12 ms·

Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

259 points by paulloz 13y ago

skrowl 13y ago
If you use Windows, consider Paint.NET (http://www.getpaint.net http://www.getpaint.net) instead of GIMP. It's much quicker (particularly the 4.0 beta builds) and has a much more Photoshop-like UI out of the box.
- cobalt 13y ago
  Sure, but it doesn't do nearly as much. Especially when creating graphics from scratch
- tracker1 13y ago
  I like Paint.Net a lot on the windows side... for Mac/Linux alternative, look into Pinta http://pinta-project.com/ http://pinta-project.com/ ... it's essentially a cross-platform port of Paint.Net They do the vast majority of what most people need in a simple photo editor.
  - skrowl 13y ago
    Looks like a clone rather than a port (as paint.net isn't open source you can't really port it), but I'll take a look. Their github (https://github.com/PintaProject/Pinta https://github.com/PintaProject/Pinta) makes it look like the project may be abandoned.
    - tanzam75 13y ago
      It's a port of Paint.net 3.3.6 from .NET to Mono. Paint.net used to be MIT-licensed, and 3.3.6 was the last version that was released open-source. Besides, the UI in Paint.net 4.0 has been rewritten to use WPF. That makes it essentially impossible to port to Mono.
- kyrra 13y ago
  For OSX, Pixelmator[0] is a great tool for the price ($30). I've used Paint.NET a lot, but since being on OSX a lot more for my job, Pixelmator is definitely a step-above Paint.NET. But as always, Photoshop is the best out there. [0] http://www.pixelmator.com/ http://www.pixelmator.com/
jordigh 13y ago
This reminds me of the endless bug reports we're getting right now about the Octave GUI not being indistinguishable from Matlab. Makes me wish people weren't so inflexible about the tiniest UI differences. It's difficult to please the converts.
- Joeboy 13y ago
  > Makes me wish people weren't so inflexible about the tiniest UI differences. It's difficult to please the converts. I replaced Photoshop with Gimp years ago, but I still find Gimp incredibly painful to use. It accounts for a tiny proportion of my software use, but a massive proportion of my swearing. I use to think it was just down to being familiar with Photoshop, but I think I can only excuse it on that basis for so long.
  - akama 13y ago
    I had the opposite experience so I can confirm it is Gimp's interface. I started with Gimp and found it painful to use. I spent hours and hours reading tutorials for basic actions. Photoshop on the other hand was easy to jump into and start using just by reading labels. You still have to read/watch tutorials but things are much better labeled and organized and you find buttons/menus where you expect them.
  - niels_olson 13y ago
    Yeah, is it just me or are InkScape and GIMP both set up with rather unhelpful defaults? I didn't run into such problems with Huygen.
    - windsurfer 13y ago
      Inkscape is actually very good, and certainly comparable to Adobe Illustrator, if not superior nowadays. The main problem I see people have with Inkscape is when they have a MacOS computer, the only available build is from 3 years ago.
      - neovive 13y ago
greggman 13y ago
Maybe someday the gIMP will be even close to Photoshop. Heck, maybe it is for some people's needs. But, I'm not even an artist and the gIMP doesn't come close to meeting my needs. "No decent OpenType typography, no layer styles, no smart objects, no dice." (from the comments on the OP) If all I need to do is crop or scale an image than sure, I might get by with gIMP though in that case I'd arguably get by better with something simpler than gIMP. But, I actually use vector layers with layer styles ALL THE TIME. I actually use text layers with layer styles ALL THE TIME. I actually use non destructive adjustment layers ALL THE TIME. Photoshop layer styles are like CSS. You can declare your styles and then edit vectors or text and the styles apply dynamically. AFAIK gIMP has no equivalents. Those are not minor features. They're what set Photoshop apart.
- pwnguin 13y ago
  > But, I actually use vector layers with layer styles ALL THE TIME. I actually use text layers with layer styles ALL THE TIME. I actually use non destructive adjustment layers ALL THE TIME. Just use Inkscape and call it a day?
  - wlesieutre 13y ago
    Not great advice for photo editing, which is a huge use case for nondestructive adjustment layers.
  - louhike 13y ago
    I think you misanderstood. He does not only use vectors, he just always needs to have vectors on his projects. Inkscape won't be a solution. Apart from that, Inkscape seems to be a good solution for pure vectorial work. But my non-techies friends hate the UI. It is not that it is different of Illustrator, they just found it ugly and unpractical.
- droelf 13y ago
  I agree on some points, but for the non destructive photo adjustment there is an excellent open source alternative caleld darktable which you should check out if you haven't: http://www.darktable.org/ http://www.darktable.org/ Arguably, they don't support none of the vector layers, but thats something you could do in Inkscape. Agreed that it might be more convenient to stay in one tool, though.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Dale1 13y ago
The only way to get something that works like Photoshop..... I bet you can guess the answer! It's a bit like all those people who try to get a PC to run OSX. Just buy a damn Mac for goodness sake!
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ForHackernews 13y ago
  Gah, I don't understand why everyone doesn't just have infinite money for goodness sake!
  - amwelles 13y ago
    I've been paying the ~$20/month for awhile now. I'm totally happy with that, and I don't think that's an unreasonable expense, especially if you're using it professionally.
nomadcoop 13y ago
I haven't tried it myself so can't vouch for it but GimpShop (http://www.gimpshop.com/ http://www.gimpshop.com/) fills a similar niche.
- praeivis 13y ago
  I registered only to warn everyone even do not try gimpshop - it will install findwide mailware.
  - Grue3 13y ago
    Seriously... it's been years. You'd think people stop recommending it.
  - nomadcoop 13y ago
    I'm glad you posted that before I installed it.
- duiker101 13y ago
  Every time someone posts about this I always see some post complaining about it. I therefore wouldn't suggest it even if I personally haven't tried it.
- plasticbugs 13y ago
  I originally created Gimpshop, but I'm not the jerk who owns that domain and added adware & spyware to the source. Sorry about that. I hate that this guy is out there making my fun little project into an abomination.
  - CatMtKing 13y ago
    Man, that sucks. Do you have a project site for your real source code?
    - plasticbugs 13y ago
