|
|
| Author |
Message |
twenex
|
|
Is The GIMP crap?
| 
Apr 20 22:15 UTC 2006 |
My sister downloaded The GIMP today for some work she needed to do for a
webpage. She has Photoshop but not on her work computer. I've never used
Photoshop but I use the GIMP fairly often, and it works fine for me.
Nicola hates it. I'd be interested to know what people used to both think of
Photoshop's out-of-the-box functionality versus the GIMP's.
|
| 31 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 1 of 31:
|
Apr 20 22:57 UTC 2006 |
My experience has been that people who are used to Photoshop
really don't like GIMP's interface. There's even a project
to make it more Photoshop-like (I think it's called GIMPshop
or something like that..)
Since I'm too cheap to buy Photoshop I just use GIMP, which
works decently enough for my modest cropping/scaling/minor
editing needs..
|
keesan
|
|
response 2 of 31:
|
Apr 20 23:19 UTC 2006 |
I use netpbm from the command line to crop, scale, rotate, label, and print.
|
twenex
|
|
response 3 of 31:
|
Apr 20 23:29 UTC 2006 |
With respect, (a) I wasn't including commandline apps since their interface
is, obviously, vastly different to Photoshop's, and (b) I would be surprised
if more than 2% of image-processors (or rather image-processing-people) use
commandline tools for half the things possible in The GIMP/Photoshop, even
if using them IS possible.
Re: #1. Yeah, I am coming to that conclusion, too. According to my sister The
GIMP is "not intuitive"; i have no such problems with it.
|
eprom
|
|
response 4 of 31:
|
Apr 20 23:32 UTC 2006 |
I've tried Gimp/Gimpshop/Cinepaint. All of them suck compared to
Photoshop. The interface is pure crap. I hate the multiple window
look.
Also my Wacom Intuos tablet will not work with FreeBSD.
|
twenex
|
|
response 5 of 31:
|
Apr 20 23:56 UTC 2006 |
This confirms what Mike was saying, and I'd begun to suspect: That the hate
is due more to a different interface than significant lack of features in The
GIMP.
Of course there are wars in UNIX, too: vi is CLEARLY God's Chosen Editor.
Unless, of course, you use Emacs. In which case, you're wrong! ;-)
BTW, I just recompiled Xorg to use compositing. It is suckingly slow, but VERY
cool!
(For the uninitiated, that means inactive windows are dimmed, and the active
window has a drop shadow).
|
ball
|
|
response 6 of 31:
|
Apr 20 23:57 UTC 2006 |
The GIMP works for me and I have put it on a few desktops.
Mrs. Ball even uses it to scale, rotate and occasionally
mangle otherwise the pictures that she takes with her new
digital camera.
|
tod
|
|
response 7 of 31:
|
Apr 21 00:35 UTC 2006 |
I liked Photoshop until I lost the serialz. Now I use GIMP like its cool.
|
naftee
|
|
response 8 of 31:
|
Apr 21 03:14 UTC 2006 |
re 4
Shit. I read "wacom" as "watcom" and totally tripped out.
threw me back into my old DOS laptop days.
http://www.openwatcom.org
(much better than djgpp !!)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 9 of 31:
|
Apr 21 06:08 UTC 2006 |
One of the areas in which I feel GIMP compares particularly
poorly to Photoshop is in producing hardcopy. Color profiling
and printing support don't really seem to be even close to the
industry-leading standard set by Adobe.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 10 of 31:
|
Apr 21 12:22 UTC 2006 |
I use the GIMP because the extent of my photo manipulation needs is
with web graphics. But because the GIMP does not support CMYK printing,
you won't find it used in serious graphics houses.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 11 of 31:
|
Apr 21 12:33 UTC 2006 |
Here is my experience with GIMP and Photoshop:
When I first began realizing that MS Paint no longer satisfied my image
editing needs I started looking at Photoshop. I downloaded an eval
copy. I couldn't do a thing. I'm usually pretty good at figuring out
how to use a program but this was terrible.
So then I decided to try the GIMP. And its interface wasn't any better.
But I figured since it would take some time and money learning graphic
design either way, I'd much rather learn on the free program than the
$590 one.
|
keesan
|
|
response 12 of 31:
|
Apr 21 15:04 UTC 2006 |
Should this be linked to some other conference, such as photography or micros?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 13 of 31:
|
Apr 21 15:16 UTC 2006 |
Its linked to graphics.
|
khamsun
|
|
response 14 of 31:
|
Apr 21 15:34 UTC 2006 |
for CYMK color space (industry/pro print issue pointed in #9 by mcnally)
there's Krita, included in Koffice from version 1.5. (previous releases
had RGB colors like Gimp). The interface is all-in-one-window a la
Photoshop.
Like kde3, runs on almost every unix (*bsd, aix, irix, solaris, linux,
and darwin/macosX) excepted I think hp-ux -- and the dead ones...
Big drawback: it's a kde app so one must install qt/kdelibs/kdebase.
|
twenex
|
|
response 15 of 31:
|
Apr 21 15:44 UTC 2006 |
Drawback, schmawback. That's not a drawback if you use KDE, which most people
moving to Linux and wanting to use a Photoshop replacement probably will.
|
twenex
|
|
response 16 of 31:
|
Apr 21 16:03 UTC 2006 |
Besides, the GIMP uses GTK+, which may be smaller than the Qt/KDE libs, but
is a damn sight larger than Athena, Motif, and probably GNUStep.
|
scott
|
|
response 17 of 31:
|
Apr 22 22:21 UTC 2006 |
I've never used Photoshop, but I've been using GIMP for years. Side effect
of being a Linux nut, I guess - GIMP was always free and easily available.
For me the GIMP user interface is fine - I suspect the issue is just the
difference in interface. Sort of like the time I tried to use EMACS - ewww!
I knew vi well enough, and EMACS made me do all sorts of 2-key combinations.
|
cross
|
|
response 18 of 31:
|
Apr 23 07:26 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 19 of 31:
|
Apr 23 10:13 UTC 2006 |
rotfl.
|
naftee
|
|
response 20 of 31:
|
Apr 24 02:52 UTC 2006 |
lolol
|
gull
|
|
response 21 of 31:
|
Apr 26 15:48 UTC 2006 |
Disclaimer: My Photoshop experience ends with Photoshop 4.0, so any
improvements after that have been lost on me.
I hated GIMP 1.x's interface. Used it, but hated it. 2.x is much
better. Now I actually prefer it to Photoshop; I like the multiple
window thing, because it means the tool pallet doesn't have to be in my
way when I'm not using it.
Feature-wise it's got most of the same weaknesses as Photoshop 4 -- in
particular, the glaring lack of any straightforward way to draw
geometric figures. The ability to re-edit text after it's entered,
though, is very nice -- IIRC, in Photoshop 4 text seemed to become
uneditable bitmaps as soon as you were done typing it.
I'm not a graphics professional. I mostly do photo editing, strictly in
RGB format. I can easily see how GIMP wouldn't be adequate for someone
doing prepress work.
|
tsty
|
|
response 22 of 31:
|
Apr 27 13:11 UTC 2006 |
gimp 2.0.5 is pretty good to me.
i still have a working photoshop on my win98 b0xen though.
|
wilt
|
|
response 23 of 31:
|
May 16 23:45 UTC 2006 |
HACKED BY GNAA LOL JEWS DID WTC LOL
|
wilt
|
|
response 24 of 31:
|
May 17 00:01 UTC 2006 |
HTTP://WWW.GNAA.US/
|