Qbasicnews.com

General => Art & Music => Topic started by: wallace on April 02, 2007, 09:12:46 PM



Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: wallace on April 02, 2007, 09:12:46 PM
Which is better?  I need one of them for my next graphics class, i can get Photoshop for next to nothing from the school so price isn't a problem.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Skyler on April 02, 2007, 09:57:39 PM
Photoshop. If you can get it for next to nothing, do it. You can always get gimp later.

I've been trying Gimp, but it's an older version because of a specific plugin I'm using, so I can't really tell you which is better.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: zoasterboy on April 02, 2007, 11:10:24 PM
Personaly I like Gimp, but I think Photoshop is a little more user friendly.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Mech1031 on April 03, 2007, 02:53:14 AM
Fine and liberal arts major right here :D

Photoshop, no contest.  Honestly you can fool around with gimp all you want, but if you're looking for something for school or serious projects then gimp doesn't even exist.

Photoshop: Versatility, Productive/efficient, Powerful, Works extremely well with input devices like tablets and scanners, and if you have the power it's extremely fast.

Gimp: Sluggish on a system other than linux, Has a hard time with input devices, Not so user friendly, Somewhat limited, Requires an immense amount of time building a library of brushes and plugins, whereas photoshop comes with alot of what you need right away.

I don't understand why Gimp gets so much praise for being better than photoshop.  Obviously it's free, but thats what you get.  Free software, of course it's not going to be nearly as good as a professionally made product, ESPECIALLY one as complex as photoshop.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Skyler on April 03, 2007, 07:34:50 AM
Now, you're not being fair to gimp. I know it's not quite as good as photoshop, but still, you needn't pound it into the ground like that. I use it on Windows and it works fine for me.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Mech1031 on April 03, 2007, 09:53:45 AM
it's a comparison, i'm not pounding it to the ground.  if i wanted to pound it to the ground i'd make fun of the little foxbadgerwhatever it is logo :D

I was just pointing out what is generally involved with gimp on a windows machine.   It does have a hard time with input devices, if he's running XP or Vista then yes, it almost always tends to be sluggish.  And Gimp doesn't come with alot of brushes or plug-ins, so he would need to download alot of them.

what exactly did i say that wasn't fair?


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Skyler on April 03, 2007, 11:22:03 AM
Like I said. It runs fine on XP for me, not sluggish at all. It loads about as fast as most Adobe products, too.

And it's not a foxbadgerwhatever, it's a gimp.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Kevin_theprogrammer on April 03, 2007, 01:35:02 PM
Pixel/Photoshop/Fireworks(interface) > GIMP


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: wallace on April 03, 2007, 04:51:48 PM
I'm running it on OSX and don't need many devices, probably just my scanner, which I have already have a driver for.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Mech1031 on April 03, 2007, 06:29:59 PM
Skyler:  as i said, generally.  you're obviously an exception so don't get so uptight about it.

Wallace:  If you're running OSX then why wouldn't you use Photoshop?  You've got plenty of applications that work with it flawlessly already probably.  if not you may end up getting them in the future.  You'll learn that other Adobe products make things easier like:

Illustrator, GoLive, Acrobat, InDesign, Photoshop.  They'll all work together flawlessly especially in OSX

Illustrator, GoLive, Acrobat,InDesign, Gimp.  That however won't go over as well.  Even just putting Gimp in with a bunch of other open source stuff or mixed programs won't go together as well as AdobeSuite.  So just keep in mind what you might get in the future as a result of this decision.  cause outside of the school price, photoshop isn't cheap.  more or less this is a good opportunity for you to get a great product (to go along with a potentially great collection of software) at a cheap price.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Deleter on April 03, 2007, 07:49:55 PM
Well since im not a gfx aficiando, gimp is all I need. But cost is mostly what drives me here  :cash: I've never had the money to buy it and I don't care for stealing softy. If I was more into graphics I would probably check out photoshop. As it is I've never needed gimp to do anything that it couldn't. And it doesnt act sluggish on xp for me, so I dunno what you're talking about.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Skyler on April 04, 2007, 07:42:21 AM
*sigh* So I'm not an exception after all.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Mech1031 on April 04, 2007, 09:58:04 AM
don't flatter yourself.  exceptions can include more than one person ;)

and i know plenty of people who it runs slow for.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Skyler on April 04, 2007, 11:07:30 AM
Maybe they're the exception.

P.S. This is Gimp:

(http://www.geocities.com/skyler_orlando/me_rom.jpg)


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Mech1031 on April 04, 2007, 01:05:48 PM
...nah, i'm pretty sure it's the other way around.  so far it's basically everyone at my college versus you two.

P.S.  This is Photoshop:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/The_Husky/Awake.jpg)
(Source: here (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/21288437/?qo=78&q=Planets+boost%3Apopular+age_sigma%3A24h+age_scale%3A5+in%3Adigitalart%2F3d%2Fscenes%2Fspacescapes)

Also:  I'm honestly not ripping on Gimp acting like it's shit.  It's a decent graphics program, but it's just not as good as Photoshop is.  And before you argue that point, then ask yourself why would Photoshop be the industry standard if Gimp is just as good, and free?

Because it isn't, and it won't be.  Adobe has a huge team of developers who get paid to do their jobs, and they do them very very well.  Gimp has a team of people who contribute to it's software on a regular basis, but they all aren't collaborating together.  Features are being added left and right from completely different people.  It just doesn't integrate as well.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Skyler on April 04, 2007, 01:31:53 PM
But Gimp has more people checking and double-checking and triple-checking the code than Photoshop.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Mech1031 on April 04, 2007, 03:38:21 PM
I forgot Adobe doesn't test their products or have 24/7 tech support to report bugs and get instant feedback through email.  I also forgot they release their product without looking it over about a million times to make sure everything runs properly and efficiently.

I guess if they did that they'd be professional or something.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: LooseCaboose on April 04, 2007, 04:55:30 PM
Quote from: "skyler"

But Gimp has more people checking and double-checking and triple-checking the code than Photoshop.

You hear this code checking, and many eyes stuff about open source projects all the time and how much better it is than closed source. But quite honestly, its often a load of rubbish. A large amount of open source code is submitted by people who aren't being payed to do it. They don't want to spend their spare time reading other peoples code just to see if they can spot any obscure bugs. In house development, on the other hand, typically has people being payed to systematically do code reviews and testing. So while open source has many people who could look at the source if they were so inclined, closed source has a few people who are looking at the source because they are payed to do so.

Software development companies are also much better equipped for rigorous testing. If an open source developer made some changes to the input handling in the Gimp, they would either have to own several hundred different input devices to test it, or wait until others who have that hardware can test it for them. A company like Adobe will have many of those hardware devices in their testing areas.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: RADIUM-V Interactive on April 04, 2007, 10:42:19 PM
Quote from: "Skyler"
But Gimp has more people checking and double-checking and triple-checking the code than Photoshop.


How often have you said "Argh! I can't use Photoshop because the floating-point variables for the run-time module were corrupted at compile!"

Unless the code is sitting on your face, you can't say which one's code is more complete.


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: zoasterboy on April 04, 2007, 10:51:54 PM
I like how this turned into a battle over coding philosophies.  :b


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: RADIUM-V Interactive on April 04, 2007, 10:59:02 PM
Anywho, Photoshop is better, but I use Macromedia Fireworks 8. Same results in my opinion:

(http://www.radiumv.com/assets/matrix_radiumv.jpg)


Title: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Deleter on April 11, 2007, 01:47:04 AM
Ah, but in the end only fun matters right :P And gimp is fun:
(http://www.deleter.phatcode.net/stuff/devil2.png)
(btw this is me contemplating linsux ;) jk)


Title: Re: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: Dr_Davenstein on August 15, 2007, 06:29:54 PM
I like Gimp. Photoshop chokes on png alpha maps, for some reason. Although, I do think Photshop is a little mre user friendly too.


Title: Re: Photoshop vs Gimp
Post by: BadMrBox on August 19, 2007, 11:45:16 PM
I dont have photoshop so Gimp 2 is what I use. Thought I usually dont do any photo altering, just pixelart so graphicsgale does the work quite good enough for me.