5 ms·

Sorry, open-sourcers, but I have to second the emotion on GIMP vs. Photoshop. To say that GIMP's usability isn't in the same ballpark as Photoshop's is putting

Sorry, open-sourcers, but I have to second the emotion on GIMP vs. Photoshop. To say that GIMP's usability isn't in the same ballpark as Photoshop's is putting it mildly...

goofygrin 19y ago
I hate that GIMP is so much different. I mean, I hate that ctrl-d duplicates the current work, rather than deselect... but this weekend, I used the ctrl-d multiple times with wild success, so maybe my process is broken :)
wanorris 19y ago
Is it that Gimp is so much worse, or is it simply that they're different? I used Corel Photo-Paint for years and years, and when I tried Photoshop after that, it seemed like it was designed by space aliens. I don't mean to say that Photo-Paint is easier to use -- I doubt it is. But when you get used to a particular interface for something like photo editing, maybe any given interface is ok, but switching interfaces is hard?
- projectileboy 19y ago
  Good question; I'm not sure. What I can be sure of is this story: A couple months ago, I had to create some annotated screen shots to be used as cheat sheets by a number of people I'm working with. I knew that I could do something like this in Photoshop, having used Photoshop a bit 10 years ago. I first tried GIMP, because it was free and available. After trying for a while to figure out how to get layers happening, I finally gave up and downloaded a copy of Photoshop. Everything was immediately intuitive. Even though the Photoshop UI had changed (a lot) from when I had used it a decade ago, I was able to very quickly create my annotated screen shots. Now, you could say that I didn't bother to read any of the GIMP documentation, and you'd be right. But with Photoshop I didn't have to.
- coffeeaddicted 19y ago
  It's certainly part of the story. But even after using (and mostly loving) Gimp now for years I still dislike the way it opens each image in an own window, especially when working with lots of open images. I can't just hide all gimp-windows in the background when switching tools - I have to hide each image one-by-one. Usually it's easier hiding all desktop windows and bringing up the other application I need afterwards. What irritates me even more is when I have to hunt for the tools-window of gimp behind some of my images. But I don't know if Photoshop would be nicer in that regard , I haven't used that in a long time.
- atoulouse 19y ago
  At the risk of being flamed, I want to state that I think GIMP is worse. I have no objective evidence, though; it's all subjective and anecdotal. I started with Paint Shop Pro, and what it lacked in features it made up in ease-of-use. I especially liked the ability to mix raster and vector layers; Photoshop still hasn't captured the simplicity and power of PSP's vector layers, IMO (in terms of UI, at least). After I used PSP, I moved on to Photoshop. While it was initially a bit intimidating, my familiarity with PSP quickly helped me overcome this and I was up to speed pretty fast. Fast forward a long time and I try Corel Painter. Its interface is definitely different, but still easy to follow. I picked it up in a few minutes (for some definition of 'picked up'). Then I tried GIMP. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and I never got used to it. I can't explain why GIMP doesn't work for me; just that I didn't -- couldn't -- pick it up like I did Photoshop or Painter (or openCanvas for that matter).
mmmurf 19y ago
Correct. I have no idea why the Gimp designers didn't go with a GUI that is more like photoshop. Someone had a fork called GimpShop but I don't think it's had much maintenance.
cstejerean 19y ago
Out of all the people complaining about why Gimp is not like Photoshop I wonder how many actually paid $650 dollars for Photoshop. Look at it this way, if you spend 3 hours reading the Gimp manual instead of buying Photoshop you're essentially "earning" $200+/hour. For $650 I'm willing to put up with Gimp the few times I need to touch up an image.
- jdavid 19y ago
  I use CS3, because that is what my client community uses. GIMP is not a replacement for CS3. Gimp is a photo tool like photoshop is a photo tool, but it is not Photoshop! How many clients do I look access too, when I can not just use CS3? How much is that worth? $2,300 I spent on CS3 seems cheap in comparison. If you want converts, GET WINE WORKING! Heck, I will buy windows to have the really DLLs, I just want it to work in Linux. MACs just work because Mac users that want to run windows, BUY WINDOWS and run it in OS X. There is some software that people ARE willing to pay for it to JUST WORK.
  - cstejerean 19y ago
    photoshop is fine if you do serious graphics work and get paid for it. I just hate when people that are not willing to pay for photoshop bitch about why gimp is not photoshop. Mac users that want to run Windows buy windows and install it inside of a VM (or dual boot). What's preventing you from doing the same under Linux?
    - wanorris 19y ago
      > Mac users that want to run Windows buy windows and install it inside of a VM (or dual boot). What's preventing you from doing the same under Linux? Seconded. Lots of apps run really well in XP with VirtualBox in seamless mode. That's how I test sites against Safari and IE, and I run Visual Studio that way when I need it. VirtualBox is the reason why I never got around to setting up a Windows partition like I was planning on. Instead, I just reclaimed the space for more files under Linux.
    - jdavid 19y ago
Tichy 19y ago
I remember learning Photoshop, and it was hard, too. I am not convinced that Photoshop is simpler than Gimp, they are just different. Gimp is a bit old fashioned with it's dozens of little windows, though. I think there is a "make it look like Photoshop" mod of Gimp, actually.
pkaler 19y ago
The Ubuntu team should ditch GIMP and port Paint.NET to Linux. http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19.html http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19.html
- goofygrin 19y ago
  The problem is that Paint.NET isn't as powerful as GIMP in some areas. I've used Paint.NET pretty heavily over the last 6 months (I use it when I don't want to wait for Photoshop to load) and while it's good for casual use, it is no photoshop/gimp/paintshop pro replacement.