      I don't have a project site for it. I became discouraged after this whole ordeal and I let it slip away into obscurity. Also, when I put Gimpshop out there, I didn't really know how to code, so updating the source to stay current was a huge undertaking for me. Since then, I've become a self taught programmer. I know Ruby fairly well. I've built a couple of non-trivial Rails sites and within the last 6 months, I published my first iOS app. Gimpshop was a fun little 'prank' that got bigger than I ever expected. Sad what it has become, though.
fidotron 13y ago
Krita may have a different aim on paper, but that just looks like a way to avoid conflict with the GIMP devs until it's clear to absolutely everyone that they've replaced it. One of the real shockers with the GIMP is how badly it plays with Ubuntu's Unity, where the menubar will get emptied whenever you change something in a non-image editor window.
- edgarvaldes 13y ago
  Krita is a great program, and maybe a future GIMP replacement, but for now, it is strongly focused on Digital Painting, and it does a great job in that field.
- JimmyM 13y ago
  Curses! I've been seeking a free program with PaintDotNet levels of functionality which works on Mac for ages (We have MacBook Airs at work, while I use PaintDotNet for game dev at home). GIMP is really difficult to draw anything with, even the simplest things, with good cause - it's not a drawing tool. I thought Krita might fit the bill, but apparently it only has support for Windows and Linux. Much sadness. EDIT: never mind, just seen the Pixelmator rec lower down - problem solved I guess!
dperfect 13y ago
If you're using Photoshop for the purpose it was designed for (editing photos, not illustration/painting from scratch), then GIMP is absolutely inferior in its current form. If you're making edits directly to source pixel layers (or even making duplicate flattened layers and working on those), you're doing it wrong. Photoshop is designed for non-destructive editing. An essential part of that is adjustment layers. Many serious photographers will never switch to GIMP until it can match the non-destructive features of Photoshop. Editing photos without adjustment layers is like writing code without revision control.
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
  I'd have to agree with this. I've never used Photoshop, but the destructiveness of GIMP is a pain. Sure, .xcf supports multiple layers, but I can't rotate a layer without doing so destructively.
- themodelplumber 13y ago
  If you're making edits directly to source pixel layers (or even making duplicate flattened layers and working on those), you're doing it wrong. That seems like a rather absolutist statement. I work with PS CC and its great features all day at work but I guess I still remember the fantastic work that was done before those features existed. I have colleagues who still edit their photos using the apparently-despised techniques you mentioned, and despite "doing it wrong" they manage to make a great living off their photography work. When I was teaching PS at my local college, I allowed my students to try out alternative software packages for extra credit. Some of my brightest students walked away from those classes happy that they could do everything they needed to do with GIMP, even though they knew all about non-destructive editing.
  - dperfect 13y ago
    Agreed. Some gifted people create stunning works of art with unconventional or limited tools. Tatsuo Horiuchi uses Excel to create beautiful paintings. I guess my point is that it's hard to argue against using non-destructive editing if it's available and you understand it. Can you create great things without it? Of course. Bringing the analogy back to programming: some people create useful/beautiful apps without using any form of revision control, and that's fine for them. But if you know how to use revision control and have access to it, then is there really any strong reason not to use it, especially if you're working professionally? It helps increase productivity far more than not using it. For that reason, I'd definitely tell other developers that if they aren't using revision control for professional work, they're doing it wrong. If you were to pick two professional photographers or retouchers at random - one who uses non-destructive editing and the other who doesn't, I'd be willing to bet the one who uses it (all else being equal) produces more consistent, high quality results and with greater efficiency than the one who doesn't.
hadem 13y ago
I've always disliked GIMP's floating windows (especially with a tiling window manager) but never knew of the single-window mode. That is a great tip!
- nkuttler 13y ago
  Don't worry, it's pretty new. http://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.8.html http://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.8.html
pessimizer 13y ago
This is like using Vim-mode to switch to Emacs, or installing Lindows. If people could accept the trivial conventions of the software you're moving to ("How can I use GIMP? The hotkeys are different!") and stop treating it like a free badly-executed Photoshop clone, they might realize that it's really nice to work in. My problems with GIMP were the CMYK stuff and a few terminology issues. I really love the GIMP interface, and I'm not the only person who finds the Photoshop interface awful. I think that people just hate to have to learn anything new, and are willing to pay rents for the rest of their lives to fend that moment away where they might have to spend up to a week or more working in something that they're unfamiliar with. It's a bit like the fortune web developers pay to not have to figure out unix, or Apache. Or like using a guitar tuner to tune each string separately. Maybe I'm just an angry guy:)
- tracker1 13y ago
  It takes a lot of effort to change/unlearn muscle memory. Hell, just ctrl-f vs. ctrl-h, and F5 vs F8 etc is pretty thought consuming, let alone years of using a given application and switching to another.
- dperfect 13y ago
  The thing you're missing is that the differences between GIMP and Photoshop are not just user interface idioms. I wish it were that simple (I'd love to switch to GIMP if I could). It's not a matter of "learning something new"; it's the fact that without real non-destructive editing features, GIMP is basically just an enhanced version of MS Paint in the hands of serious photographers and retouchers. Non-destructive editing is not a "nice to have" feature. It's quite literally a fundamental shift in methodology - and one that apparently the GIMP devs seem to be ignoring. I know several professional photographers/retouchers, and for them, a typical Photoshop document has a single source layer (the original photo) on the bottom, and hundreds of adjustment layers (organized into folders) on top to create the final image. There's just no way to approach that power with GIMP.
