just 1000 versions of parameters for processing the original image. RAW files are never edited. You save copies.

Save As is not nearly the same as the above. It is not saving a work-in-progress file.

[Jamesc359]

Originally Posted by Aperture Nine

Yeah, then quit the program... and how to continue editing exactly where you left it later?

I usually open the file I saved...

Originally Posted by Aperture Nine

It is about having a file with all your current work on the image, the original image in the bottom, several layers on top. Unhappy with one layer? Remove it, the others layers are still there and are still applied. Whatever you do you can revert to the entire original image or just remove single layers.

The GIMP does have support for layers, and guess what, the original layer isn't destroyed when you save, insert new layers, delete layers, and etc. You can revert to the original image whenever you want, assuming you didn't intentionally modify the original layer.

Originally Posted by Aperture Nine

And oh, in programs like RawTherapee (and Lightroom) you can make 1000 versions of the image; basically it is just 1000 versions of parameters for processing the original image. RAW files are never edited. You save copies.

Save As is not nearly the same as the above. It is not saving a work-in-progress file.

That's true, it isn't the same thing. However, as a whole your propaganda is flawed. See my reply above regarding your implying that The GIMP lacks layer support.

Just a recommendation for future propaganda, stick to the argument that The GIMP doesn't support adjustment layers. Because the rest is just not correct.

[Aperture Nine]

Originally Posted by Jamesc359

I usually open the file I saved...

Yeah, but without the non-destructive layers with vector masks you were working on, and the ability to remove just some of them.

Originally Posted by Jamesc359

The GIMP does have support for layers, and guess what, the original layer isn't destroyed when you save, insert new layers, delete layers, and etc. You can revert to the original image whenever you want, assuming you didn't intentionally modify the original layer.

But there is no support for non-destructive layers, vector masks and the ability to use them directly in LAB mode, is there? No. THAT is what I am talking about, not the basic layers type in GIMP are as good as useless to me. I even have to convert images to 8 bits per channel mode instead of 16. Goodbye advantage of RAW files.

Originally Posted by Jamesc359

However, as a whole your propaganda is flawed.

Nonsense. GIMP does lack support of non-destructive layers, so my claim is valid. The layer types it support are just basic basic basic. You have to get back to the lab, understand the features in question and see what I am actually talking about. And, how can it be flawed? The features are not there, simple as that, and they have been promised come GEGL support.

Propaganda... I once studied the radical 1930's where crashing opinions where usually condemned as "propaganda". I cannot take this seriously.

[Jamesc359]

Originally Posted by Aperture Nine

Yeah, but without the non-destructive layers with vector masks you were working on, and the ability to remove just some of them.

But there is no support for non-destructive layers, vector masks and the ability to use them directly in LAB mode, is there? No. THAT is what I am talking about, not the basic layers type in GIMP are as good as useless to me. I even have to convert images to 8 bits per channel mode instead of 16. Goodbye advantage of RAW files.

Nonsense. GIMP does lack support of non-destructive layers, so my claim is valid. The layer types it support are just basic basic basic. You have to get back to the lab, understand the features in question and see what I am actually talking about. And, how can it be flawed? The features are not there, simple as that, and they have been promised come GEGL support.

Propaganda... I once studied the radical 1930's where crashing opinions where usually condemned as "propaganda". I cannot take this seriously.

In your reply to me, you never made mention of non-destructive layers or vector masks, nor was there or did I make any mention of LAB mode. And of course The GIMP lacks support for non-destructive layers, but again you didn't mention non-destructive layers, in your reply to me, just layers. So please don't pretend like you did. And yeah, your reply to me was flawed, because you said layers, not non-destructive layers.

By the way, propaganda has been used to vilify many causes many more times since the 1930's. So has the term rhetoric. The fact that a word has been used to benefit one side or another in any war/conflict doesn't mean it's usage is invalid or silly in any other condition.

Edit: Except Evil Doers, but that's just silly under any condition that doesn't involve a man in black and a handlebar mustache.

[Aperture Nine]

Sorry, I confused you with the guy I was discussing with earlier (Mr Guy). I mentioned non-destr. layers back then. Anyway, lets just stop here. The number of heated discussions about... you know.. is huge on many sites.

I want to go back and play with water droplets and my camera!

[Jamesc359]

All is cool here. I hope this hasn't caused any hard feelings.

Good luck with the water droplets, don't get your camera wet.