Slashdot Mirror
The Gimp from the Eyes of a Photoshop User
Eugenia writes "Many in the F/OSS community are raving about the Gimp, however pros who have actually used Photoshop think differently: This Mac professional designer goes through the steps of getting Gimp 2.0 up and running on his Mac, only to get baffled by the chaotic interface in general and its non-standard UI compared to other Mac apps, its slowness to open large files and to apply filters, the unintuitive tools that accompany it and its very visible bad quality of text and lines/shapes. That designer even bought a 'supported' version of MacGimp by an OSS-Mac company, Archei, but he never heard back for his support requests (free Gimp for Macs here). I think that's one of the best-written articles I've ever read about the reality of most open-source geek-driven projects vs their equivelant professional/proprietary ones. Personally, before I get persuaded to use Gimp again for my photography projects, I would need --in addition to the author's peeves -- full 16-bit per channel support, high-quality scanning/printing drivers with integrated GUI (a'la SilverFast), and a 'crop and rotate' feature (as seen in PS/PSE). Besides, both Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements cost bellow $100 (with PS Elements getting bundled with most scanners/printers/digital cameras, albeit without the much needed 16bit support either)."
Who cares if it's open source? I don't. What I care about is being able to use it. If the interface is horrid and badly thiought out I'm not going to bother with it. Yeah, PSP isn't free, but it's interface is easy and well thought out. That lets me do what I need to do.
I use the best tool available in my price range. If that tool is free, geat. I'll use it. If that tool is not free, fine. I'll save up my lunch money and buy it.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
He lost credibility in his first paragraph:
'Open source' means that the source code is available at no cost to anybody that wants to download it, use it, modify it, use it to fill empty hard drives - whatever.
I think we now know what kind of knowledge this guy has, and how easy it will be to disregard his opinions. Troll.
gimp's JPG compression isn't THAT great...PS can easily achieve the same thing for a tiny fraction more in size...try setting 12 when you save. and the PNG support is exactly the same for all intents and purposes...don't try to tell me it's NOT.
gimp is shit...there is NO arguing that. I spend 14 hours a day in front of a computer doing Graphic Design/Fine Art post processing for print and Video Editing - I'd kill myself if i had to use gimp or any of the other completely shyte tools Linux has to offer.
and Photoshop is but the tip of the iceberg in the world of what Linux will never be able to do natively - screw emulation...this work is already slow enough without another layer interfering
you can make a living using Photoshop...you'll go hungry using gimp
and no i will not give it the honor of capital letters(gimp) that respect is earned when you make something that can deliver on it's claims.
While GIMP's interface is truly awful, that's not what kills it, and that's not the most important reason why he ultimately finds it to be a failure.
What sucks the most about GIMP is the quality of its output. The anti-aliasing sucks, the text rendering is abysmal, it can't deal with real-world output requirements, Microsoft Paint puts its color handling to shame.
I've tried the GIMP. I've tried it lots of times. I run Linux on servers and desktops and it works great for me. But when I have to do graphics work, there's no substitute for the Mac, in large part because the applications just aren't there on Linux.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
And who exactly is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use Gimp? I don't know anybody. Nobody is forcing you to use Gimp. If you don't like it, then don't use it.
People on Slashdot always claim that "Linux zealots are trying to convert people" but where are they? Other than a few occasional trolls I've never really seen anybody claiming that proprietary software sucks. Heck, I see more people complaining about Gimp, saying how much it sucks, and trying to mentally destroy Linux developers!
Constructive criticism is good. But the thing is, most criticism on Slashdot are NOT constructive! They're destructive bashing! "Gimp sucks, Linux sucks, you are an elitist bastard, you moron. Linux will fail and you will never have a girlfriend. Photoshop is so much better mwahaha.". If you're a developer and you read things like that, would you call it "constructive criticism"? What's so constructive about it?
I'm a happy Gimp user. I'm very productive in Gimp. Photoshop? No thanks! Gimp is free and does everything I want. Also, Gimp 2.0 has a much improved user interface.