  - adamwong246 13y ago
    Perhaps off subject but I think there is a need for a non-destructive, functional script-based image editor. I find, as a programmer, I prefer using ImageMagick when I can. Wouldn't it be nice to have the intuition of a UI backed by scripting? Imagine that at each step in your function, you can tweak it using traditional ui tools and the "tweaks" are automatically reflected in the script. To get the final export, you simply use the original image as the argument of your function. Or perhaps such a thing already exists. If so, I'd like to see it.
bayesianhorse 13y ago
While I never used photoshop, I also never quite liked the gimp. I actually sometimes use blender (yes, the 3D software) to edit photos. It's not the same paradigm as photoshop or the gimp, but it lets me do advanced color grading very easily. I can use textured 3D objects for 2D Animations or non-destructive editing. As an added bonus it works for videos and the compositing setup can be reused for multiple photos. Probably if I were really adventurous I could use more of the paint mode and texture paint mode to get even closer to photoshop. But then again I'm not a pro...
logfromblammo 13y ago
I think it is a mistake to measure GIMP against a standard set by Photoshop. If a person wants a program to work like Photoshop, they should probably use Photoshop. The standard for GIMP should be whether you can use it to accomplish your goal. You might as well publish a guide on how to make a circular table saw cut like a band saw. That's completely useless both to anyone who doesn't already know how to use a band saw, and to anyone who already satisfies all their wood-cutting requirements with the circular saw. They are different tools; they don't need to work the same way.
th0ma5 13y ago
As a developer, I've often felt that if I can't script something, embed it into my own software or service, or even redistribute it, then I haven't really done it with software. This is an unrealistic goal if I was in DTP work still, but by setting this bar, I've been amazed about how my understanding of the context of a problem has broadened my horizons. For instance I feel I now have a great grasp on Nurbs, Voxels, and 3d meshes in general from having done it all with Clojure instead of Blender. Batch processing with Imagemagick is now so second nature to me I can't stomach the idea of having to load up PS or even Gimp. I think when the process involves subtle interactive hand touches and nuances, then an interactive editor will always win out. However rudimentary, discrete "operations" are things computers should do well, and PS and Gimp fall short in my opinion. Gimp being slightly better sort of with its open scripting.
- evan_ 13y ago
  Photoshop got full scripting support in 2003 with Photoshop CS. Before that you had to install a free plugin and it didn't support everything but it was still pretty powerful, I don't remember exactly when that came out but I think it was first for version 6 in 2000. Photoshop has also had full recordable macro support ("Actions") since 1996. Many photographers I've worked with have developed huge suites of actions they've created that enable them to automate much of their workflow despite having no coding ability whatsoever. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/scripting.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/scripting.html
  - th0ma5 13y ago
    Yeah I guess I was thinking about that when I wrote this, but for instance with Python I can instantiate a batch of transformations, and integrate other libraries, other programs, and share inputs and outputs among all of them. I'd be excited if there was a CS scripting whereby I could take an AI file, apply layer effects, and then position that in a 3D transform in AE, and render an MP4 all in one script. I can do that with Linux and open source utilities, but I can't with CS. Also AI is horribly leaky in memory when dealing with advanced computational design where you have billions of points, whereas open source SVG renders take such a thing in stride.
jjcm 13y ago
This was posted to reddit a couple weeks back, and I'll repeat the same comment I made there. "I spend about 90% of my time in Lightroom and only 10% in Photoshop." This is why he was able to do this. He isn't using the functionality that Photoshop provides, he's using the functionality that Photoshop Essentials provides. Look at his parity instructions - every feature is found in Photoshop Essentials. If that's all you use, then great, by all means switch over to Gimp. The bigger the userbase it has, the better off it will be. But don't think that it's going to replace Photoshop in the near future. Non-destructive editing is the biggest thing GIMP is missing in my opinion, but supposedly the move to GEGL will allow them to start development on this ( https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2013-December/msg00225.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2013-December... ). Smart objects are another huge feature it's missing - not only the ability to downscale losslessly, but also the ability to edit all replicates at once. This is huge for designers. If I'm defining a user control for a design mockup, and I need to make a change to that control, in Photoshop all I have to do is edit the singular smart object source. The source edits will propagate to all the copies automatically. In Gimp I have to do this by hand. There are some minor features too that bug me. The inability to add a mask to layer groups is a big one for me. Layer effects (while often overused and gaudy) can be really helpful for design work - need to change the color of an icon that's raster art? Just drop a color overlay on it. If you have style swatches, it can be really easy to do fast mockups using this. This in conjunction with Layer Comps (also something missing in Gimp right now) can really help in switching between two or more alts. A great way to see what Gimp is currently missing in comparison to Photoshop is to look at the development roadmap ( http://wiki.gimp.org/index.php/Roadmap http://wiki.gimp.org/index.php/Roadmap ). If some of your heavily used features are on that list, it might not be worth switching over to Gimp. If you don't see yourself as a user of those features though, give it a shot.
- BashiBazouk 13y ago
  Worse, lightroom is an adobe application. I no longer use Photoshop because I use another Adobe tool more often... Makes the switch to GIMP kind of pointless. Not that I should talk, I hardly use Photoshop any more either, but that's because I live in Illustrator. My problem with open source graphic tools remains the same. I'm in the print world, either it supports Pantone or it's not that useful of a tool.
