I was explaining to my daughter about the differences between Gimp and Photoshop and saw that Adobe had a page that claimed to compare the two. It never compares the two. It barely mentions Gimp.
I was explaining to my daughter about the differences between Gimp and Photoshop and saw that Adobe had a page that claimed to compare the two. It never compares the two. It barely mentions Gimp.
Learn what makes Adobe Photoshop the industry-standard photo editing workspace and how it differs from open source editing tools like Gimp.
I expected ridiculous propaganda from Adobe, but they give absolutely no reasons why Photoshop is better than Gimp and list a bunch of things that Gimp can do too.
They only mention Gimp a few times at the top and they never mention it again after:
How is Photoshop different from Gimp?
They ask a question they literally never answer.
They could have lied, they could have stretched the truth, they could have brought up the paltry number of things Photoshop does that Gimp can't. They never do. They never say what Gimp can or can't do.
Like I said, I expected ridiculous propaganda. I didn't expect them to just pretend Gimp doesn't exist in their article about Gimp.
They may have made the page purely for SEO to grab a few people considering downloading GIMP.
That makes a lot of sense.
This seems to be the plan. It's the third result for 'photoshop vs gimp' on DDG.
It's this, but they're not targeting GIMP.
Their SEO goons just see what searches contain photoshop and try to create content that will match. In this case they found "photoshop vs gimp". I doubt that whoever wrote this had ever heard of GIMP.
Maybe they could get the AI to believe it while they are at it
Now that is an advantage of Gimp over Photoshop. They aren't trying to bake AI into Gimp. There are AI plugins, but you don't have to have that shit built into your image editor if you pick Gimp over Photoshop.
Gimp is what you use for image editing if you're poor or Stallman-like. It's good at being scripted for programmers that want to automate their image processing workflow.
Krita is what you use for drawing stuff if you don't want to spend money on software or are Stallman-like.
Photoshop is what you use if you do photo editing or digital art for a living. Paid, proprietary options exist if you don't do photo editing.
There's one tool that comes close to competing with Photoshop and it's Photopea, a subscription based/ad ridden website clone of Photoshop.
Recommending GIMP as a Photoshop alternative is like recommending LaTeX instead of Word. It'll work for some people, and it'll do some things much better even, but it's ridiculous to assume any normal user of the proprietary product is going to be able to use the open source alternative without weeks or months of training.
I don't do photo editing (Gimp) or drawing (Krita) but I have followed many aggregated blogs such as Planet KDE, etc over the years.
I got the feeling that most people have a hard time moving or transiting to Gimp. I have seen some posts from people who love Gimp but they seem to be a miniority. On the other hand, I got the feeling the drawing community love Krita and think it's worth learning. Krita even shows up in unexpected places such as Godot tutorials on YouTube.
I have to admit that GIMP has me beat - I've taught myself plenty of progs (usually in a panic because I told the interviewer I could use it and therefore had to learn it real fast - that's how I learned Illustrator, CorelDRAW and QuarkXpress), but I just can't seem to get the hang of GIMP.
The other problem with Photoshop is that it now scans your projects.
How is Photoshop different from Gimp?
Photoshop is a subscription-based...
Oh, so Gimp is better then, thanks Adobe!
I so laughed when i saw they already start with that lol
For a real Photoshop vs GIMP discussion, I think I'll leave a link to Franklin Veaux's Quora post here.
tl;dr there is actually a lot of functionality in Photoshop not present in GIMP that most casual users will never use, but is very important to professionals. People don't pay hundreds of dollars to Adobe just for funsies.
I would argue that there's also lots of professionals who don't use or need those features. Not everyone is using photoshop for print work, which that link seems to mostly discuss. It is still true, though, and every time I try to switch away from photoshop I run into some niche missing feature I need that most people wouldn't care about.
There’s a ton of functionality in Photoshop that even pros never use. Every user of Photoshop needs something different from it. Sure, there’s a core of features that everyone uses (and which the Gimp also has) but there’s also countless other niche features that are a crucial part of the workflow for tons of users and they won’t give them up. This is one of the reasons Photoshop is so hard to replace.
It’s also the reason Latex is tough to replace as well. It’s a phenomenon which is not limited to commercial software, that’s for sure.
They do it because there really isn't much of an alternative for substance painter....
Also the UX difference is worth the money alone.
Now that single window mode is a thing across all platforms, it's not as bad anymore.
I still don't know how to draw a circle, though. I think I may need to turn a selection into a path? I just use Photopea for this stuff these days.
How is Photoshop different from Gimp?
Photoshop is a subscription-based graphic design and photo editing program with a large catalog of advanced features that go beyond simple photo retouching. It’s the go-to tool for experienced photographers, graphic designers, web developers, and film editors. But at the same time, its tools are approachable enough for beginners and hobbyists looking to tweak images for work or create artwork in their free time.
Okay cool, that's all technically true or unverifiable. What makes Gimp different, Adobe?
You don't have to pay for it.
But they don't like mentioning that part.
Edit: Having used both, the only real disadvantage I can see when it comes to Gimp in a Photoshop vs. Gimp comparison- apart from special cases- is that Gimp (for me anyway) has a higher learning curve. I end up having to look up how to do something more often with Gimp. But not having to pay Adobe a monthly fee makes up for that.
I think for a real Photoshop vs GIMP comparison from the eyes of a professional, I'd like to share Franklin Veaux's perspective. He's an author, graphic designer, and the infamous local polygamist.
Gimp's UX is a trainwreck. "Approachable tools" is the key bit there.
I don't use photoshop. Fuck subscription horseshit. I use affinity. But Gimp having capability is fine, but it has a super high barrier to entry because the design is so bad.
It’s like AI wrote it.
I stopped reading after "subscription-based".
I truly hate how shit like Adobe and ProTools become the only acceptable software to use "inside the industry". Plenty of independent self publishers use tools like Gimp and Reaper. But the velvet rope mindset refuses to accept that in certain circles.
Those same types of folks are the most likely to get replaced by AI. So maybe that will be some bittersweet Schadenfreude.
I think, for the most part, is that GIMP is obscure. Not as in 'unknown' but as in 'really hard to master, how does anything work?' It has been this way, voluntarily.
I think it's what lacks in GIMP, a good user experience.
I have used gimp for the better part of the last ten years. It's good. I have used Photoshop less than ten times in the same timespan. But when I need to do something, it will always be easier to me on photoshop, eveh though I'm not acquainted with it...
I do wonder what differences in philosophy and development led to something like Blender to be pretty accepted even in pro circles?
For me, personally, the moment I found out you can easily install a version of gimp that doesn't distribute it's tools and canvas across a dozen windows was when it began to feel "right" for me. Granted, I am only using it as an amateur for meme and touching up on graphics for game dev, but it feels right to me at least.
Protools can suck it. :) REAPER is where it's at.
Photoshop lets you draw a circle
It's just standard corporatese - if it's not insulting your intelligence they're not doing it right.
I use Photopea, it's a website so no download and does 99% of what Photoshop and GIMP can do.
Made by a single Ukrainian developer, and free (with some ads on the side while you're using it)
Obligatory: Do people not know that Krita exists?
Lmao I mean I knew it was going go be bad .. but that's so hilariously awful.
They are honestly different beasts