The GIMP vs Adobe Photoshop
- Published June 20th, 2006 in Personal, Tech Comment, Free Software
Introduction
Quite a dispute going on around the subject The GIMP vs Adobe Photoshop. The discussion about how GIMP’s development has been conducted and whether it fulfils its users needs was raised a long time ago. But recently there was a new episode raised with Anil Dash’s rant about using The GIMP.
Besides the usual noise, like criticizing the name (a more experienced user will easily ignore such statements) there are some points that really make sense and should be taken seriously by Gimp’s developers.
The discussion kept going further, and Pedro Figueiro gave his own personal opinion. Right after, a guy named Ricardo Ramalho came to refute some arguments (link somewhere in a Moosaico forum).
Here’s my take.
Preface
First off, I’m a Free Software proponent and I’ll use it whenever possible. I’m involved with several Free/Open Source communities and I’ve developed for some too (Mambo, Horde, Moodle, etc..). I also advocate the use of Free Software.
However, there are other important points besides being Free Software. It has to fulfil my needs and provide me a good user experience. Otherwise, I’ll simply look for an alternative that will help me get my work done — which includes proprietary software. Some people have all the working conditions so restraining themselves from using proprietary software is doable. Unfortunately, I can’t do it.
Hence, I won’t stop using something just because it is not Free Software. The four freedoms covered by Free Software aren’t enough to get my work done.
Having said so, I’ve used both Adobe Photoshop (since version 4.0) and The GIMP. I won’t discuss on technical features but I’ll rather take a different view.
My take
I truly believe there’s place for both applications. I won’t discuss Photoshop’s superiority — it’s factual. But still, there are certain tasks that can easily be accomplished with Gimp without having the need to pay for Photoshop. Maybe a graph will help explaining my point of view.
The graph is pretty simple. The y axis refer to level of use (from easy to advanced) and the x axis to the cost (which includes factors like price, time required to accomplish a certain task, etc..).
So, as you may easily see, there are several tasks that can be done with Gimp that simply are not worth $500 (Photoshop rounded price). As soon as this value is surpassed (for instance, when we start considering medium-advanced tasks), the costs involved in using Gimp (which are solely related to the time required to do something) are much higher than Photoshop’s.
Point being that there’s a place for both applications. It’s also obvious that Gimp has a lot to improve. Nevertheless, it’s a usable and valid choice for a broad set of tasks. And yes, it’s Free and you can distribute, change and use it as ever you want.
P.S. - I respect all the people who discard the software just because it’s not Free Software. It’s their choice!
That chart is totally arbitrary and merely depicts your own opinion. I think the GIMP has a lot to grow in terms of usability, this item doesn’t seem to be a concern at all to it’s developers, like many other Gnome based programs. If we look at freeware graphic tools for Windows (Paint .NET has been mentioned in this GIMP-war, Photofiltre is another fine program) we find much better software.
Precisely! This graphic reflects my own opinion and it’s not backed up by any economic theory or something.
Don’t know about Photofiltre, but last time I used Paint.NET (like 6 months ago) it didn’t have half of Gimp’s functionalities. Plus, it’s uncertain if it runs properly and GNU/Linux and Mac OS X — relies on Mono for that matter.
On the other hand, The GIMP has native builds of each operating system.
I hope that Gimp’s usability will improve along with GTK+ overall look. They should certainly take a closer look at Mac OS X.
I feel like I’m always saying this, but this seems to be sothing that people do not understand when they start a GIMP bashing festival…
With virtual desktops, and users who know how to use them, The GIMP can be quite usable. You can show the palettes on all desktops, and assign a couple of image windows to each desktop, thus enabling you to switch tasks by simply switching virtual desktops.
Therefore, the GIMP is perfectly acceptable on Linux. Sure, there are a couple of usability issues, but most complaints come from Photoshop users who want The GIMP to behave exacly like Photoshop.
On Windows, The GIMP just plain sucks! There are no virtual desktops and GTK is just ugly and weird outiside of X11.
On the Mac, The GIMP sucks! It is like you paired Frankenstein’s monster with a supermodel.
But one thing remains… MSOffice on the Mac also as the same MDI style as The GIMP, as does Photoshop. I don’t see anyone complaining, do you?
I think this whole thing is going waaay overboard…
Therefore, the GIMP is perfectly acceptable on Linux. Sure, there are a couple of usability issues, but most complaints come from Photoshop users who want The GIMP to behave exacly like Photoshop.
That’s very true!
I think this whole thing is going waaay overboard…
Some people are clearly overreacting.
I’m a professional photographer, Mac OSX fan (not quite fanatic) and Ubuntu user. I’ve been following the GIMP for a long, long time (my brother introduced me to it well over a decade ago).
There was a time when GIMP met my needs. Your graph is absolutely accurate. When I was editing a few photos at a time it was great. Didn’t need Photoshop. But when my shoots became larger and the ability to handle and batch edit literally hundreds of RAW photos at once became necessary, GIMP lost in favor of a full version of Photoshop. A couple versions later and I’m still paying because time is money, and GIMP takes WAY too much time. (Literally a few hours vs a few days.)
To be completely honest, however, what the GIMP is lacking is not so much Photoshop features as Bridge, Lightroom, Aperture, CaptureOne, or RAW Shooter features. I now do very little work in Photoshop, and what I do could be handled by the GIMP fairly well (still needs a little work…). Most of my work now involves sorting, rating, and batch processing large numbers of RAW images. I long for the day that we have an open source alternative in this department. (If I’m somehow completely oblivious to an existing solution, please let me know!)
- Jon
I am absolutely sick of GIMP. I don’t want to pay for PS but GIMP has taken a lot of effort to attempt to learn. In my opinon the GIMP support community is completely lacking.
I am trying to learn how to create Web Templates and GIMP doesn’t seem to be the best approach because of the lack of WIN32 support. What I mean is that it seems as if most support is expressed in source code changes and using MAKEFILES to build this plugin or that plugin.
Last night was the last straw for me and GIMP. I was trying to use the bucket fill tool and when ever I selected a color (green, pink, brown, or whatever) all the bucket fill tool would do is fill everything as Gray. I promptly uninstalled GIMP and started using Paint.net.
I am mostly upset and don’t mean to be a butt head. If anyone knows of a place for reasonable GIMP support I willing to listen. Untill then my cheap butt will be trying to use Paint.net
For Windows users I always recommend Paint.net, it’s just better on Windows than Gimp. Gimp is fine for Linux users. That’s that.
For professional users to embrace it, the Gimp SHOULD behave like Photoshop, specially toolbar distribution and keyboard shortcuts.
Now I don’t think the Gimp devs are trying to compete with PS in the pro level, which is a pity, people like me would LOVE to use it, both for ethical reasons (free software) and for the price (I can’t afford a legal copy of PS).
hey everyone, check out gimpshop, gimp with photoshop’s layout, i was sick of gimp and found it almost unusable coming from photoshop. i see gimpshop as essential to any windows user.