elwell 13y ago
GIMP is lighter-weight. I use it all the time for web work. If it meets your needs, it's definitely preferable to PS.
Thiz 13y ago
For web developers and web designers, GIMP is a great tool. Best of all it is free. While I'd gladly pay ten or twenty bucks for cropping and texting images for my web properties, I'd never pay hundreds for photoshop and their invasive anti-piracy software.
dudus 13y ago
Cached version http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.rileybrandt.com%2F2014%2F03%2F09%2Fphotoshop-to-gimp%2F&%7Bgoogle:acceptedSuggestion%7Doq=cache%3Awww.rileybrandt.com%2F2014%2F03%2F09%2Fphotoshop-to-gimp%2F&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.r...
0x420 13y ago
I only use Photoshop to slice the web site designs my coworkers send me. I would have switched to GIMP a long time ago if they all used it, too. GIMP doesn't read their PSD files very well.
elclanrs 13y ago
I was a Photoshop user for a long time, but haven't looked back since I moved to Linux full time a few years back. The challenge was to use libre software for everything and reduce my business' expenses. It's been 4 years since then and I don't miss Photoshop. I realized in the process the I was terribly misusing it. It was my goto tool for everything, from web design, to photo retouch, to vector, icons... I have a background in 3D & VFX but my work today is mostly web development, and opensource software covers all my needs. MyPaint for free drawing like brainstorming, illustrations, and blueprints. Inkscape for vector graphics like icons, logos, layouts, mockups. Darktable for simple photo editing. GIMP for heavy photo retouch, and well, it's still my goto tool for those quick screenshots, image cropping jobs. And Blender for 3D work of course. I hardly do print, but when I do I use Inkscape, HTML and CSS. TLDR; Photoshop isn't the best for every task. There are free software alternatives for everything. Using them all together provides me with all that I need, so I no longer miss Photoshop.
computerslol 13y ago
I expected this to be a joke of some sort.
jawngee 13y ago
I suppose it depends on what you consider a "pro" or not, and what you are using Photoshop for to begin with. I started out 20 years ago as a retoucher and digital pre-press. 20 years later, I'm back in the publishing game, but publishing on the tablet. The magazine I am producing as the "eat your own dog food" test run of our bootstrapped tablet publishing tools (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22qqsFHH1HY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22qqsFHH1HY or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXlHFhbqzHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXlHFhbqzHU for more info) is almost entirely photography and video. Guess who is doing the "pre-press" work? Yeah, that's me. So let me run you through my typical retouching workflow I use to retouch a fashion photo (discussion about perpetrating negative stereo types of female body types ignored for the sake of this conversation): - Open the image in Photoshop - Duplicate the background to a new layer and convert to smart object - Open up the smart object into a new document - Liquify, patch tool, liquify, patch tool - Hair, pimple removal with clone stamp - Masked adjustment layers for very slight color correction, typically make up and teeth and eye whitening - Save smart object - Go back to original document - Duplicate smart object twice - Highpass filter + overlay blend mode on top most smart object copy - Smart blur on smart object copy beneath high pass - Mask the blurred smart object and start painting in skin smoothing on the channel mask - Now at this point, I might have gone back to the smart object and made some more clean up and liquify tweaks - Manual corrections done, I move onto color grading and color correction All of this is done with a wacom tablet, which afaik, GIMP still has issues with (usable but not on the same level as photoshop). Liquify tool in gimp is a horrible joke. No smart objects. Can you do this process with GIMP? You can. I have. It's not as easy or straight forward as it should be though. It can't be stressed how important Smart Objects are to the modern photoshop workflow. So as someone who uses Photoshop not only for app design, but actual honest to goodness professional retouching, I have to say if this guy is only using Photoshop 10% of the time, he's probably not even the target market for it. Will GIMP ever make it to actual competion for Photoshop on the professional level? I sure hope so, but not anytime soon. Photoshop CC (I've been using Photoshop since 2.5 on a Mac Quadra 950) is the best version ever. I know I sound like an Adobe shill, but I have extensive expertise that goes back decades now. Now you damn kids get off my lawn.
virtualwhys 13y ago
Man, breath of fresh air, have never bothered tweaking GIMP as out of the box it's usable but frustrating compared to photoshop or fireworks (yes, I've got the latter running in a Windows VM). On Fedora here so GIMP is what I've been using for quick image optimizations when I can't be bothered to fire up a virtual machine. Am definitely going to integrate some of the suggested tips, thanks to whoever posted this...
hunvreus 13y ago
I'd recommend you switch to Sketch[1] and/or Acorn[2] instead if you're on MacOS. I love Gimp, and was a long time user of Inkscape after growing tired of Adobe's products, but the UX simply is too frustrating. [1]: http://www.flyingmeat.com/acorn/‎ http://www.flyingmeat.com/acorn/‎ [2]: http://www.bohemiancoding.com/sketch/ http://www.bohemiancoding.com/sketch/
andro_dev 13y ago
Why is everyone so negative towards this app? I have been a digital artist for 20 years almost and I have been using photoshop for over 18 years now. Gimp is no match for Photoshop but it is a great alternative on Linux and it is a free tool on other platforms. This is what we have and it is better than not having an alternative. It is mind boggling to see that people passionately hate Gimp meanwhile Adobe has been screwing the software world behind the scenes. No one seems to passionately care about Adobe`s evils. I hope that some of you will care enough about learning and modifying Gimp at some point because it is not as bad as most of you think. And I bet that some of you wont even need most of the pro features of Gimp. On the other hand I doubt that all this negative talk will motivate the Gimp developers. Seriously grumbling artists cannot do much art. Artists and creatives have to be passionate, positive and forward progressives. Anyway here is my personal wish list for Gimp - Single transform tool for move rotate scale - mirror drawing - proper blending brush - visual brush resizer - And the most important of all is to support 32 bit linear image formats

