Gimp vs. Photoshop

This is something that I have been reading quite a bit about recently. There are a few things that I was starting to get good at a few years back which was photo editing. I'm not proclaiming that I was anywhere near 'professional', but I was able to manage rather well. I used Photoshop mainly just because it was "the Professionals choice" which was what I thought that I needed. It turns out that there is more out there which I could use to gain the same results.

Shadowcrunch made me aware of Gimp (among tons and tons of other good programs), which I dabbled with and was able to actually do things with besides making the 'abstract crap' I normally make with 'new to me' art programs.

Now I'm talking about 2d images, whether it's banners for web sites, signatures or just plain images, NOT 3d. (I still can't do that shit!)  

So tonight I find myself searching for comparisons of Gimp to Photoshop and vise versa which was not full of biased info from the heads of mentioned companies, but rather something from someone who has tried, worked with and played with various versions of said utilities.

I found something which I would like to share which I believe everyone here would appreciate. It's Gimp magazine. Now, I haven't made any type of decision of which program I have chosen to be the 'better' because I understand that they are all good. It just depends on what the user wants to accomplish.

I will not say more than this about prices... Free vs. Free.. Legal vs. Illegal.. Tomato vs. Tomato (you know what I'm saying here....)

Anyways I will be putting 2 links down below to share this finding. The first one will take you to the main site and the second will take you directly to the 3rd issue where a nice comparison was done (starts at page 68). You can download the magazines for free in HD from the the main site. Don't expect a plethora of them though; I think that they're only up to issue 4..

In conclusion, I haven't read the full article yet, but I am interested in your opinions. What say you:?: 

Main site:
http://gimpmagazine.org/

Download link to issue 3:
http://dl.meetthegimp.org/GIMP_Magazine_Issue_3_DIGITAL.pdf

Good gravy forgot this post was here! I am currently SLOWLY downloading the issue with the article in question. My question: are you looking for our opinions between GIMP and PS? Or our opinions on what's stated in the article? And, as opinions go:

Vader wrote:

NOT 3d. (I still can't do that shit!)

I remember a little gingerbread man who would say otherwise. 

HALF HOUR LATER....

Seemed like a thorough analysis of both packages. I can't give a full opinion of the article's accuracy as the last PS I used was (I THINK!!!) part of CS3, and I've been avoiding upgrading GIMP past 2.6 as I wasn't keen on the single window thing of 2.8 once I saw it in action. I should try the newer 2.8 to see if it's better. I will say I know 2.8 (did try it on my desktop) is faster than 2.6 and has AMAZING brush features... which the article says PS already has.

I have always spouted the greatness of GIMP, but that is basically based on the total free-ness of it. I will agree with the article that a "professional" would probably be better suited with PS, or someone who would require "proper" training. If you've got PS, and it works for you, then by all means, run it! I remember I went from PS6 to GIMP 2.something and it was HELL trying to find everything, even though GIMP was trying to be a direct replacement. Now, PS layouts confuse me.

Damn, skipped a groove. Point I wanted to make, PS is great, with better support and other "stuff." BUT, something a LOT of reviewers and naysayers forget, is GIMP can be far more useful for the niches. Because of it's open source architecture, if a complete nobody wants a certain feature, they can take a plugin with similar code, and tweak it or completely remake it to make their own plugins. Looking back to my time with PS, I would estimate maybe 1 of 20 plugins could be found free... whereas with GIMP maybe 1 in 50 costs money. Again though, many of those are not "all-around" plugins, but very niche specific. But many of them fill those niches in extraordinary ways!

Shadowcrunch wrote:

My question: are you looking for our opinions between GIMP and PS? Or our opinions on what's stated in the article?

Was looking for opinions between GIMP and PS. Likes, dislikes... Not the article..   

Now, your video clip. First off, very nice! It shows quite well the difference! Secondly, why was it there? As far as I know, PS doesn't have something like that. If it does, where have I been?!?!?!?! GIMP too! Does that have it also? And another thing. I can only assume that the picture was.... well wtf if that word... ummm.. (all by itself with no background)?? Because if there was a background to the image, wouldn't that be distorted too?

That video is a GIMP plugin, again designed for a niche crowd, so it's not widely used by a large community. That's why it was there, as an example of my point that GIMPs open-source architecture allows for more innovation from little groups or individuals here or there... but because of the singular purpose and niche involved, it probably won't get the advertisement so everyone knows it's there. I knew about it from a post in the google+ GIMP channel which led to a video of a rope morphing plugin for some other graphics package (forgot the name) and the creator of the plugin was trying to get involved in google summer of code to port the plugin to GIMP.

Oh, more on point, GIMP does have the... um... the one on the left... CAGE MORPH (cage transforming?) right out of the box as of 2.68. 2.8 made it better. The one on the right in the video is a newer-ish plugin. I'm pretty sure PS does have cage transform, but I have no idea about the other one. If they do, it's probably a $300 plugin.

Yes that was a layer with a transparent alpha channel around the image. Yes, if it was a completely solid picture the background would have morphed also. But you know layers aren't that hard to figure out so not a big deal.

As another example (NOT trying to force a bias between GIMP and PS, just sharing what I know) which I think I've brought up before, but proves a point... Ramon Miranda, digital artist and "famous" for his brush sets and work on the open-source paint program MyPaint, got involved with Google Summer of Code quite a few years ago and tweaked GIMP to make it more suitable for digital painting. All it was was a bunch of his custom brushes, and a retooling of the GUI to put more painty stuff at your fingertips, but it took off. Several years later, Ramon and his plugin (reboot?) have help on the code, more features, and a ton of devoted followers. Again, a guy with an idea, using the open source to completely change the program for a specific goal. Just think what a complete retooling of Photoshop would cost the retooler AND the consumer! Oh, the project is GIMP Paint Studio and a gallery of what people have done with it can be found here. Obviously, having the tools does NOT make you able to digitally paint like that automatically, but at least when using their custom oil and acrylic brushes, you don't have to worry about paint drying too fast or slow.

Hey look!  It's a photoshopped gimp!