Changing from Gimp to Photoshop

[Forkjulle]

I've been working in Gimp for years, but I've recently decided to migrate to Photoshop for a few reasons:

- The open source developers are hypersensitive and get very defensive when Gimp is criticised. You get told that they're volunteers and that you should be grateful for their efforts. Well, if they want to develop software that is a powerful alternative to Photoshop (which they don't claim, I concede), then they must accept constructive criticism if they want progress. And you get told to "develop it yourself or shut up".

- Gimp's rendering is slow and some key features are missing, especially when working at high resolutions on large-ish canvases.

- Wacom support is abysmal. Professional digital art is possible in Gimp, but the general operations are severely handicapped.

I've realised that I either accept mediocrity or I spend money and get something powerful and efficient.

What are your experiences with Gimp and Photoshop?

 

[KnightWRX]

My experience is that each time I try to migrate away from Gimp to Photoshop, I find myself lost. I usually end up going back to Gimp. I've used it for over 10 years, so I know the interface and how it works.

And frankly, for the price you're paying, I don't see how you think that the developers should cater to your needs. No one is being hypersensitive or defensive, they have a vision and direction for their project and are following it. With the source available, it's also quite a construction suggestion to tell you that if you want a feature that's not on their roadmap, you can implement it yourself if its really something you need from the software.

They do accept criticism, they revamped their UI multiple times to answer complaints in usuability that people had.

Anyway, maybe open source software isn't for you and that's your perogative.

 

[lewis82]

I have used Gimp for more than a year and I couldn't get used to it. It is really unergonomic in my point of view (the fact that it is X11 based doesn't help).

Photoshop is miles away in terms of ease of use. Basic operations are much easier to do, and only when trying to do more complicated stuff does one have to resort to using the menus.

 

[Forkjulle]

And frankly, for the price you're paying, I don't see how you think that the developers should cater to your needs.

And that's the point. "It's free, so shut up!".

As I've said, I've used it for years, but the development is just too slow. I'd even pay, if need be. But that would defeat the open source philosophy.

 

[thekev]

My experience is that each time I try to migrate away from Gimp to Photoshop, I find myself lost. I usually end up going back to Gimp. I've used it for over 10 years, so I know the interface and how it works.

And frankly, for the price you're paying, I don't see how you think that the developers should cater to your needs. No one is being hypersensitive or defensive, they have a vision and direction for their project and are following it. With the source available, it's also quite a construction suggestion to tell you that if you want a feature that's not on their roadmap, you can implement it yourself if its really something you need from the software.

They do accept criticism, they revamped their UI multiple times to answer complaints in usuability that people had.

Anyway, maybe open source software isn't for you and that's your perogative.

I've actually considered installing gimp just for fun. CS6 fixed a ton of my complaints with the freehand drawing tools in PS. With the exception of writing scripts or plugins, I probably have every tool in that entire entire program committed to memory, so ask if you're stuck. The tool ui has always been a bit bleh. I keep them all docked and hotkey almost everything that I use. I'll keep up history, layers, paths, channels, and the tool/brush settings. The navigator can be useful if you're working on details over a large canvas. If it's a 10k+ image and you're at a stage where you're sweeping over details at 100%, it can be useful for navigation. The f key is great too. You can just have half the ui docked or hidden with the ability to pan over the image as much as you like.

I can tell you that prior to CS6, the brushes were pretty bad. I mean yes you could work around that for most things, but if you're really precise, you start to notice these things. I used to test on paper for reference and try to figure out how to best set things in the wacom driver and PS to emulate the way it would work on a sheet of drawing paper. This is especially important when it comes to masking. Bezier curves are really pretty terrible for really abstract shapes as it's too easy to cross the streams spline handles, and most non-manufactured items lack consistent curvature over a large area. With the improved brushes I find that quickmask is more viable than ever for blocking in weird stuff.

Also while this is off topic, if you happen to know a good OSX Python IDE that can load application specific syntax, that would be awesome .

And that's the point. "It's free, so shut up!".

As I've said, I've used it for years, but the development is just too slow. I'd even pay, if need be. But that would defeat the open source philosophy.

Adobe has ended a lot of their ways of buying in cheaper. Years ago they had things like the wacom bundle upgrade, which was awesome. If you wanted to be cheap you didn't have to upgrade every version either. I just went with whatever was an improvement over the version I used. Adobe never implements the features I want, so it's more about speed, smoothness, brushes work the way I want, cursor doesn't become nearly invisible on some backgrounds due to updated blending mode, etc. CS2 and CS3 both offered improvements. I didn't like CS4. CS5 offered 64 bit. CS6 fixed some of the stuff that has plagued that application for years.

 

[mobilehaathi]

I'd even pay, if need be. But that would defeat the open source philosophy.

This isn't true. By all means you should support an open source project you enjoy and use heavily! I do, however, take your point that the developers can be a bit cranky, but that seems to be the culture of the community....

 

[m00min]

... With the source available, it's also quite a construction suggestion to tell you that if you want a feature that's not on their roadmap, you can implement it yourself if its really something you need from the software.

The problem I see with that is that the people most likely to want to push the Gimp to its limits are designers, not developers or programmers. It's just not likely that they will have the skills necessary to implement new features or plugins.

I'd love to be able to stick two fingers up to Adobe but I can't. Gimp just doesn't have the feature set / workflow integration.