PDA

View Full Version : Any professional designers using Gimpshop instead of Adobe?




eclipse
Aug 16, 2006, 09:59 PM
Hi all,
a friend has assured me that Gimpshop is heading towards "as good as" Photoshop at a very fast rate.

I'm still doing my own design training... my wife is the master/guru, but hey? There's no harm asking.

How long until designers AND printers can download the latest "open source" version of "Quark look-alike" and "Photoshop look-alike" for FREE?

Keep in mind all those times as a designer you've upgraded Quark, but been frustrated and slowed down by printers that could not upgrade it fast enough for you. Those print houses wanted to save some money a bit longer, and slowed you down, especially when you worked in one version and had to backsave to another.

How long until open source becomes an industry standard simply because it's free, and bugs seem to get fixed quicker, and customers/users get to have a real say in the development?

2 years? 5 years? Never? Now?

Who uses open source in their professional design work?



bousozoku
Aug 16, 2006, 10:26 PM
I'd say it's most likely the answer is zero.

Who would trust their living to applications that aren't used by the industry? Ask people how much Corel Draw and Photo-Paint are used?

eclipse
Aug 16, 2006, 10:27 PM
OK at this stage.
But remember when people bagged Linux?

slooksterPSV
Aug 16, 2006, 10:34 PM
Quake/InDesign look alike I use RagTime Solo, now that can compete bc of all the functionality it offers.

Gimpshop/Gimp - Nothing like Photoshop, I'm sorry, but there setup is too difficult to use on such a small screen like mine (1024x768) so I don't use it.

Illustrator - Sorry, maybe I'm thinking Inkscape, but that's X11 so.. yeah Inkscape is ok, but has lots of work.

GoLive - NVU still has a lot of work, its kind of bulky, and does crash a lot.

That's the main products, oh and Adobe Acrobat, RagTime Solo can do some PDF marking security kind of things, but I'm not sure if Acrobat has a freeware competitor.

That kind of help with the Adobe Suite?

ATD
Aug 16, 2006, 10:39 PM
No open source software here. The programs I have work fine and I have no problems with vendors. I am happy to pay for them.

As a starting up designer you should want software to cost something. The design field has become over-saturated, one of the primary reasons for that is the cost of starting a design business keeps dropping, software/hardware get cheaper by the year. Less capitalization = more competition. If the design field standard switched to free software, the start up design businesses would only multiply. If you can start a business for next to nothing what have you got to lose? A starting designer would find it even harder to get a foothold. Careful what you wish for. ;)

chasemac
Aug 16, 2006, 10:50 PM
Adobe CS. Learn it. Live it. Breath it..:)

bousozoku
Aug 16, 2006, 11:07 PM
Adobe CS. Learn it. Live it. Breath it..:)

As long as you don't have to love it.

slooksterPSV
Aug 16, 2006, 11:15 PM
As long as you don't have to love it.
I love Adobe. Must buy software, must pay $2000 for Adobe Calendar. lol. Seriously though, I love Adobe, they do a great job.

eclipse
Aug 16, 2006, 11:20 PM
Hey, I love them too... GoLive is the first thing I ever really learned.... part of my oil campaign thing. And Photoshop (the little I know for scanning and a bit of cropping etc for my lovely wife) seems to run well.

Just wondering where it's all heading, and if it's going to be for free, what the heck does this mean for our industry?:o

Blue Velvet
Aug 17, 2006, 12:06 AM
Hi all,
a friend has assured me that Gimpshop is heading towards "as good as" Photoshop at a very fast rate.


Your friend hasn't a clue what they're talking about and betrays a complete lack of knowledge of what Photoshop's real capabilities are.

Open-source page layout software is unlikely to happen as an industry standard. Look at how many years of development it's taken to get InDesign and Quark to where they are... let alone Adobe to get CS3 out the door.

What many small shops don't often appreciate is the extendible architecture behind these two apps, and how they integrate with their various bolt-ons into a larger publishing workflow. No publishing business is going to risk their workflow on an app that has no discernible technical support.

dornoforpyros
Aug 17, 2006, 12:16 AM
Your friend hasn't a clue what they're talking about and betrays a complete lack of knowledge of what Photoshop's real capabilities are.

Open-source page layout software is unlikely to happen as an industry standard. Look at how many years of development it's taken to get InDesign and Quark to where they are... let alone Adobe to get CS3 out the door.

What many small shops don't often appreciate is the extendible architecture behind these two apps, and how they integrate with their various bolt-ons into a larger publishing workflow. No publishing business is going to risk their workflow on an app that has no discernible technical support.


Ditto. I've opened gimp and played with it, and it's VERY crippled compared to PS. Whatever the linux/opensource community would like to pretend, they are still waay behind adobe.

Granted since adobe's buyout of macromedia I would like to see another player on the field just to keep adobe on their toes.

eclipse
Aug 17, 2006, 01:16 AM
Thank you for your comments.

I guess the thing that amazes me is that there's even free software out there at all. I once saw an economist arguing that the US economy would power on if the US Government made everything open source, and paid 20 thousand hackers as full time developers. Then the government would have access to completely free software, and the world would benefit from it as well.

So while open source is "behind" isn't it amazing that it has come this far this quickly? I mean, Linux is now moving into government circles, Open Office is on many PC's, it's happening in these more administrative areas.

Is design really immune?

ATD
Aug 17, 2006, 01:51 AM
Is design really immune?


Immune from what? For the first 10 years of my career I designed with a pencil, an easer, a tracing pad, a ruler and a triangle. I made a good living then and I make a good living now. Focusing on the tools of design misses the point. That's not design.

Blue Velvet
Aug 17, 2006, 01:57 AM
Is design really immune?

Yes. Because the technical complexity and testing required to produce reliable production-ready software is far higher than an Office app. Otherwise we would have seen Microsoft release something a little more ambitious than Publisher.

Besides, it's a self-reinforcing circle. The industry itself needs a supply of industry-ready juniors competent in industry-standard apps... attempting to enter a crowded job market with fluency in Gimpshop and Ragtime Solo on your resume would be a waste of your time and everyone else's.

This idea of open-source software becoming an industry standard is a complete flight of fancy and doesn't bear much further discussion...

I've also never worked anywhere where OpenOffice was the standard Office software suite.

RacerX
Aug 17, 2006, 04:08 AM
There is a big difference between software that works and professional grade applications.

Often times this has to do with platform... for example Gimp is a perfectly good replacement for Photoshop on SGIs. Why? Because the newest version of Photoshop for SGI is version 3.0.1.

When looking at my work, what I do and what I need, I know (from years of experience) what I can and can't get away with with applications. I can't substitute for Photoshop in my work... but I can get away with an older version (in my case 7.0.1). But because of the limited amount of illustration work I do and the type of page layout I tend to do, I've been able to replace both Illustrator and QuarkXPress/InDesign with Stone Design's Create.

Now what I'm willing and able to do isn't something that I've even considered recommending for any of my professional clients. For them, their really is no substitute. And to some degree, because I provide training with professional applications, I too am locked into keeping some version of most of this software around to maintain my overall familiarity with it.



So the question you have to ask yourself is... "what do I really need given my means?"

This is an important question. Professionals can afford professional applications because those apps are how they earn their money. But if you are semi-professional, or have need of professional-like applications but aren't planning on using them to make a living... then finding alternatives becomes an option.

Sadly, there is a wide gulf between the beginner apps (like Pages or even AppleWorks for document creation) and professional apps (like QuarkXPress & InDesign). Adobe has given us a version of Photoshop that helps bridge the barrier gap between novices and experts with Photoshop Elements. For the areas of illustration, page layout and web design I tend to recommend Create... but I do try to provide as many choices as possible (I'm not a one size fits all type of person).

These are a handful of page layout apps that are available: QuarkXPress (http://www.quark.com/) ($749.95)
InDesign (http://www.adobe.com/) ($699.95)
Canvas (http://www.acdamerica.com/) ($349.99)
Ready, Set, Go! (http://www.diwan.com/ready/prsg.htm) ($175.00)
Create (http://www.stone.com/) ($149.00)
AppleWorks (http://www.apple.com/) ($79.00)
Pages (http://www.apple.com/) ($79.00)
Swift Publisher (http://www.belightsoft.com/) ($35.00)
MacPublisher Pro (http://www.metisinternational.com/) ($19.95)So you can see that QuarkXPress and InDesign aren't the only games in town... but you can also see by their price that they are the major league apps in this area.