259 points by paulloz 13y ago

If you use Windows, consider Paint.NET (http://www.getpaint.net http://www.getpaint.net) instead of GIMP. It's much quicker (particularly the 4.0 beta builds) and has a much more Photoshop-like UI out of the box.

cobalt 13y ago
Sure, but it doesn't do nearly as much. Especially when creating graphics from scratch
tracker1 13y ago
I like Paint.Net a lot on the windows side... for Mac/Linux alternative, look into Pinta http://pinta-project.com/ http://pinta-project.com/ ... it's essentially a cross-platform port of Paint.Net They do the vast majority of what most people need in a simple photo editor.
- skrowl 13y ago
  Looks like a clone rather than a port (as paint.net isn't open source you can't really port it), but I'll take a look. Their github (https://github.com/PintaProject/Pinta https://github.com/PintaProject/Pinta) makes it look like the project may be abandoned.
  - tanzam75 13y ago
    It's a port of Paint.net 3.3.6 from .NET to Mono. Paint.net used to be MIT-licensed, and 3.3.6 was the last version that was released open-source. Besides, the UI in Paint.net 4.0 has been rewritten to use WPF. That makes it essentially impossible to port to Mono.
kyrra 13y ago
For OSX, Pixelmator[0] is a great tool for the price ($30). I've used Paint.NET a lot, but since being on OSX a lot more for my job, Pixelmator is definitely a step-above Paint.NET. But as always, Photoshop is the best out there. [0] http://www.pixelmator.com/ http://www.pixelmator.com/

jordigh 13y ago

This reminds me of the endless bug reports we're getting right now about the Octave GUI not being indistinguishable from Matlab. Makes me wish people weren't so inflexible about the tiniest UI differences. It's difficult to please the converts.

Joeboy 13y ago
> Makes me wish people weren't so inflexible about the tiniest UI differences. It's difficult to please the converts. I replaced Photoshop with Gimp years ago, but I still find Gimp incredibly painful to use. It accounts for a tiny proportion of my software use, but a massive proportion of my swearing. I use to think it was just down to being familiar with Photoshop, but I think I can only excuse it on that basis for so long.
- akama 13y ago
  I had the opposite experience so I can confirm it is Gimp's interface. I started with Gimp and found it painful to use. I spent hours and hours reading tutorials for basic actions. Photoshop on the other hand was easy to jump into and start using just by reading labels. You still have to read/watch tutorials but things are much better labeled and organized and you find buttons/menus where you expect them.
- niels_olson 13y ago
  Yeah, is it just me or are InkScape and GIMP both set up with rather unhelpful defaults? I didn't run into such problems with Huygen.
  - windsurfer 13y ago
    Inkscape is actually very good, and certainly comparable to Adobe Illustrator, if not superior nowadays. The main problem I see people have with Inkscape is when they have a MacOS computer, the only available build is from 3 years ago.
    - neovive 13y ago

greggman 13y ago

Maybe someday the gIMP will be even close to Photoshop. Heck, maybe it is for some people's needs. But, I'm not even an artist and the gIMP doesn't come close to meeting my needs. "No decent OpenType typography, no layer styles, no smart objects, no dice." (from the comments on the OP) If all I need to do is crop or scale an image than sure, I might get by with gIMP though in that case I'd arguably get by better with something simpler than gIMP. But, I actually use vector layers with layer styles ALL THE TIME. I actually use text layers with layer styles ALL THE TIME. I actually use non destructive adjustment layers ALL THE TIME. Photoshop layer styles are like CSS. You can declare your styles and then edit vectors or text and the styles apply dynamically. AFAIK gIMP has no equivalents. Those are not minor features. They're what set Photoshop apart.

pwnguin 13y ago
> But, I actually use vector layers with layer styles ALL THE TIME. I actually use text layers with layer styles ALL THE TIME. I actually use non destructive adjustment layers ALL THE TIME. Just use Inkscape and call it a day?
- wlesieutre 13y ago
  Not great advice for photo editing, which is a huge use case for nondestructive adjustment layers.
- louhike 13y ago
  I think you misanderstood. He does not only use vectors, he just always needs to have vectors on his projects. Inkscape won't be a solution. Apart from that, Inkscape seems to be a good solution for pure vectorial work. But my non-techies friends hate the UI. It is not that it is different of Illustrator, they just found it ugly and unpractical.
droelf 13y ago
I agree on some points, but for the non destructive photo adjustment there is an excellent open source alternative caleld darktable which you should check out if you haven't: http://www.darktable.org/ http://www.darktable.org/ Arguably, they don't support none of the vector layers, but thats something you could do in Inkscape. Agreed that it might be more convenient to stay in one tool, though.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Dale1 13y ago

The only way to get something that works like Photoshop..... I bet you can guess the answer! It's a bit like all those people who try to get a PC to run OSX. Just buy a damn Mac for goodness sake!

