How does the GIMP photo editing software compare functionally with Photoshop? Photoshop is clearly better presented but are they functionally similar?
Cheers
Jeff
GIMP
-
chorleyjeff
- Initiate
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:08 pm
- Location: Lancashire, England
One of the most significant differences (besides cost 
) is Gimp being unable to do 16-bit editing.
If you're shooting in raw format then you should do all your major tone and contrast adjustments at raw conversion time and save in JPEG or 8-bit TIFF format. Gimp users often use dcraw or UFRaw as their raw converters. If you're shooting JPEG then 8-bit data is all you'll have anyway.
If you want to be able to edit 16-bit data then Gimp is not for you. Maybe you want to check out Cinepaint which is a video editing software (under GNU GPL, i. e. free). It originally was a Gimp spin-off, has a user interface similar to Gimp, can handle 16-bit data, and can not only handle digital video but digital still images also.
-- Olaf
) is Gimp being unable to do 16-bit editing.If you're shooting in raw format then you should do all your major tone and contrast adjustments at raw conversion time and save in JPEG or 8-bit TIFF format. Gimp users often use dcraw or UFRaw as their raw converters. If you're shooting JPEG then 8-bit data is all you'll have anyway.
If you want to be able to edit 16-bit data then Gimp is not for you. Maybe you want to check out Cinepaint which is a video editing software (under GNU GPL, i. e. free). It originally was a Gimp spin-off, has a user interface similar to Gimp, can handle 16-bit data, and can not only handle digital video but digital still images also.
-- Olaf
Hi Jeff
I have used The Gimp since 2001. In May 2007 I finally gave in and handed over my life savings to Adobe for a copy of CS2.
With The Gimp you can do almost everything that you can with CS2, but the problem is that you have far less public tutorial information. So you end up with a heavier learning curve.
For me the final straw came when I tried to emulate CS2's Art History Brush to convert "photos" to "paintings" (see my Club Mykonos pic). I worked on this process for many many hours without success. With CS2 its a breeze (nearly).
Although I now use CS2 for all editing, I still use The Gimp for certain things (particularly I like LASM's FX Effects scriptfu).
I continue to use Capture One for the RAW conversion, since for me this gives my pictures an edge over all other converters tried. I use a 7D by the way - don't know how well C1 works with the Alpha.
regards
Peter Dewar
I have used The Gimp since 2001. In May 2007 I finally gave in and handed over my life savings to Adobe for a copy of CS2.
With The Gimp you can do almost everything that you can with CS2, but the problem is that you have far less public tutorial information. So you end up with a heavier learning curve.
For me the final straw came when I tried to emulate CS2's Art History Brush to convert "photos" to "paintings" (see my Club Mykonos pic). I worked on this process for many many hours without success. With CS2 its a breeze (nearly).
Although I now use CS2 for all editing, I still use The Gimp for certain things (particularly I like LASM's FX Effects scriptfu).
I continue to use Capture One for the RAW conversion, since for me this gives my pictures an edge over all other converters tried. I use a 7D by the way - don't know how well C1 works with the Alpha.
regards
Peter Dewar
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests