Opening up to open source software

you might be able to compare Gimp and Paint.net but paint.net is better at what it does. as for a photoshop comparison, well that's just silly. the UI and the workflow is not up to standard and basic functionality that should be the foundation of the program is lacking. for example brush sizing, the max size of a brush is to small for real editing. photoshop also has a feature called adjustment layers that no-one that i know that uses image editing software professionally can live without, i've not seen that in gimp. i am waiting for gimp 3 as some of what they're saying is coming looks good but at the moment it's just not very good.
 
Open source probably has it's place but I think it has some destructive qaulities.. in particular for innovation.. as a developer with more than 15 years of programming experience I can tell you that if there is already a fairly good opensource piece of software for a particular thing then it's risky trying to better it and release it commercially.... creating a situation where many companies probably shy away from creating the same kind of software that is much improved and much, much better..

I develop open source stuff.. I give it away.. but overwhelmingly I would say all the opensource stuff I've developed is not as good or near as good as the commercial stuff I work on.. because there is not really a good motivation to work for free on something unless it gives me some kind of kick or something.. overwhelmingly the bottom line when it comes to really doing things properly is when you get paid for it. So I think free is not really that cool.
 
SkiaBran said:
you might be able to compare Gimp and Paint.net but paint.net is better at what it does. as for a photoshop comparison, well that's just silly. the UI and the workflow is not up to standard and basic functionality that should be the foundation of the program is lacking. for example brush sizing, the max size of a brush is to small for real editing. photoshop also has a feature called adjustment layers that no-one that i know that uses image editing software professionally can live without, i've not seen that in gimp. i am waiting for gimp 3 as some of what they're saying is coming looks good but at the moment it's just not very good.
Click to expand...

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/03/8-handy-tweaks-to-make-gimp-replace-photoshop/

GEGL is a new feature found only in GIMP 2.6+. According to Gimp.org:

“Many highly requested features of the GIMP will be easier to do using GEGL. Layer effects, layer groups, and adjustment layers are quite easily represented (and efficiently calculated) using the DAG organization of GEGL. CMYK and high bit depth support will be easier because GEGL does not make the same assumptions about color spaces and data types that the GIMP does.”

It is not enabled by default. To activate the feature, simply navigate to Colors > Use GEGL and check the box next to it. Once it is activated, you can use the presets available at Tools > GEGL Operations. Approximately a dozen different presets can be applied to layers and images.
Click to expand...
 
eltherza said:
GIMP is good for us non-artists, but photoshop just plays nicer with tabets making it the choice for digital artists.
Click to expand...

Sure, but probably also has to do with what people are used to using as well. For example I think Macs are a pain in the ass, but that is because I am not used to working on one which means I have to relearn all the shortcuts etc. Also see Nod's link posted above.

Gimp has almost all the features of Photoshop but won't cost you an arm and a leg, if you are a pro and are willing to fork out for those extra features (or allowing you to work a bit faster) sure, but give Gimp its dues:)

EDIT: How many people are actually using a paid up version of Photoshop anyway:whistle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X