One of the things I've noticed in the page layout area when working with clients (and I support a very wide range of Mac users) is that there are generally two types of people... there are the ones who see a blank page in horror wondering how they are going to even get started, and then their are the ones who see a blank page as a world of possibilities.

The first type of person I almost always point them towards Pages. It removes much of the fear of the nothing that some people have by providing what looks like a finished document to start with. For the second type of person, generally I try to gauge how adventurous they are... and what their budget can handle.

In getting back to the open source as a replacement part of the topic... in some cases, yes you can substitute a free app for a professional one.

TextEdit, NeoOffice and AbiWord are all fine replacements for Word for graphic designers. But then again, Word isn't one of the primary tools of graphic design. And I think that is pretty much where a lot of alternatives are going to come into play. They can replace professional applications that are actually only playing a supporting role in a designer's professional tasks.

For example, if your primary job as a designer is to create ads in magazines, then you can do your work with Photoshop and Illustrator, and can pass on the expense of paying for QuarkXPress/InDesign (which are tailored for larger multipage layouts). And by getting some alternative software for assembling PDFs, you could cover the few times that you may need to do multipage layouts.

So there is always room for alternatives... if you know the requirements of your primary tasks. And in the cases of people just starting out, sometimes finding alternatives to fill the gaps until moneys starts coming in is needed.

It is the whole chicken and the egg thing. You need money to buy the apps, but you need the apps to make money. Alternatives can always help with this.

:rolleyes:

Of course you could also do what I did in many cases... I downloaded the demo versions of apps I thought I needed. You get around 30 days to work with them, so I would set out to earn the money to pay for the app in the 30 day window I had with the demo app. In that way I could make sure that the app paid for itself. Most of my major apps paid for themselves that way.

Just something to keep in mind.

slooksterPSV
Aug 17, 2006, 10:15 AM
Yes. Because the technical complexity and testing required to produce reliable production-ready software is far higher than an Office app. Otherwise we would have seen Microsoft release something a little more ambitious than Publisher.

Besides, it's a self-reinforcing circle. The industry itself needs a supply of industry-ready juniors competent in industry-standard apps... attempting to enter a crowded job market with fluency in Gimpshop and Ragtime Solo on your resume would be a waste of your time and everyone else's.

This idea of open-source software becoming an industry standard is a complete flight of fancy and doesn't bear much further discussion...

I've also never worked anywhere where OpenOffice was the standard Office software suite.

Actually my old HS, this next year, they may be moving to OpenOffice because it does all the functions they need. Some offices may adopt OpenOffice too, I mean honestly, its very very very comparable to Microsoft Office. The difference between Word 2004 and Word 2005?2006? was the blue color theme, that's the only difference I saw, is with Word 2005?2006? they just made the color theme blue.

eclipse
Aug 17, 2006, 06:01 PM
And governments are now adopting Linux because they can see the code. (It's free AND they can be sure there are no CIA back-doors.;) )

So there's momentum gathering around the whole Open Source thang.

And don't forget 03 magazine... it's looking pretty good, and it's to be designed about Open Source only using open source.

OS may not be there yet, but in time... what can say 40 thousand part time programmers not do that 400 full time programers can do?

gekko513
Aug 17, 2006, 06:08 PM
OS may not be there yet, but in time... what can say 40 thousand part time programmers not do that 400 full time programers can do?
They have a much harder time focusing on a common plan and goal.

eclipse
Aug 17, 2006, 06:10 PM
But there's over 100 to 1, or even 1000 to 1 of them working on it.

It's not there yet, but I think it will happen... just as Wikipedia is constantly evolving. In this game of evolving IT systems, never say never.

bousozoku
Aug 17, 2006, 06:49 PM
And governments are now adopting Linux because they can see the code. (It's free AND they can be sure there are no CIA back-doors.;) )

So there's momentum gathering around the whole Open Source thang.

And don't forget 03 magazine... it's looking pretty good, and it's to be designed about Open Source only using open source.

OS may not be there yet, but in time... what can say 40 thousand part time programmers not do that 400 full time programers can do?

Linux is a good choice for servers, as always, but still has a ways to go in usability as a desktop operating system.

Part of the problem is that programmers are poor designers. Despite the thought that you don't need design, artwork, or documentation, they make things work smoothly.

Good design means that you rarely have to read (the acronym could have been placed here :D) to do the job. It also means that you don't have to jump through hoops to get things done. Apple could still use some help here, especially with the firewall.

There could be a time when open source software will be the majority of the market, but until there is more of a focus on usability and not just adding features, it won't be.

RacerX
Aug 17, 2006, 11:16 PM
(It's free AND they can be sure there are no CIA back-doors.;) )Got news for ya... it isn't the CIA that put the back doors into Windows, and it isn't the CIA that uses those back doors.

No matter what you think of the CIA (and it wouldn't be the CIA for that type of thing, your thinking of the NSA), the people who have access to your data on Windows are far worse.

So stop worrying about Langley and start worrying about Redmond. :eek:

eclipse
Aug 17, 2006, 11:19 PM
:d :d :d

exabytes18
Aug 17, 2006, 11:35 PM
Ask people how much Corel Draw and Photo-Paint are used?

Oooohh ooooh, pick me, pick me. Those are two solid programs right there. Plus, they are a little bit easier on the wallet.

slooksterPSV
Aug 17, 2006, 11:36 PM
Got news for ya... it isn't the CIA that put the back doors into Windows, and it isn't the CIA that uses those back doors.

No matter what you think of the CIA (and it wouldn't be the CIA for that type of thing, your thinking of the NSA), the people who have access to your data on Windows are far worse.

So stop worrying about Langley and start worrying about Redmond. :eek:
Most government agencies still use DOS because of its security. Now, I'm not sure if some use Linux, but they may have had to develop their own security policies with Linux if they do.

zim
Aug 17, 2006, 11:49 PM
I'd say it's most likely the answer is zero.

Who would trust their living to applications that aren't used by the industry? Ask people how much Corel Draw and Photo-Paint are used?

Actually, if you were to ask my wife she would tell you that she is constantly running into factories overseas that work with Corel products vs. Adobe. Not saying that it is so here in the states but I do also know of some smaller studios that use Corel as well as some artist who use Photo-Paint. I don't think it really matters as to who made the application but rather more does it do what the desiner/artist/studio wants. Corel can export and accept most major formats just as Adobe products can... This is no way an endorsement for Corel.. just saying that there might be more using it then we know.. :)

Regarding Open Source...
Here is MA the state house voted in favor of open doc over .doc (word) as the default standard for all text documents.. not sure when it the decision becomes enforced or if they ever will but I know that it came of shock to some people.

What we need is some sort of standardization with page layout. We have one for bitmap images, vector images, text.. to a degree, web encoding, but nothing for page layout. I feel that an xml based system, as I know Adobe is using inside In Design, could lay a foundation for a rock solid open source format for page layout... someday :rolleyes:

bousozoku
Aug 18, 2006, 12:03 AM
Actually, if you were to ask my wife she would tell you that she is constantly running into factories overseas that work with Corel products vs. Adobe. Not saying that it is so here in the states but I do also know of some smaller studios that use Corel as well as some artist who use Photo-Paint. I don't think it really matters as to who made the application but rather more does it do what the desiner/artist/studio wants. Corel can export and accept most major formats just as Adobe products can... This is no way an endorsement for Corel.. just saying that there might be more using it then we know.. :)
...


I'm not saying that people don't use Corel products. In fact, I bought the Corel Draw 10 upgrade simply because it was first on Mac OS X natively and could handle my printing needs instead of having to re-boot into Mac OS 9.

The difference between Corel and other applications can be seen clearly in one step: looking up a Pantone colour. If I know the number or the general number range, I can get to it quickly with Freehand or Illustrator, but Corel Draw makes me scroll through every colour and the slider isn't that precise. Of course, The GIMP probably doesn't even have any support for Pantone colours and therefore would be spot process hell and illustrates how spending $399 can save you and your printer thousands.

zim
Aug 18, 2006, 12:12 AM
I'm not saying that people don't use Corel products. In fact, I bought the Corel Draw 10 upgrade simply because it was first on Mac OS X natively and could handle my printing needs instead of having to re-boot into Mac OS 9.

The difference between Corel and other applications can be seen clearly in one step: looking up a Pantone colour. If I know the number or the general number range, I can get to it quickly with Freehand or Illustrator, but Corel Draw makes me scroll through every colour and the slider isn't that precise. Of course, The GIMP probably doesn't even have any support for Pantone colours and therefore would be spot process hell and illustrates how spending $399 can save you and your printer thousands.

