Thread: GIMP vs PhotoShop?

IMOO, there is no reason to get a tool (gimp) different than the one you already know (photoshop) as they fall in the same category of tool. You can do 95% of the stuff Gimp can do in PS, and 75% of the stuff PS can do in Gimp.

I don't use Photoshop as I do commercial work, and have not been able to justify the full purchase price.

Not trying to start another flame war.

-Rob A>

One of the biggest things Photoshop can do that GIMP can't is CMYK separations: if that's important to you, GIMP is not what you want.

Outside of that, it's up to personal preference and price, IMHO. Most of the graphic design folks I know swear by PShop (and swear AT GIMP), but a lot of that may very well be snob factor. They're both good programs--not quite identical, but close enough that for many purposes, the same folks can use them and get the same results.

One other factor that I have seen is differences in the user interfaces: changing from one to the other (no matter which direction you go can be aggravating. If you're used to one, and don't need a specific feature the other offers, I'd stick with what you already have that works.

EDIT: The above is offered from a non-graphic artist computer geek. I do play around with GIMP a bit, but I'm strictly an amateur. However, I did at one time work for a company that contracted with Adobe, so I've played with both.

In your case, as you already own the PS, I don't see any reason for you to use GIMP (unless you are like me and prefer the GIMP's text tool and some other stuff). But you can try using GIMP, once you know PS you'll not have problems with GIMP. About having more or less tutorials for GIMP, I think (but I'm not sure, never counted) there are more tutorials of Photoshop here in CG (over the internet it's probably much easier to find PS tutorials due to its popularity).

But PS may have some stuff GIMP doesnt (specially because its paid) so it depends on your needs. As I said before, you already own PS, you can try GIMP. If it was the opposite could be a little more difficult...

I use both PS and GIMP to do my maps (and probably I'm the only one to it, but I do that because I like somethings on PS and some on GIMP);

Not to knock Photoshop, but GIMP does have a few nice features that PhotoShop does not. Namely support for full color brushes. I also don't think PS supports what GIMP calls Hoses/Pipes/etc.

Just in case it does not or you don't know what that means (and PS does support it), it's a way to make a layered brush and each "draw" of the brush chooses a random layer to output. Think of having 10, 20, 30, whatever different mountains/forests/etc in a single brush and just swiping your mouse to "paint" and having a variety of shapes show up on your map.

Also, from what I hear, Photoshop's build in cloud renderer is not very configurable and GIMP's is. To be fair here, while GIMP's build in clouds is good, it's no where near great. Both have third party plugins for cloud generation that do a much better job than the native one, but while I can speak to the one in GIMP as being free, I don't know if any of the PS ones are free and offer the same level of customization.

On PS's side, there are much better brush dynamics(though GIMP 2.8 goes a nice way toward decreasing this gap) and the BIG thing is adjustment layers, CMYK, and >8bit color depth support.

In the end, it depends on what you really need. Also, as Beoner says, there is nothing stopping you from using one or the other or even both on a single project(well, except for having to be careful with file formats and the merging of layers that may result from that process.)

The "full color brushes" are not supported in Photoshop to the extent of my meager knowledge. They are in Illustrator, but that's a whole different ballpark >.>

I used to have PS. I got really proficient at it and knew all of the keyboard shortcuts like the back of my hand. I could fly around the program as easily as I could skip down the road. Now, I am on a linux machine and thus can't install PS. So I have installed GIMP. I have been able to find ways to do pretty much everything I could do in PS in GIMP (or at least that I have tried yet) but have had a distinct learning curve getting used to the shortcuts and tiny differences in the interface.

My suggestion to you, unless there is something specific in the opposite program of the one you are using (PS in your case), there is no need to switch. For the most part, unless you are doing work professionally, there should be no need ever to switch that I know of. Both programs are really good programs.

Slightly different take on the same question... If you were starting from 0, on a Mac, which would you select?

Thanks in advance,

Brennan

First, I don't own a Mac. In my case the solution was a given. Gimp was free Open source and PS cost several hundred dollars. I'm not a pirate and my budget was pretty close to zero so I chose Gimp.

Will I someday get Photoshop? Perhaps but it will have to be due to client demands or it allowing me to be more productive. Since I tend to hand paint stuff I don't think that will be the case. For me getting a tablet will be more beneficial.

If the cost was not a part of the equation I would probably get PS just because when you look around at professional artists there seem to be more of them using it.

Originally Posted by Veilheim

Slightly different take on the same question... If you were starting from 0, on a Mac, which would you select?

Thanks in advance,

Brennan

I agree with Jax. Personaly, knowing what I know now about GIMP and PS AND assuming I had money for PS I would get BOTH and used the right tool for the job at hand. This would likely include some switching back and forth on the same map image.