It's really interesting how professionals pretty much ignore the GIMP in favor of Photoshop.
Both toolkits have plenty of features, and GIMP certainly has many of the necessary features the Photoshop has provided for a while. Layers, filters, etc, GIMP has many of them. And support for plug-ins also helps make the case for the image editor.
But in the end, professionals use Photoshop. It would be a pleasant surprise to hear that the last chapter of the book "Beginning GIMP: From Novice to Professional" was de
Just like the legal community is pretty much still using WordPerfect. It has little basis in merit or features.
The GIMP does the work of 80% of the worlds photoshop users, with about the same learning curve. The other 20% would run into a limitation and need to use some feature that is Adobe specific.
"Just like the legal community is pretty much still using WordPerfect."
I was surprised myself to discover that this is actually not true. Some lawyers still prefer it, but in most large firms they pretty much use MS Word across the board.
(IHWWALOLF = I have worked with a lot of large firms.)
OK, let's assume for the moment that the statement "The GIMP does the work of 80% of the worlds photoshop users" is true. The issue comes in that when you need any feature form the other 20%, you need to use PS. So, why learn two apps? Just learn PS and be done with it and then you have 100% of the features all the time. Yes PS is damn expensive. But, it's a world-class piece of s/w that is rivaled by none. Oh, and I doubt the the original supposition about Gimp having 80% of the features is really true
I don't think the GP was implying that you should learn two programs. He was saying that for 80% of the people currently editing images, they could be using the Gimp with equal results to PS. For the remaining 20%, the Gimp is not an option, so they may be better served using PS.
He wasn't saying that you should use the Gimp 80% of the time and then use PS for the remaining 20% of work that the Gimp lacks support for.
I think it's more that 80% of normal PC users or the people (mainly kids no doubt) illegaly downloading PS actually would only need GIMP as they aren't creating professional quality flyers, catalogues or anything else for print media.
The choice of Photoshop over GIMP has a huge basis in merit and features. It's not just crotchety old geezers too narrowminded to try somethign new. GIMP is an acceptable basic image editor--but as anything more than that, it falls short. By a LOT:
Lack of high bit depth, lack of adjustment layers, lack of 4 color/spot color, lack of sophisticated tools (ala the automated HDR and Focus stacking in PS or 3D in PS Extended), lack of plug-ins, and the lack of an integrated design suite (Inkscape/Gimp/Scribus
"lack of sophisticated tools (ala the automated HDR and Focus stacking in PS or 3D in PS Extended)"
Features that have ruined landscape shots. Most everyones digital landscapes all look like fantasy pictures and the are all the same. Same tools, same sensors and same colors. Boring.
Who gives a fuck about HDR landscapes? What if I want to shoot architectural interiors without having the windows turn into big blown out blocks of white? Don't make assumptions about how I want to use certain features.
$1,000 is peanuts for something that you use everyday for years at a time. That suggests that features have plenty to do with it (even if a major feature is "I learned it first and it is what I am used to").
Such a useful tool (Score:3, Informative)
It's really interesting how professionals pretty much ignore the GIMP in favor of Photoshop.
Both toolkits have plenty of features, and GIMP certainly has many of the necessary features the Photoshop has provided for a while. Layers, filters, etc, GIMP has many of them. And support for plug-ins also helps make the case for the image editor.
But in the end, professionals use Photoshop. It would be a pleasant surprise to hear that the last chapter of the book "Beginning GIMP: From Novice to Professional" was de
Re:Such a useful tool (Score:3, Insightful)
But in the end, professionals use Photoshop.
Just like the legal community is pretty much still using WordPerfect. It has little basis in merit or features.
The GIMP does the work of 80% of the worlds photoshop users, with about the same learning curve. The other 20% would run into a limitation and need to use some feature that is Adobe specific.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just like the legal community is pretty much still using WordPerfect."
I was surprised myself to discover that this is actually not true. Some lawyers still prefer it, but in most large firms they pretty much use MS Word across the board.
(IHWWALOLF = I have worked with a lot of large firms.)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
OK, let's assume for the moment that the statement "The GIMP does the work of 80% of the worlds photoshop users" is true. The issue comes in that when you need any feature form the other 20%, you need to use PS. So, why learn two apps? Just learn PS and be done with it and then you have 100% of the features all the time. Yes PS is damn expensive. But, it's a world-class piece of s/w that is rivaled by none. Oh, and I doubt the the original supposition about Gimp having 80% of the features is really true
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He wasn't saying that you should use the Gimp 80% of the time and then use PS for the remaining 20% of work that the Gimp lacks support for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:0)
The choice of Photoshop over GIMP has a huge basis in merit and features. It's not just crotchety old geezers too narrowminded to try somethign new. GIMP is an acceptable basic image editor--but as anything more than that, it falls short. By a LOT:
Lack of high bit depth, lack of adjustment layers, lack of 4 color/spot color, lack of sophisticated tools (ala the automated HDR and Focus stacking in PS or 3D in PS Extended), lack of plug-ins, and the lack of an integrated design suite (Inkscape/Gimp/Scribus
Re: (Score:2)
"lack of sophisticated tools (ala the automated HDR and Focus stacking in PS or 3D in PS Extended)"
Features that have ruined landscape shots. Most everyones digital landscapes all look like fantasy pictures and the are all the same. Same tools, same sensors and same colors. Boring.
Re: (Score:0)
Who gives a fuck about HDR landscapes? What if I want to shoot architectural interiors without having the windows turn into big blown out blocks of white? Don't make assumptions about how I want to use certain features.
Re: (Score:0)
$1,000 is peanuts for something that you use everyday for years at a time. That suggests that features have plenty to do with it (even if a major feature is "I learned it first and it is what I am used to").