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.

 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..  

I use netpbm from the command line to crop, scale, rotate, label, and print.

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.

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.

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).

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.

I liked Photoshop until I lost the serialz.  Now I use GIMP like its cool.

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 !!)

 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.

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.

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.

Should this be linked to some other conference, such as photography or micros?

Its linked to graphics.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This response has been erased.

rotfl.

lolol

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.

gimp 2.0.5 is pretty good to me.
  
i still have a working photoshop on my win98 b0xen though. 

HACKED BY GNAA LOL JEWS DID WTC LOL

HTTP://WWW.GNAA.US/

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE

http://www.jewsdidwtc.com/

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE

this board is impossible to trlol

this board is impossible to trlol

hi it's me i'm a camwhore

GNAA GNAA GNAAGNAA GNAA GNAAGNAA GNAA GNAAGNAA GNAA GNAAGNAA GNAA GNAAGNAA
GNAA GNAA

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss