Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi folks, I know some threads already exist for this topic but they are from years ago so i'm looking for a fresh answer. I've been using Gimp but have some acquaintances that say I should upgrade to Photoshop. My issue is they can't really tell me why its better, just that it's the standard. They both seem to offer the same functionality so, is there a brief answer as to why it's better in 2017? Perhaps there are some people that switched from Gimp to Photoshop that can weight in.
Thanks
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Does Gimp support Smart Objects?
If not then that alone should (edit: in my opinion) provide a reason to switch, but in any case first avail yourself of the free Photoshop trial to check if it works with your set-up and if you feel like you can get used to the interface.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Simple answer, are you trying to get a professional job?
If yes - get Photoshop as you won't be hired with GIMP.
If no - stick to whatever you want.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Never had a customer asking: "do you use Gimp or PS?"
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
"Never had a customer asking: "do you use Gimp or PS?"
Fair enough. Clients don't care. Employers do.
Take Photoshop off of your resume and add in Gimp. See if you get the job.
I can see it now, I am going for a job interview at say Epic or ID and in the interview they ask me " So, what software do you use? Photoshop and 3ds Max?" Your reply, no I use Gimp and Blender". Interview over.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
polygrinder wrote
"Never had a customer asking: "do you use Gimp or PS?"
Fair enough. Clients don't care. Employers do.
Take Photoshop off of your resume and add in Gimp. See if you get the job.
I can see it now, I am going for a job interview at say Epic or ID and in the interview they ask me " So, what software do you use? Photoshop and 3ds Max?" Your reply, no I use Gimp and Blender". Interview over.
Hmmm... If a texture artist would mention (s)he uses Photoshop only they'd get booted out. Substance products are preferred nowadays, and Photoshop is merely an assisting tool in the texturing pipeline. And in that role any image editor can be used.
The applicant with Substance Designer and Painter on their resume gets the job. Not the one with Photoshop.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
rayek.elfin wrote
The applicant with Substance Designer and Painter on their resume gets the job. Not the one with Photoshop.
This is about Photoshop vs. Gimp. Not Photoshop vs. everything else. Nobody ever said Photoshop does everything.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse wrote
rayek.elfin wrote
The applicant with Substance Designer and Painter on their resume gets the job. Not the one with Photoshop.
This is about Photoshop vs. Gimp. Not Photoshop vs. everything else. Nobody ever said Photoshop does everything.
I'm trying to think of another image editor that does as much though. As for who gets the job, then wouldn't your portfolio matter more than the tools it was created with?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Trevor.Dennis wrote
As for who gets the job, then wouldn't your portfolio matter more than the tools it was created with?
I should think so, yes. In my case it's pretty obvious what I need, but I simply couldn't imagine my employer telling me to use this or that software - especially since they have no idea how I do what I do. Nor do they care. They just want the finished results. What they say is, "This is our budget. What do you need?"
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Are you being employed by some randomer or an actual company though?
No company will hire someone who's key skills are GIMP and Blender, they aren't professional/industry standards. Companies build pipelines around certain products, and Photoshop is always involved.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Nexahs1138 wrote
Are you being employed by some randomer or an actual company though?
No company will hire someone who's key skills are GIMP and Blender, they aren't professional/industry standards. Companies build pipelines around certain products, and Photoshop is always involved.
That is no longer quite the case (at least, not as much as a few years ago) with Blender. For example, BarnstormVFX is a Blender and Nuke only studio since two years. Their credits include well-known productions such as The Good Wife, Man in the High Castle, and so on. They were/are looking for Blender experts.
Blender is steadily making progress in VFX studios' pipelines here and there.
But yes, Photoshop is almost always part of a studio's pipeline somewhere, if only for quick image edits. For actual compositing mostly node-based software solutions are used, of course. Depends on the type of industry as well.
And Blender isn't an industry standard yet. It may change in the upcoming five years, though. Things are always in flux.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Trevor.Dennis wrote
https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse wrote
rayek.elfin wrote
The applicant with Substance Designer and Painter on their resume gets the job. Not the one with Photoshop.
This is about Photoshop vs. Gimp. Not Photoshop vs. everything else. Nobody ever said Photoshop does everything.
I'm trying to think of another image editor that does as much though.
It depends on how you define the term "image editor" and what it is used for and the type of work. As a layer stack based image editor there isn't really anything else on the market with the same amount of features: video editing, 3d rendering and painting, compositing, masking, general photo editing, animation,...
Digging a little bit deeper, however, I feel the more important question to ask is "how well does cope with each task". As an example, the other day a question was asked on this forum about rendering a 3d balloon-type text, and the finished render looks terribly sub-par. The rendering is very slow as well. But that is the extent of what Photoshop's 3d rendering is able to provide the user with. And most Photoshop users have no idea whatsoever what can be accomplished in a 3d application, nor how PS stacks up in this regard.
So is it fair to compare dedicated 3d applications with Photoshop's 3d rendering? I think it is. In the end it's the result that counts - and the Photoshop devs haven't updated that part of the applications for a long time. Instead, Adobe launches (yet another) 3d tool, and Photoshop is left with an antiquated 3d renderer that really can't be taken seriously anymore. Instead they could integrate AMD's ProRender, and boost Photoshop's 3d rendering into the current century, rather than letting it rot in the previous one.
Having said this, I'd rather have the team update the core usability and image editing functions, though (see below).
Anyway, back to Photoshop versus Gimp 🙂
Obviously Photoshop still leaves Gimp in the dust. At least for now: Gimp did close the distance somewhat since the introduction of proper 16bpc and 32bpc support was implemented.
While it really can't compare in sheer power, Photoshop would surely benefit from taking its cue from Gimp in certain areas. I am listing those here.
There are many other areas where Photoshop could be improved when compared to a couple of commercial competitors, but this is about comparing Gimp and Photoshop.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I had many customers, doing this question.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thanks for the responses. I didn't notice the free trial. I'll give it a go and see what I think.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
It thinking that no one here is going to know much about the Gimp, because this after all, a Photoshop forum. However a quick Google tells me that the Gimp lacks CMYK, but it was not easy finding out that tiny weakness because if you Google Photoshop vs Gimp you seem to get lots of links to geeky Linux users saying that Photoshop sucks, and real men use the Gimp.
On the other hand, I suspect that Photoshop users have nothing to prove, so neven even think about the Gimp, and certaily don't feel the need to justify their use of Photoshop. Take this wee table
Photoshop is extremley powerful. The Gimp is easy to learn as there is bugger all to it.
Photoshop is extremley powerful. The Gimp would fit on a ZX Spectrum, from a few floppy disks.
Photoshop is extremley powerful. The Gimp is too simple to need any resources.
Photoshop users are prepared to pay for a quality product. Gimp users are tight wads
Photoshop is used by professionals and serious hobiests. Gimp is best for people who don't need a quality product.
Like who is going to pay real money to watch a Gimp Tutorial?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
GIMP does support CMYK and 16bit colors since GIMP 2.9 (August 2017). It had CMYK support via plugins in older versions.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Dag, I think you have beaten me in the derogatory Gimp comments stakes.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
"One of these things is not like the other" (Children's TV Show jingle).
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Here's a reply in Quora that should help point out the differences:
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi i want to know if GIMP can be considered a copy of certain Photoshop applications and if it could be considered legal? thank you
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
mario92 why shouldn't it be legal? GIMP exists since 1992 and its development was done fully independent to Photoshop. There is no code copied from Adobe products and it also doesn't use patented functionality. Only because it serves the same purpose it doesn't mean it is an illegal copy.
To learn more about the history and licensing concept it is best and easiest to refer to the Wikipedia page:
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you, i had some doubts, because laws are very strict.