How does GIMP and Photoshop compare in terms of capability?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Kelvin, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. Kelvin

    Kelvin Guest

    GIMP is free, but Photoshop costs few hundred bucks.
    Which is more powerful?
    Is GIMP sufficient for beginner photographer?

    Thanks.
     
    Kelvin, Oct 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kelvin

    n.t. Guest

    Well, the bottom line is... you get wat you pay for. You can never expext a
    free product to perform al well as an 8th generation professional editor.
    GIMP is good for beginners. It is not as stable, efficient, or flexible as
    any of the Photoshop series. But then again PS8 is very difficult for a
    beginner to learn. You might also like to have a look at PS elements (a
    light version of ps7).
     
    n.t., Oct 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hi,

    Yes, I definitely think GIMP is sufficient for a beginner photographer.
    If you're coming from a Photoshop world, GIMP takes a little getting
    used to, but after a while it feels great. It supports layers, paths,
    and channels. You can script it. It has a good community support. You
    will be able to use a variety of image processing techniques to great
    effect. I have only used GIMP on Linux, so you may want to explore how
    the Windows and Mac OSX versions compare - there should be no
    significant differences, though.

    Having said that, Photoshop is the industry standard. If you're thinking
    seriously of photography, it might be a good idea to think Photoshop at
    some point down the line. Meanwhile, GIMP will do.

    Bartek
     
    Bartek Plichta, Oct 29, 2004
    #3
  4. Kelvin

    D.R. Guest

    The GIMP is very stable and reliable on Linux. Not sure about the Windows port.
    I have had issues with stability with Photoshop and Paintshop Pro on Windows in
    the past.

    I cannot stand the interface to the GIMP, I am too used to PaintShop Pro. I use
    Photoshop 7 at work, but still prefer Paintshop Pro 7.04. It guess it's what one
    gets used to. I can find everything on PSP7, PS7 takes a little more thought
    (for me that is).

    If it were me, I'd grab a 2nd hand copy of PSP7 from Ebay (or perhaps Photoshop
    Elements 2 as a 2nd choice). PSP8 was said to be buggy, and I have no idea what
    PSP9 is like. PSP7 beats the pants off Photoshop Elements for features, but
    Photoshop CS is more powerful than all of these.

    D.R.
     
    D.R., Oct 29, 2004
    #4
  5. Kelvin

    Matthias Guest

    I don't know PS, but I read and use available PS tutorials on the web
    quite often. It was never difficult to follow the PS instructions
    using GIMP. GIMP is stable and fast enough.

    The only critical feature missing is 16bit support for color channels.
    So if you want to work professionally with images PS might be the
    better option. (There's a program called cinepaint, based on an old
    version of GIMP, which supports 16bit, but I haven't tried it yet.)
     
    Matthias, Oct 29, 2004
    #5
  6. Kelvin

    al-Farrob Guest

    n.t. wrote:

    Do you actually know it?

    [snip]
    [snip]
     
    al-Farrob, Oct 29, 2004
    #6
  7. Kelvin

    Carl Guest

    Sorry, but have you actually used GIMP 2.0? It's definitely not a truism
    that you get what you pay for otherwise MS Windows would be a decent
    Operating System. In reality you get what you get irrespective of how
    much or little you pay for it. Price and quality do not equate. Price is
    determined by what the intended market will pay.

    The Gimp is not a free product in the sense of cheap product, but a
    result of the Free Software Philosophy (which incidentally has nothing
    to do with price but freedom in terms of ideas) and is released under
    the Gnu General Public License. It is the result of co-operation between
    many good programmers around the world.

    I've been using Photoshop since version 4.0 and stable, efficient, and
    flexible are not necessarily factors I would always place together in
    the same sentence with regard to PS - yet I have to admit that I reach
    into my pocket at each upgrade.

    The Gimp performs as effectively as Photoshop and is definitely not a
    beginner's program by any means. Currently it lacks a Colour Management
    capability and some functions that appeared in PS 7 and CS - which is a
    reason why I currently still go with PS. It also has a fairly
    idiosyncratic interface in that there is no containing dialogue holding
    parts of the application together - there various elements appear
    directly on the desktop. On the other hand, it is ported to more
    operating systems than any other software. Several mainstream books have
    been published on using the Gimp, though nowhere near as many as for PS
    (though I often wonder why, if one has a legal copy of PS, does one need
    to buy one of the many published books that simply regurgitate the PS
    manuals?)

    BTW a 16bit version of Gimp was used for the graphics for the following
    movies: Scooby Doo, Harry Potter, Cats & Dogs, Dr. Dolittle 2, Little
    Nicky, The Grinch, Sixth Day, Stuart Little and Planet of the Apes
     
    Carl, Oct 30, 2004
    #7
  8. So would you also say windows is better than linux?

    My suggestion is to download GIMP go through the many many online tutorials
    (Grokking the GIMP) and use it for a bit - if it does what you want, save
    your $$ for something else.

    The things really missing from GIMP is 48 bit support and native CMYK
    colourspace support.
     
    Dominic Richens, Oct 30, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.