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ForHackernews 13y ago
Gah, I don't understand why everyone doesn't just have infinite money for goodness sake!
- amwelles 13y ago
  I've been paying the ~$20/month for awhile now. I'm totally happy with that, and I don't think that's an unreasonable expense, especially if you're using it professionally.

nomadcoop 13y ago

I haven't tried it myself so can't vouch for it but GimpShop (http://www.gimpshop.com/ http://www.gimpshop.com/) fills a similar niche.

praeivis 13y ago
I registered only to warn everyone even do not try gimpshop - it will install findwide mailware.
- Grue3 13y ago
  Seriously... it's been years. You'd think people stop recommending it.
- nomadcoop 13y ago
  I'm glad you posted that before I installed it.
duiker101 13y ago
Every time someone posts about this I always see some post complaining about it. I therefore wouldn't suggest it even if I personally haven't tried it.
plasticbugs 13y ago
I originally created Gimpshop, but I'm not the jerk who owns that domain and added adware & spyware to the source. Sorry about that. I hate that this guy is out there making my fun little project into an abomination.
- CatMtKing 13y ago
  Man, that sucks. Do you have a project site for your real source code?
  - plasticbugs 13y ago
    I don't have a project site for it. I became discouraged after this whole ordeal and I let it slip away into obscurity. Also, when I put Gimpshop out there, I didn't really know how to code, so updating the source to stay current was a huge undertaking for me. Since then, I've become a self taught programmer. I know Ruby fairly well. I've built a couple of non-trivial Rails sites and within the last 6 months, I published my first iOS app. Gimpshop was a fun little 'prank' that got bigger than I ever expected. Sad what it has become, though.

fidotron 13y ago

Krita may have a different aim on paper, but that just looks like a way to avoid conflict with the GIMP devs until it's clear to absolutely everyone that they've replaced it. One of the real shockers with the GIMP is how badly it plays with Ubuntu's Unity, where the menubar will get emptied whenever you change something in a non-image editor window.

edgarvaldes 13y ago
Krita is a great program, and maybe a future GIMP replacement, but for now, it is strongly focused on Digital Painting, and it does a great job in that field.
JimmyM 13y ago
Curses! I've been seeking a free program with PaintDotNet levels of functionality which works on Mac for ages (We have MacBook Airs at work, while I use PaintDotNet for game dev at home). GIMP is really difficult to draw anything with, even the simplest things, with good cause - it's not a drawing tool. I thought Krita might fit the bill, but apparently it only has support for Windows and Linux. Much sadness. EDIT: never mind, just seen the Pixelmator rec lower down - problem solved I guess!

dperfect 13y ago

If you're using Photoshop for the purpose it was designed for (editing photos, not illustration/painting from scratch), then GIMP is absolutely inferior in its current form. If you're making edits directly to source pixel layers (or even making duplicate flattened layers and working on those), you're doing it wrong. Photoshop is designed for non-destructive editing. An essential part of that is adjustment layers. Many serious photographers will never switch to GIMP until it can match the non-destructive features of Photoshop. Editing photos without adjustment layers is like writing code without revision control.

TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
I'd have to agree with this. I've never used Photoshop, but the destructiveness of GIMP is a pain. Sure, .xcf supports multiple layers, but I can't rotate a layer without doing so destructively.
themodelplumber 13y ago
If you're making edits directly to source pixel layers (or even making duplicate flattened layers and working on those), you're doing it wrong. That seems like a rather absolutist statement. I work with PS CC and its great features all day at work but I guess I still remember the fantastic work that was done before those features existed. I have colleagues who still edit their photos using the apparently-despised techniques you mentioned, and despite "doing it wrong" they manage to make a great living off their photography work. When I was teaching PS at my local college, I allowed my students to try out alternative software packages for extra credit. Some of my brightest students walked away from those classes happy that they could do everything they needed to do with GIMP, even though they knew all about non-destructive editing.
- dperfect 13y ago
  Agreed. Some gifted people create stunning works of art with unconventional or limited tools. Tatsuo Horiuchi uses Excel to create beautiful paintings. I guess my point is that it's hard to argue against using non-destructive editing if it's available and you understand it. Can you create great things without it? Of course. Bringing the analogy back to programming: some people create useful/beautiful apps without using any form of revision control, and that's fine for them. But if you know how to use revision control and have access to it, then is there really any strong reason not to use it, especially if you're working professionally? It helps increase productivity far more than not using it. For that reason, I'd definitely tell other developers that if they aren't using revision control for professional work, they're doing it wrong. If you were to pick two professional photographers or retouchers at random - one who uses non-destructive editing and the other who doesn't, I'd be willing to bet the one who uses it (all else being equal) produces more consistent, high quality results and with greater efficiency than the one who doesn't.

hadem 13y ago

I've always disliked GIMP's floating windows (especially with a tiling window manager) but never knew of the single-window mode. That is a great tip!

nkuttler 13y ago
Don't worry, it's pretty new. http://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.8.html http://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.8.html

pessimizer 13y ago

This is like using Vim-mode to switch to Emacs, or installing Lindows. If people could accept the trivial conventions of the software you're moving to ("How can I use GIMP? The hotkeys are different!") and stop treating it like a free badly-executed Photoshop clone, they might realize that it's really nice to work in. My problems with GIMP were the CMYK stuff and a few terminology issues. I really love the GIMP interface, and I'm not the only person who finds the Photoshop interface awful. I think that people just hate to have to learn anything new, and are willing to pay rents for the rest of their lives to fend that moment away where they might have to spend up to a week or more working in something that they're unfamiliar with. It's a bit like the fortune web developers pay to not have to figure out unix, or Apache. Or like using a guitar tuner to tune each string separately. Maybe I'm just an angry guy:)

tracker1 13y ago
It takes a lot of effort to change/unlearn muscle memory. Hell, just ctrl-f vs. ctrl-h, and F5 vs F8 etc is pretty thought consuming, let alone years of using a given application and switching to another.
dperfect 13y ago
The thing you're missing is that the differences between GIMP and Photoshop are not just user interface idioms. I wish it were that simple (I'd love to switch to GIMP if I could). It's not a matter of "learning something new"; it's the fact that without real non-destructive editing features, GIMP is basically just an enhanced version of MS Paint in the hands of serious photographers and retouchers. Non-destructive editing is not a "nice to have" feature. It's quite literally a fundamental shift in methodology - and one that apparently the GIMP devs seem to be ignoring. I know several professional photographers/retouchers, and for them, a typical Photoshop document has a single source layer (the original photo) on the bottom, and hundreds of adjustment layers (organized into folders) on top to create the final image. There's just no way to approach that power with GIMP.
- adamwong246 13y ago
  Perhaps off subject but I think there is a need for a non-destructive, functional script-based image editor. I find, as a programmer, I prefer using ImageMagick when I can. Wouldn't it be nice to have the intuition of a UI backed by scripting? Imagine that at each step in your function, you can tweak it using traditional ui tools and the "tweaks" are automatically reflected in the script. To get the final export, you simply use the original image as the argument of your function. Or perhaps such a thing already exists. If so, I'd like to see it.

