4 ms·

Conversely, to pay for researchers to invent new techniques, companies need to get that money back by selling capabilities their competitors do not have. For a

Conversely, to pay for researchers to invent new techniques, companies need to get that money back by selling capabilities their competitors do not have. For an example of the difference, compare the quality and capability of Photoshop versus GIMP (or any open source photo editor) to see the difference. After all, photo editing is older than open source, yet open source still cannot make the technologically leading photo editor. The same is true across a massive range of software, from CAD to scientific software to audio compositing to movie editing to ......

blagie 4y ago
That's not really fair. Except for support for color models / spaces, gimp was basically on-par with Photoshop when it came out. Toss in 16 bit color, LAB color, and CMYK, and the two were nearly identical. gimp had better scripting too. The key difference is Photoshop has continuously improved, in part due to competitive pressure from tools like gimp. In the meantime, gimp development slowed sometime around 2000, and basically stopped by around 2008, at least from a user-facing perspective. Today, gimp is still very competitive with late-nineties Photoshop (even a bit ahead).
- 323 4y ago
  You speak like a programmer. When people say Photoshop is better than Gimp they mean the user experience. Where Gimp is light years behind Photoshop. > Today, gimp is still very competitive with late-nineties Photoshop (even a bit ahead). Absolutely not, in fact I would say the opposite. 1999 Photoshop (which I used) is still way ahead of today's Gimp user experience. The technical features of Gimp are irrelevant (for Photoshop kind of users) if Gimp's interface is atrocious.
  - blagie 4y ago
    Huh. Are you sure it's not just familiarity? I used both about the same in the late nineties, and they felt similar to me in usability. To me, gimp 2022 doesn't feel better or worse than gimp 2000 for usability, and both are about the same as Photoshop 2000.
  - dontbenebby 4y ago
    Photoshop is not better, because paying in perpetuity is unacceptable. I've learned to use GIMP, OS specific tools, or CLI ones, and focused on taking photos well enough I don't need to fuck with HDR or whatever to make them pretty.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >Photoshop is not better, because paying in perpetuity is unacceptable. If your time is worth zero, then yes, you can use slower tools. Professionals learn that getting things done quickly and well has lots of value. Paying for a tool that costs you an hour of labor in income but saves you weeks or gains you vastly more in earnings makes such tools a terrific value for such people. If you don't value your time, or cannot use the tool to pay for itself, then don't buy the tool. Many people are not you. >and focused on taking photos well enough I don't need to fuck with HDR or whatever to make them pretty Those using Photoshop are not merely color touching single, simple photos. They use it for a lot more than that. All digital cameras do a lot of in-camera digital processing. Those algorithms are inferior, run on slower hardware, and have many other limitations that a PC does not. And there's a significant amount of work beyond "taking photos well enough." Not many clients want that - they can do what you do too. Compositing, touchups, creative work based on photos is just the tip of the iceberg for professionals. Don't like photoshop? Don't buy it. But don't assume you're doing what those who do see value in it are doing.
      - blagie 4y ago
        I seriously think you mischaracterised your audience. Most people here (probably including dontbenebby) are hobbyists, not professional photographers. There are also plenty of people who use tools a little bit. For example, many software engineers will do some web design, or need a product photo, or whatever. Photoshop doesn't pay for itself for that kind of occasional use either, especially when you consider that one wants to be able to reuse and edit files sometimes years later. I'll gladly pay $$$ for a work-related tool I use 8 hours per day. I won't drop half a grand a year or whatever on Photoshop. (And no, the poster wasn't dissing people who buy Photoshop; a good key to someone talking about themselves is the word "I")
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  It's completely fair, and not just Photoshop. It's the difference between paying programmers via a revenue stream to make polished software and not paying them. One makes better products. >The key difference is Photoshop has continuously improved, in part due to competitive pressure from tools like gimp If the pressure were from Gimp, they would be so far ahead, since it wouldn't be needed. Gimp is no where near Photoshop in features, usability, or pure technological prowess. Same for most any professional task. Open source CAD is so far behind commercial offerings it's comic. Paying developers via a revenue stream beats hobby code.
dontbenebby 4y ago
>For an example of the difference, compare the quality and capability of Photoshop versus GIMP (or any open source photo editor) to see the difference. Photo editing has changed, a lot of basic things like crop and export are able to be done in OS specific tools like preview, you used to need full on photoshop. Conversely GIMP on MacOS is an absolute disaster that doesn't even use the same UI as the rest of the OS. These more utilitarian tools are ridding with usability bugs and probably security vulns as well.

