Gimp

Cantab.

What are the main advantages/disadvantages in using Adobe software over GIMP?

I use GIMP myself -- completely free and works on Linux too!

Cantab.

So no GIMP users knocking around then?

I guess Adobe have the photographers market sewn up so...

Calina

I used to use the Gimp. I stopped because it and my computer were constantly fighting. It just didn't seem to run very fast on my XP machine. At the time I wanted nothing very complex from it and eventually moved to Photoshop Elements 5.0 which although it cost money was generally more efficient in terms of memory although it slowed right up as I filled the hard drive.

Additionally I used to spend ages ploughing through plugin sites to try and get some functionality. I liked its screen layout with the floating frames but it drove me up the wall when I was trying to do composite shots. I eventually gave up and uninstalled it.

Its key advantage over the Photoshop stuff is that it was free. I liked its black and white converter too - some of the stuff I did with it then just worked nicely.

But I really couldn't handle it hanging my computer while it applied some effect or other and I just lost patience with it in the end.

I put a lot of time and effort into looking at alternatives. Although I do now use "full" Photoshop, at the time I just found Elements was easier to use, did more and was faster.

You might say it's my fault for using Microsoft Windows instead of Linux but that's not really the point. I like the open source idea but Firefox and Wordpress aside (is WP OS, I think it is...) my experience with OS software is that it tends to involve a lot of messing. The key advantage - that of being able to get stuck in and fix problems - really isn't a selling point to a lot of users who don't have the expertise to fix problems. As such, for me, what matters is how well the software works for me and although I got some nice things out of the Gimp when I was using it, I ultimately found it too much hassle to use and the PS licence was worth it to me now that I have it running and am getting my head around the bells and whistles.

In short, I guess it comes down to usability issues.

5uspect

I like the GIMP but Photoshop is a superior piece of software and iirc a recent survey showed that Photoshop is the most desired app for linux users. The GIMP really seems to try and emulate PS rather than be a direct substitute. Its no where near as good performance wise either. The GIMP is a fine photo editor but Photoshop for all its bloat (much improved in CS3) and cost is an exquisite piece of software.

I use both ubuntu and XP so its not really an OS thing for me.

Spyral

Have used gimp and I hate it !!

Photoshop is the way to go !!

gerky

For anyone who doesn't like gimp you should try gimpshop its gimp with a photoshop feel to it.
Also gimp seems to have improved a fair bit in more recent releases.

pickarooney

Gimpshop is terrible, IMO, neither one thing nor the other. I use GIMP but can't stand the separate frames for everything. I get around it by using a separate desktop... It's very complete, but somehow counterintuitive, I find myself having to relearn basic stuff over and over. Even zooming is complicated, no one-key shortcut!
I've tried paint.net recenttly. Not bad at all as a free PS replacement.

haz

I love Gimp and usually prefer it to any other package. I don't spend time browsing around the infinite number of plugins and scripts, but absolutely adore Mathmap and the animation component. I don't understand UFRaw, but I think that is down to my Nikon camera being cleverer than me in choosing JPEG conversion options. I also have the best photo-to-graphic / comic convertor script I have ever used. I really appreciate the science and maths background to Gimp so the exact processing in any manipulation can be understood with a bit of time and searching. It's fast on my XP and Windows 2000 on laptop and desktop.

Photoshop is undoubtedly more stable and more advanced, but I prefer the feel and the open aspect of Gimp.

(PS: Tux Paint is a nice open-source package for young kids with some neat features like picture tubes (stamps), figured lines and name-free filing).

LaVidaLoca

is probably the most unergonomic peice of software Ive ever encountered.

I simply could not figure out how to get it to do even the most basic things. After severeal frustrating hours I went back to photoshop elements - which is perfect if all you need to do is adjust contrast/brightness and maybe a bit of black and white.

haz

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

is probably the most unergonomic peice of software Ive ever encountered.

But Gimp does this without breaking a sweat:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thual/311481143/ (with more Droste examples)

JavaBear

It has a pretty steep learning curve. If you don't need photoshop for professional things I don't think it justifies it's cost. As mentioned, paint.net is an excellent program for simple tasks.

haz

The video guides to Gimp at http://meetthegimp.org/ are highly recommended and have a photographer bias.

I see the Gimp branch that has become Cinepaint supports native 16-bit channels, so RAW files are read without any loss of precision. I haven't tried it.