Sigh.. Pantone.. why can't Adobe make Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop all have the same pantone search :mad: ? It annoys me that the are all different... sorry, had to get that out.

I know that you weren't saying people don't use it. I read it as you were possibly saying people in the "profession" didn't, whatever profession that is we are talking about here ;).. design is such a board term.

bousozoku
Aug 18, 2006, 12:57 AM
Sigh.. Pantone.. why can't Adobe make Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop all have the same pantone search :mad: ? It annoys me that the are all different... sorry, had to get that out.

I know that you weren't saying people don't use it. I read it as you were possibly saying people in the "profession" didn't, whatever profession that is we are talking about here ;).. design is such a board term.

At least, Adobe isn't as inconsistent as Macromedia but I love that select all and de-select all differs between applications.

People, working in the profession and in their right mind, don't use it. However, it has its uses. It comes with quite a lot of ITC typefaces that are worth more than the retail price. It seems to me that Corel Draw is used quite a bit in real estate and other small offices where they're not quite so concerned with precision or art.

Blue Velvet
Aug 18, 2006, 01:14 AM
It's not there yet, but I think it will happen...

We've given you a dozen reasons why not, yet you persist with this odd pipe-dream, bumping the topic without casting any more light on the situation.

Can I easily work in 16bit or CMYK or produce duo or tritones with GimpShop? No.

Those who compare open-source design apps to their commercial counterparts haven't a clue about getting work to print. They might be OK for your holiday snaps going to your inkjet but that's about it.

Pointless and circular thread.

eclipse
Aug 18, 2006, 01:30 AM
OK, ok. :confused: I seriously didn't mean any offence.:o
All I meant was that there are thousands of people working on open source and given time it might just do all these whizzbang things.
But for now, I take your word for it and am prepared to drop it.

I check with a positive renewable energy and sustainable news site called Worldchanging (http://worldchanging.com/) which seem to think that almost everything is going to be Open Source one day.

However, I hear that you are saying that "one day" could be way distant if the technical differences are currently that vast. I was not intentionally "bumping" this thread —*it's not as if it's like peak oil to me. ;)

In the meantime, I will go back to studying Quark and Photoshop with extra enthusiasm after this thread! Live it, learn it, love it. ;)

Sorry if I caused any offence.

Skeeball236
Aug 18, 2006, 02:25 AM
del

slooksterPSV
Aug 18, 2006, 09:23 AM
If two people from this forum meet up and get married, I want to know, cause then you'll be true MacRumorians for life. -- Sorry that's off topic.

I saw a post about Pantone color searches - can't you define your own? Personally, I'd rather use CMYK, ya know I don't care for RGB really either. CYMK gives me a lot of control because I can tell difference in tints, if something is slighly more green, I can tell, something more red, I can tell etc. Anyways there is my color theory.

bousozoku
Aug 18, 2006, 02:07 PM
If two people from this forum meet up and get married, I want to know, cause then you'll be true MacRumorians for life. -- Sorry that's off topic.

I saw a post about Pantone color searches - can't you define your own? Personally, I'd rather use CMYK, ya know I don't care for RGB really either. CYMK gives me a lot of control because I can tell difference in tints, if something is slighly more green, I can tell, something more red, I can tell etc. Anyways there is my color theory.

If you don't have the Pantone definitions, it would be extremely difficult to add them since they would need to be recognised at the printer and the inks have to be loaded to give that precise colour that is certified by Pantone.

I don't see the company that charges over $200 for a kit of swatches going open source any time soon.

RacerX
Aug 18, 2006, 02:57 PM
I don't see the company that charges over $200 for a kit of swatches going open source any time soon.You also don't see Apple including Pantone colors with the Colors panel (which was included with NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP and early versions of Rhapsody). Pantone is expensive to incorporate into your software... in any way.

bousozoku
Aug 18, 2006, 03:25 PM
You also don't see Apple including Pantone colors with the Colors panel (which was included with NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP and early versions of Rhapsody). Pantone is expensive to incorporate into your software... in any way.

Awww, those 40,000+ users were so lucky.

Apple said that they have around 19 million active Mac OS X users. That's a lot more money to pay for a lot of consumers to waste on a Pantone colour chooser when they barely use one colour chooser now.

xPismo
Aug 18, 2006, 03:33 PM
I found that very interesting. I too would like to see more opensource apps become more robust and used more regularly, but I do see the counter argument for the pro level app from a single company.

I switched to NeoOffice from MSWord, but I would never think of dropping FCS or Avid for a open source alternative. One I use as a basic text editor, and the other makes my bread.

ATD
Aug 18, 2006, 04:02 PM
I saw a post about Pantone color searches - can't you define your own? Personally, I'd rather use CMYK, ya know I don't care for RGB really either. CYMK gives me a lot of control because I can tell difference in tints, if something is slighly more green, I can tell, something more red, I can tell etc. Anyways there is my color theory.



As bousozoku said and I will add Pantones have nothing to do with how you see colors in your Photoshop files. Many of the Pantone inks are beyond the CMYK spectrum. If your client only has the money for a 2 color printing job you can't hand the printer a CMYK or RGB file. You spec it with Pantones and print it with Pantones. I have clients that run 8 color jobs, they want rich printed pieces that go beyond the CMYK spectrum. In that case it's CMYK + varnishes + Pantones. Guessing at the Pantone definitions is not a very good idea.

maxrobertson
Aug 18, 2006, 09:56 PM
I tried GimpShop... hated it. Photoshop is just so much more Mac-like, even on Windows. Plus, I really dislike the click-to-focus weirdness, and the way they tried to Aquafy it, but failed miserably because they don't understand what Aqua is about. Plus, I just like the menubar on top.

But other than that, it's good. I mean, if I didn't have a weirdness about interfaces, its functionality isn't bad at all.

BakedBeans
Aug 19, 2006, 02:31 AM
GIMP.... not for me. Adobe Photoshop is quite simply an amazing application allowing me to do a LOT of cool stuff that stuff like GIMP wont let me do.

Wont be happening in a hurry.

slooksterPSV
Aug 19, 2006, 08:09 AM
As bousozoku said and I will add Pantones have nothing to do with how you see colors in your Photoshop files. Many of the Pantone inks are beyond the CMYK spectrum. If your client only has the money for a 2 color printing job you can't hand the printer a CMYK or RGB file. You spec it with Pantones and print it with Pantones. I have clients that run 8 color jobs, they want rich printed pieces that go beyond the CMYK spectrum. In that case it's CMYK + varnishes + Pantones. Guessing at the Pantone definitions is not a very good idea.


That's true. Didn't think about that.

zim
Aug 19, 2006, 09:29 AM
I like you


.

Thank you, I think you're special too.

If two people from this forum meet up and get married, I want to know, cause then you'll be true MacRumorians for life. -- Sorry that's off topic.

Already married, she also happens to be a Mac enthusiast too.. maybe not as much as me.

At least, Adobe isn't as inconsistent as Macromedia but I love that select all and de-select all differs between applications.

This is true and now that Macromedia is Adobe we should see that fixed.

People, working in the profession and in their right mind, don't use it. However, it has its uses. It comes with quite a lot of ITC typefaces that are worth more than the retail price. It seems to me that Corel Draw is used quite a bit in real estate and other small offices where they're not quite so concerned with precision or art.

True, couldn't agree more. My wife (product designer), says taht Corel seems to be used quite a bit in factories in China also.

mrblah
Aug 19, 2006, 03:36 PM
I hear a lot of people say "gimp is just as good as photoshop" but all those people are the type that never use Photoshop professionally. Sure gimp is just as good as photoshop if all you do is resize pictures and do minor artwork (even though it looks horrible, its interesting how clearly non-artists try to make an art program), but if you do professional level stuff then gimp isnt even 1/100th as good as photoshop.

ezekielrage_99
Dec 11, 2007, 09:09 PM
GIMP is a very good application but Photoshop it is not.

Photoshop does things that GIMP cannot do, the colour support in Photoshop is far superior. For a prosumer GIMP is an excellent option but in no means will it eat into Adobe's market share, it just wont happen.

You get what you pay for when it comes to graphics software, open source and free software has a time and place and ironically like drugs the place is called university.

Personally I would like to see cheaper professional software however I doubt that will ever happen.

eclipse
Dec 12, 2007, 12:01 AM
Thanks for that. I've copied and pasted some of the replies above to this mate of mine that keeps pushing the Gimp, and he recently backed down. Adobe only costs about $800 every 2 years, so for $400 a year I'm sure we can handle it for the state of the art industry standard! ;)

I think it was this article (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49294100-6,00.htm) that finally convinced him... by people promoting open source, but even they concluded that professional designers needed Photoshop.

http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/blog/open_source/open-source-crave-5.jpg
Paid-for version: Adobe Photoshop
Open-source alternative: GIMP

GIMP is a package for creating digital images and manipulating photographs. It's been in production for 12 years and is compatible with most of the commonly used image formats such as JPG, TIFF, PNG, BMP and GIF, as well as most Adobe Photoshop and PaintShop Pro files.

The Good: It's no secret that many people download illegal copies of the enormously feature-packed Adobe Photoshop purely for cropping and resizing photos. GIMP takes care of this task without the risk of lawsuits. It's also got an array of tools for creating original raster graphics. The whole colour spectrum can be used with existing brushes or user-created ones, an array of filters and effects can be applied -- drop shadow being a popular choice. Once you've had some practice it's very easy to use and quickly proves itself to be a capable image editor.

The Bad: GIMP doesn't offer the extensive design and manipulation options that the 500 industry-standard Photoshop offers, though it has never aimed to. There really isn't any bad side to GIMP, considering what it's capable of doing. If you're used to editing images in Windows Paint, you'll need to spend a few hours getting to know it, but that's true with all applications that aren't aimed at children and the artistically backwards.

Conclusion: There's no need to illegally download spend 500 on Photoshop if all you're doing is resizing images, applying fancy effects and cropping photos, because GIMP is extremely capable at these tasks. If you're looking for a career in design however, you might still want to keep saving for the Adobe standard.

ChrisA
Dec 12, 2007, 12:05 AM
I guess the thing that amazes me is that there's even free software out there at all.


Most of what ships on the Mac OS X Tiger/Leopard DVD is free Open Source software that Apple has collected and repackaged. They have written a nice user interface layer and some applications. Apple saved a decade of work by scooping up BSD and 100 other Open Source packages.

Don't "no opend source here" if you have a Mac

I know you can't see any of it. To use the old car analogy: You think a car is made out of paint and plastic but really, it's mostly steel even it you can't see any steel on a modern car

Jim Campbell
Dec 12, 2007, 02:29 AM
Oooohh ooooh, pick me, pick me. Those are two solid programs right there. Plus, they are a little bit easier on the wallet.

This isn't a pop specifically at you, but I'd like to point out that when I worked at firm of printers, the amount of time I spent getting jobs that clients had prepared themselves in packages like CorelDraw into a fit state to go to press was astronomical. In all honesty, it would have been quicker to have done the artwork myself.

Cheers

Jim

eclipse
Dec 12, 2007, 03:25 AM
But that was then, and Scribus is now. The thing I understand is different about Open Source is that everyone can see the code, everyone can contribute, everyone can make suggestions, the business model is more receptive to those suggestions, big corporate sponsors get on board (as in the recent case when IBM donated 35 programmers to speed up Open Office) and finally, the whole thing starts to evolve exponentially.

Scribus and Gimp are way too far behind Adobe for serious graphic designers to even consider. Maybe after the 2020's.... (to pick a completely arbitrary figure).

ezekielrage_99
Dec 12, 2007, 08:52 PM
But that was then, and Scribus is now. The thing I understand is different about Open Source is that everyone can see the code, everyone can contribute, everyone can make suggestions, the business model is more receptive to those suggestions, big corporate sponsors get on board (as in the recent case when IBM donated 35 programmers to speed up Open Office) and finally, the whole thing starts to evolve exponentially.

Scribus and Gimp are way too far behind Adobe for serious graphic designers to even consider. Maybe after the 2020's.... (to pick a completely arbitrary figure).

I don't think it's a matter whether or not a product is in front or behind the rest of the competition it's a matter of what is industry standard.

I have seen many different imagery software from my time in the Air Force and commercially however I have found some of the best software out there usually isn't industry standard and has been knocked out by uncompetitive companies that cannibalise market share (I"m not just talking about Adobe or M$ here).

Would GIMP ever be on par with Photoshop in time? I'm not sure but I doubt it could ever knock Adobe off its perch.