blagie 4y ago

That's not really fair. Except for support for color models / spaces, gimp was basically on-par with Photoshop when it came out. Toss in 16 bit color, LAB color, and CMYK, and the two were nearly identical. gimp had better scripting too. The key difference is Photoshop has continuously improved, in part due to competitive pressure from tools like gimp. In the meantime, gimp development slowed sometime around 2000, and basically stopped by around 2008, at least from a user-facing perspective. Today, gimp is still very competitive with late-nineties Photoshop (even a bit ahead).

323 4y ago
You speak like a programmer. When people say Photoshop is better than Gimp they mean the user experience. Where Gimp is light years behind Photoshop. > Today, gimp is still very competitive with late-nineties Photoshop (even a bit ahead). Absolutely not, in fact I would say the opposite. 1999 Photoshop (which I used) is still way ahead of today's Gimp user experience. The technical features of Gimp are irrelevant (for Photoshop kind of users) if Gimp's interface is atrocious.
- blagie 4y ago
  Huh. Are you sure it's not just familiarity? I used both about the same in the late nineties, and they felt similar to me in usability. To me, gimp 2022 doesn't feel better or worse than gimp 2000 for usability, and both are about the same as Photoshop 2000.
- dontbenebby 4y ago
  Photoshop is not better, because paying in perpetuity is unacceptable. I've learned to use GIMP, OS specific tools, or CLI ones, and focused on taking photos well enough I don't need to fuck with HDR or whatever to make them pretty.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >Photoshop is not better, because paying in perpetuity is unacceptable. If your time is worth zero, then yes, you can use slower tools. Professionals learn that getting things done quickly and well has lots of value. Paying for a tool that costs you an hour of labor in income but saves you weeks or gains you vastly more in earnings makes such tools a terrific value for such people. If you don't value your time, or cannot use the tool to pay for itself, then don't buy the tool. Many people are not you. >and focused on taking photos well enough I don't need to fuck with HDR or whatever to make them pretty Those using Photoshop are not merely color touching single, simple photos. They use it for a lot more than that. All digital cameras do a lot of in-camera digital processing. Those algorithms are inferior, run on slower hardware, and have many other limitations that a PC does not. And there's a significant amount of work beyond "taking photos well enough." Not many clients want that - they can do what you do too. Compositing, touchups, creative work based on photos is just the tip of the iceberg for professionals. Don't like photoshop? Don't buy it. But don't assume you're doing what those who do see value in it are doing.
    - blagie 4y ago
      I seriously think you mischaracterised your audience. Most people here (probably including dontbenebby) are hobbyists, not professional photographers. There are also plenty of people who use tools a little bit. For example, many software engineers will do some web design, or need a product photo, or whatever. Photoshop doesn't pay for itself for that kind of occasional use either, especially when you consider that one wants to be able to reuse and edit files sometimes years later. I'll gladly pay $$$ for a work-related tool I use 8 hours per day. I won't drop half a grand a year or whatever on Photoshop. (And no, the poster wasn't dissing people who buy Photoshop; a good key to someone talking about themselves is the word "I")
ChrisLomont 4y ago
It's completely fair, and not just Photoshop. It's the difference between paying programmers via a revenue stream to make polished software and not paying them. One makes better products. >The key difference is Photoshop has continuously improved, in part due to competitive pressure from tools like gimp If the pressure were from Gimp, they would be so far ahead, since it wouldn't be needed. Gimp is no where near Photoshop in features, usability, or pure technological prowess. Same for most any professional task. Open source CAD is so far behind commercial offerings it's comic. Paying developers via a revenue stream beats hobby code.

dontbenebby 4y ago

>For an example of the difference, compare the quality and capability of Photoshop versus GIMP (or any open source photo editor) to see the difference. Photo editing has changed, a lot of basic things like crop and export are able to be done in OS specific tools like preview, you used to need full on photoshop. Conversely GIMP on MacOS is an absolute disaster that doesn't even use the same UI as the rest of the OS. These more utilitarian tools are ridding with usability bugs and probably security vulns as well.