bayesianhorse 13y ago

While I never used photoshop, I also never quite liked the gimp. I actually sometimes use blender (yes, the 3D software) to edit photos. It's not the same paradigm as photoshop or the gimp, but it lets me do advanced color grading very easily. I can use textured 3D objects for 2D Animations or non-destructive editing. As an added bonus it works for videos and the compositing setup can be reused for multiple photos. Probably if I were really adventurous I could use more of the paint mode and texture paint mode to get even closer to photoshop. But then again I'm not a pro...

logfromblammo 13y ago

I think it is a mistake to measure GIMP against a standard set by Photoshop. If a person wants a program to work like Photoshop, they should probably use Photoshop. The standard for GIMP should be whether you can use it to accomplish your goal. You might as well publish a guide on how to make a circular table saw cut like a band saw. That's completely useless both to anyone who doesn't already know how to use a band saw, and to anyone who already satisfies all their wood-cutting requirements with the circular saw. They are different tools; they don't need to work the same way.

th0ma5 13y ago

As a developer, I've often felt that if I can't script something, embed it into my own software or service, or even redistribute it, then I haven't really done it with software. This is an unrealistic goal if I was in DTP work still, but by setting this bar, I've been amazed about how my understanding of the context of a problem has broadened my horizons. For instance I feel I now have a great grasp on Nurbs, Voxels, and 3d meshes in general from having done it all with Clojure instead of Blender. Batch processing with Imagemagick is now so second nature to me I can't stomach the idea of having to load up PS or even Gimp. I think when the process involves subtle interactive hand touches and nuances, then an interactive editor will always win out. However rudimentary, discrete "operations" are things computers should do well, and PS and Gimp fall short in my opinion. Gimp being slightly better sort of with its open scripting.

evan_ 13y ago
Photoshop got full scripting support in 2003 with Photoshop CS. Before that you had to install a free plugin and it didn't support everything but it was still pretty powerful, I don't remember exactly when that came out but I think it was first for version 6 in 2000. Photoshop has also had full recordable macro support ("Actions") since 1996. Many photographers I've worked with have developed huge suites of actions they've created that enable them to automate much of their workflow despite having no coding ability whatsoever. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/scripting.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/scripting.html
- th0ma5 13y ago
  Yeah I guess I was thinking about that when I wrote this, but for instance with Python I can instantiate a batch of transformations, and integrate other libraries, other programs, and share inputs and outputs among all of them. I'd be excited if there was a CS scripting whereby I could take an AI file, apply layer effects, and then position that in a 3D transform in AE, and render an MP4 all in one script. I can do that with Linux and open source utilities, but I can't with CS. Also AI is horribly leaky in memory when dealing with advanced computational design where you have billions of points, whereas open source SVG renders take such a thing in stride.

jjcm 13y ago

This was posted to reddit a couple weeks back, and I'll repeat the same comment I made there. "I spend about 90% of my time in Lightroom and only 10% in Photoshop." This is why he was able to do this. He isn't using the functionality that Photoshop provides, he's using the functionality that Photoshop Essentials provides. Look at his parity instructions - every feature is found in Photoshop Essentials. If that's all you use, then great, by all means switch over to Gimp. The bigger the userbase it has, the better off it will be. But don't think that it's going to replace Photoshop in the near future. Non-destructive editing is the biggest thing GIMP is missing in my opinion, but supposedly the move to GEGL will allow them to start development on this ( https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2013-December/msg00225.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2013-December... ). Smart objects are another huge feature it's missing - not only the ability to downscale losslessly, but also the ability to edit all replicates at once. This is huge for designers. If I'm defining a user control for a design mockup, and I need to make a change to that control, in Photoshop all I have to do is edit the singular smart object source. The source edits will propagate to all the copies automatically. In Gimp I have to do this by hand. There are some minor features too that bug me. The inability to add a mask to layer groups is a big one for me. Layer effects (while often overused and gaudy) can be really helpful for design work - need to change the color of an icon that's raster art? Just drop a color overlay on it. If you have style swatches, it can be really easy to do fast mockups using this. This in conjunction with Layer Comps (also something missing in Gimp right now) can really help in switching between two or more alts. A great way to see what Gimp is currently missing in comparison to Photoshop is to look at the development roadmap ( http://wiki.gimp.org/index.php/Roadmap http://wiki.gimp.org/index.php/Roadmap ). If some of your heavily used features are on that list, it might not be worth switching over to Gimp. If you don't see yourself as a user of those features though, give it a shot.

BashiBazouk 13y ago
Worse, lightroom is an adobe application. I no longer use Photoshop because I use another Adobe tool more often... Makes the switch to GIMP kind of pointless. Not that I should talk, I hardly use Photoshop any more either, but that's because I live in Illustrator. My problem with open source graphic tools remains the same. I'm in the print world, either it supports Pantone or it's not that useful of a tool.

elwell 13y ago

GIMP is lighter-weight. I use it all the time for web work. If it meets your needs, it's definitely preferable to PS.

Thiz 13y ago

For web developers and web designers, GIMP is a great tool. Best of all it is free. While I'd gladly pay ten or twenty bucks for cropping and texting images for my web properties, I'd never pay hundreds for photoshop and their invasive anti-piracy software.

dudus 13y ago

Cached version http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.rileybrandt.com%2F2014%2F03%2F09%2Fphotoshop-to-gimp%2F&%7Bgoogle:acceptedSuggestion%7Doq=cache%3Awww.rileybrandt.com%2F2014%2F03%2F09%2Fphotoshop-to-gimp%2F&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.r...

0x420 13y ago

I only use Photoshop to slice the web site designs my coworkers send me. I would have switched to GIMP a long time ago if they all used it, too. GIMP doesn't read their PSD files very well.

elclanrs 13y ago

I was a Photoshop user for a long time, but haven't looked back since I moved to Linux full time a few years back. The challenge was to use libre software for everything and reduce my business' expenses. It's been 4 years since then and I don't miss Photoshop. I realized in the process the I was terribly misusing it. It was my goto tool for everything, from web design, to photo retouch, to vector, icons... I have a background in 3D & VFX but my work today is mostly web development, and opensource software covers all my needs. MyPaint for free drawing like brainstorming, illustrations, and blueprints. Inkscape for vector graphics like icons, logos, layouts, mockups. Darktable for simple photo editing. GIMP for heavy photo retouch, and well, it's still my goto tool for those quick screenshots, image cropping jobs. And Blender for 3D work of course. I hardly do print, but when I do I use Inkscape, HTML and CSS. TLDR; Photoshop isn't the best for every task. There are free software alternatives for everything. Using them all together provides me with all that I need, so I no longer miss Photoshop.

computerslol 13y ago

I expected this to be a joke of some sort.

jawngee 13y ago

I suppose it depends on what you consider a "pro" or not, and what you are using Photoshop for to begin with. I started out 20 years ago as a retoucher and digital pre-press. 20 years later, I'm back in the publishing game, but publishing on the tablet. The magazine I am producing as the "eat your own dog food" test run of our bootstrapped tablet publishing tools (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22qqsFHH1HY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22qqsFHH1HY or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXlHFhbqzHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXlHFhbqzHU for more info) is almost entirely photography and video. Guess who is doing the "pre-press" work? Yeah, that's me. So let me run you through my typical retouching workflow I use to retouch a fashion photo (discussion about perpetrating negative stereo types of female body types ignored for the sake of this conversation): - Open the image in Photoshop - Duplicate the background to a new layer and convert to smart object - Open up the smart object into a new document - Liquify, patch tool, liquify, patch tool - Hair, pimple removal with clone stamp - Masked adjustment layers for very slight color correction, typically make up and teeth and eye whitening - Save smart object - Go back to original document - Duplicate smart object twice - Highpass filter + overlay blend mode on top most smart object copy - Smart blur on smart object copy beneath high pass - Mask the blurred smart object and start painting in skin smoothing on the channel mask - Now at this point, I might have gone back to the smart object and made some more clean up and liquify tweaks - Manual corrections done, I move onto color grading and color correction All of this is done with a wacom tablet, which afaik, GIMP still has issues with (usable but not on the same level as photoshop). Liquify tool in gimp is a horrible joke. No smart objects. Can you do this process with GIMP? You can. I have. It's not as easy or straight forward as it should be though. It can't be stressed how important Smart Objects are to the modern photoshop workflow. So as someone who uses Photoshop not only for app design, but actual honest to goodness professional retouching, I have to say if this guy is only using Photoshop 10% of the time, he's probably not even the target market for it. Will GIMP ever make it to actual competion for Photoshop on the professional level? I sure hope so, but not anytime soon. Photoshop CC (I've been using Photoshop since 2.5 on a Mac Quadra 950) is the best version ever. I know I sound like an Adobe shill, but I have extensive expertise that goes back decades now. Now you damn kids get off my lawn.

virtualwhys 13y ago

Man, breath of fresh air, have never bothered tweaking GIMP as out of the box it's usable but frustrating compared to photoshop or fireworks (yes, I've got the latter running in a Windows VM). On Fedora here so GIMP is what I've been using for quick image optimizations when I can't be bothered to fire up a virtual machine. Am definitely going to integrate some of the suggested tips, thanks to whoever posted this...

hunvreus 13y ago

I'd recommend you switch to Sketch[1] and/or Acorn[2] instead if you're on MacOS. I love Gimp, and was a long time user of Inkscape after growing tired of Adobe's products, but the UX simply is too frustrating. [1]: http://www.flyingmeat.com/acorn/‎ http://www.flyingmeat.com/acorn/‎ [2]: http://www.bohemiancoding.com/sketch/ http://www.bohemiancoding.com/sketch/

andro_dev 13y ago

Why is everyone so negative towards this app? I have been a digital artist for 20 years almost and I have been using photoshop for over 18 years now. Gimp is no match for Photoshop but it is a great alternative on Linux and it is a free tool on other platforms. This is what we have and it is better than not having an alternative. It is mind boggling to see that people passionately hate Gimp meanwhile Adobe has been screwing the software world behind the scenes. No one seems to passionately care about Adobe`s evils. I hope that some of you will care enough about learning and modifying Gimp at some point because it is not as bad as most of you think. And I bet that some of you wont even need most of the pro features of Gimp. On the other hand I doubt that all this negative talk will motivate the Gimp developers. Seriously grumbling artists cannot do much art. Artists and creatives have to be passionate, positive and forward progressives. Anyway here is my personal wish list for Gimp - Single transform tool for move rotate scale - mirror drawing - proper blending brush - visual brush resizer - And the most important of all is to support 32 bit linear image formats