I use both Gimp and Photoshop. I don't agree that the learning curve of Gimp is shallower than Photoshop. I also disagree that mastering Gimp will save money in

I use both Gimp and Photoshop. I don't agree that the learning curve of Gimp is shallower than Photoshop. I also disagree that mastering Gimp will save money in the long term. -- The tools that are available in Gimp are basically broken, especially the fuzzy-select tool. In Photoshop, you usually click and go on, in Gimp, you always have a halo and then you have to dive into pixel deletion. I don't care how good you are at Gimp, this will cost you tons of money. -- "Smart Objects" in PS. There is no debate which is better. Working with Vector to Raster conversion is clean. You can open EPS in Gimp, but the conversion is terrible. To get it to look right after rasterizing will cost several hours. -- Photoshop has CMYK, various RGB modes, etc. -- Text in Gimp... I thought it was well-understood that Gimp is not meant to be a replacement for Photoshop. A half-user of PS will pay for the program in less than a week if you consider $$/hr. With that said, I always tell beginners to try out Gimp before trying Photoshop. The first things one must master is working with layers and pixel manipulation and Gimp is a free way to learn that. Photo manipulation is not everyone's cup o' tea either, and telling someone to get PS before Gimp is like telling a new pianist to buy a Steinway when a Casio will do well for the initial learning curve. Moving to Photoshop is more or less learning a few oddities and relearning hot-keys after a certain point, which is really no big deal.