So /p/, do you use Gimp or Photoshop?
Ignoring price (since tpb exists), what are some advantages and disadvantages of each? Can some processing tools be done in one, that can't be done or is much more difficult to do in the other?
I'm also wondering if any prominent photographers currently use Gimp.
Basically, what I'm asking is, is Gimp a really viable alternative with its own advantages, or is it the poorfag's solution who doesn't know how to torrent?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1108 Image Height 1108 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2013:11:29 10:46:39 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1108 Image Height 1108
I use gimp because I'm poor and not a dirty pirate and have always used it. I don't know that it has any pros over photoshop but I do know that it can do all the important stuff a photographer needs to do.
Photoshop by far.
Though GIMP does have some unique/useful plugins.
The better question is :
Do you think you need to extensively *manipulate photos*, and therefore *assume* that you should use gimp/PS, when in reality all you really need to do to "edit" your photos is adjust some exposure and whitebalances, apply a curve and export multiple files to jpgs?
...Most people need a batch editor like DarkTable/RawTherapee/LightRoom.
Not a photo manipulation application.
>>2702195
The python/sheme console in GIMP is a huge advantage. Generally open-source is a huge advantage, if you have specific needs and are able to script. But you could argue, that then you could use imagick in the first place, since it is faster and mighty and a provides not only a real cli but also many libraries/APIs.
The gui of GIMP is great, and the GimpToolKit (GTK+) became a famous os projekt, which is used by a fuckton of programs.
In regard to photography post production GIMP is just as good as any other commercial software, under the condition that you know what you are doing.
A downside is the lack of >8bit reading/writing ability, which however 1.) will be solved in future and 2.) is only important for long processing lines. Besides, most of the internal rendering already uses >8bit and floating point values.
A REAL downside is, that there is no real support for 4-color color-systems. You can work-around it, but this simply sucks.
In conclusion I'd say, once you really know what you are doing you are not dependant on a specific software, and I personally prefer GIMP due to its modding abilities and the general open-source spirit.
The worst idiots are those, who think they would appear so profesionel when they praise photoshop (most likely in combination with muh-freeBSD-clone-aka-osX), and not recognizing that they are discrediting themselves, since they just show that they are dependant on fancy make-everything-look-beautiful-sliders.
>>2702195
i use Gimp, with Plugins.
However Photoshop is easier and most steps are just one click and some pulling on sliders. while the same actions take some more steps and if you are new to it also more time on Gimp.
only advantages over Photoshop are that it is free, opensource and also availble on Linux.
But i like Gimp and used it before Photoshop so i have my workflow with it. You should use the 2.9 version and also get some plugins like g'mic.
You should also check out Krita
>>2702195
I prefer older versions of PS over Gimp. Still using CS2 and was using PS 7.0 before i upgraded to that.
I've always used gimp and I tried photoshop but didn't like it. Gimp does everything I want. Plus I don't need to bother with dual booting or trying to make it run under wine or something.
I would however very much appreciate 16bpp support in gimp. It was supposed to happen years ago. (And yes, I contribute money to the project.)
gimp is an amazing program and has a fairly easy learning curve... also it is FREE. photoshop is bloated, expensive, and has a ton of features you will probably never use in a traditional photo processing workflow.
>>2702593
sorry, forgot to add that you will most likely need an additional app to process the raw (if you shoot raw) prior to importing. there are several free *nix programs to do this.
>>2702552
same here, running linux using CS2. Gimp just sucks balls, maybe krita will become more photo editing friendly in the future
>>2702567
get gimp 2.9
play with it, its got support for 16 bit
gimp + gmic can do 99% of the things anyone on /p/ wants
>>2702707
2.9 is a instable dev version and can't properly handle 16bit without fuck up the layers
why would people voluntarily torture themselves by using gimp?
Gimp - raster
Photoshop - vector
>>2703645
>>Gimp - raster
>>Photoshop - vector
>>Photoshop - raster
>>Illustrator - vector
ftfy
>>2703589
some people like it anon
