View Full Version : Gimp to Photoshop migrators - Question for you.

01-16-2011, 11:58 PM
For those who have migrated from Gimp to Photoshop I would like to ask what was your reason for doing so?

This is for future reference as far as I am concerned because I am not ready to purchase new software. I just like having a long term plan :)

01-17-2011, 11:52 AM
I use both but prefer Gimp. I only use PS for text and for a few filters that I don't have in Gimp.

01-17-2011, 12:09 PM
That's interesting Gidde. I would have thought that the retail software would be a bit more robust. Sometimes I see folks ask that a commission be created in Photoshop and I'm guessing the bulk of the industry uses Photoshop. So are there problems in sticking with Gimp or can the .xcf files be brought into PS? (Which is why I'm assuming someone would ask for a job to be done in Photoshop.)

01-17-2011, 12:12 PM
I don't use gimp, but (I could be misremembering something I read somewhere) I thought one of the things that really set them apart was that photoshop has layerstyles but gimp doesn't?

01-17-2011, 12:24 PM
I use both but prefer Gimp. I only use PS for text and for a few filters that I don't have in Gimp.

Gidde - you might be interested in a gimp python script I wrote to call xnview so I could use a few photoshop plugins that don't work under Gimp:

-Rob A>

01-17-2011, 08:15 PM
I certainly would be interested in that, Rob, but what I was actually referring to were PS-proprietary ones like the glass filter Gimp didn't used to have (until you made one. Have I mentioned lately that you're my hero?).

Jax, PS can't open .xcf files, but Gimp can save .psd's so no problems there. It's not the robustness that has me liking Gimp more, it's mostly the way Gimp does lighting. With PS lighting is a heck of a lot more complex. With Gimp, I make a height map, tell it which angle to make the light come from, and it bump maps it for me. The complex lighting is available for folks who understand and want it, but I like having the simple bump-map option. The second big-hitter for me is the Ink tool. I use the ink tool for just about everything I hand draw, and I love the way it looks. Photoshop doesn't have an Ink tool, and the paintbrush just isn't the same.

That said, Gimp sucks horribly at text, and PS makes it a breeze. So when I bought my shiny new tablet with my Christmas money, I spent the extra $20 on the one that came with PS Elements. Now I have the best of both worlds :)

Ravs is right, LayerStyles is a huge difference. Most of what PS does with layer styles can be done in other ways in Gimp though; just sometimes the workflow ends up very different.

Oh: And it's not actually relevant to the product, but it is to the workflow -- PS has layer groups, which I envy and await eagerly in the next version of Gimp.

01-17-2011, 08:41 PM
I moved to Photoshop from Corel, but I'd imagine that my reasons for doing so would be the same as for a Gimp user.

Photoshop is more widely used. As such, it is easier to share documents and resources with other artists, education is more common and deeper, and more extensions are available, although Gimp's open source nature means that it's catching up fast. There were a couple of features in Corel that I miss, and I know there are a couple in Gimp that I envy (the aforementioned bump mapping and image hoses, in particular). Those things weren't quite enough to prevent me from moving to PS, though.

It bears mentioning, however, that I am seeking a job as a commercial artist now, so my need to be compatible with other artists is much greater than it would be if I were still a hobbyist.