Sorry, open-sourcers, but I have to second the emotion on GIMP vs. Photoshop. To say that GIMP's usability isn't in the same ballpark as Photoshop's is putting it mildly...

goofygrin 19y ago

I hate that GIMP is so much different. I mean, I hate that ctrl-d duplicates the current work, rather than deselect... but this weekend, I used the ctrl-d multiple times with wild success, so maybe my process is broken :)

wanorris 19y ago

Is it that Gimp is so much worse, or is it simply that they're different? I used Corel Photo-Paint for years and years, and when I tried Photoshop after that, it seemed like it was designed by space aliens. I don't mean to say that Photo-Paint is easier to use -- I doubt it is. But when you get used to a particular interface for something like photo editing, maybe any given interface is ok, but switching interfaces is hard?

projectileboy 19y ago
Good question; I'm not sure. What I can be sure of is this story: A couple months ago, I had to create some annotated screen shots to be used as cheat sheets by a number of people I'm working with. I knew that I could do something like this in Photoshop, having used Photoshop a bit 10 years ago. I first tried GIMP, because it was free and available. After trying for a while to figure out how to get layers happening, I finally gave up and downloaded a copy of Photoshop. Everything was immediately intuitive. Even though the Photoshop UI had changed (a lot) from when I had used it a decade ago, I was able to very quickly create my annotated screen shots. Now, you could say that I didn't bother to read any of the GIMP documentation, and you'd be right. But with Photoshop I didn't have to.
coffeeaddicted 19y ago
It's certainly part of the story. But even after using (and mostly loving) Gimp now for years I still dislike the way it opens each image in an own window, especially when working with lots of open images. I can't just hide all gimp-windows in the background when switching tools - I have to hide each image one-by-one. Usually it's easier hiding all desktop windows and bringing up the other application I need afterwards. What irritates me even more is when I have to hunt for the tools-window of gimp behind some of my images. But I don't know if Photoshop would be nicer in that regard , I haven't used that in a long time.
atoulouse 19y ago
At the risk of being flamed, I want to state that I think GIMP is worse. I have no objective evidence, though; it's all subjective and anecdotal. I started with Paint Shop Pro, and what it lacked in features it made up in ease-of-use. I especially liked the ability to mix raster and vector layers; Photoshop still hasn't captured the simplicity and power of PSP's vector layers, IMO (in terms of UI, at least). After I used PSP, I moved on to Photoshop. While it was initially a bit intimidating, my familiarity with PSP quickly helped me overcome this and I was up to speed pretty fast. Fast forward a long time and I try Corel Painter. Its interface is definitely different, but still easy to follow. I picked it up in a few minutes (for some definition of 'picked up'). Then I tried GIMP. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and I never got used to it. I can't explain why GIMP doesn't work for me; just that I didn't -- couldn't -- pick it up like I did Photoshop or Painter (or openCanvas for that matter).

mmmurf 19y ago

Correct. I have no idea why the Gimp designers didn't go with a GUI that is more like photoshop. Someone had a fork called GimpShop but I don't think it's had much maintenance.

cstejerean 19y ago

Out of all the people complaining about why Gimp is not like Photoshop I wonder how many actually paid $650 dollars for Photoshop. Look at it this way, if you spend 3 hours reading the Gimp manual instead of buying Photoshop you're essentially "earning" $200+/hour. For $650 I'm willing to put up with Gimp the few times I need to touch up an image.

jdavid 19y ago
I use CS3, because that is what my client community uses. GIMP is not a replacement for CS3. Gimp is a photo tool like photoshop is a photo tool, but it is not Photoshop! How many clients do I look access too, when I can not just use CS3? How much is that worth? $2,300 I spent on CS3 seems cheap in comparison. If you want converts, GET WINE WORKING! Heck, I will buy windows to have the really DLLs, I just want it to work in Linux. MACs just work because Mac users that want to run windows, BUY WINDOWS and run it in OS X. There is some software that people ARE willing to pay for it to JUST WORK.
- cstejerean 19y ago
  photoshop is fine if you do serious graphics work and get paid for it. I just hate when people that are not willing to pay for photoshop bitch about why gimp is not photoshop. Mac users that want to run Windows buy windows and install it inside of a VM (or dual boot). What's preventing you from doing the same under Linux?
  - wanorris 19y ago
    > Mac users that want to run Windows buy windows and install it inside of a VM (or dual boot). What's preventing you from doing the same under Linux? Seconded. Lots of apps run really well in XP with VirtualBox in seamless mode. That's how I test sites against Safari and IE, and I run Visual Studio that way when I need it. VirtualBox is the reason why I never got around to setting up a Windows partition like I was planning on. Instead, I just reclaimed the space for more files under Linux.
  - jdavid 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago

I remember learning Photoshop, and it was hard, too. I am not convinced that Photoshop is simpler than Gimp, they are just different. Gimp is a bit old fashioned with it's dozens of little windows, though. I think there is a "make it look like Photoshop" mod of Gimp, actually.

pkaler 19y ago

The Ubuntu team should ditch GIMP and port Paint.NET to Linux. http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19.html http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19.html

goofygrin 19y ago
The problem is that Paint.NET isn't as powerful as GIMP in some areas. I've used Paint.NET pretty heavily over the last 6 months (I use it when I don't want to wait for Photoshop to load) and while it's good for casual use, it is no photoshop/gimp/paintshop pro replacement.