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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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 once read that adobe also patents the simplest UX improvement, which means that gimp can't implement good ideas that people are already used to.
I wonder if that's why Gimp also has different hotkeys than Photoshop in some instances. Some of them seem pretty arbitrary. Like E is ellipse select in Gimp but eraser in Photoshop. The latter seems more intuitive to me.
Nah, there's other apps that have similar or the same shortcut keys. Gump just tries to be it's own thing and not worry about Photoshop.
And that’s probably why it sucks so much. If they’d just cloned the work flow of other programs GIMP would actually be good for amateurs.
I was usig both in the early 2000's, at that stage there wasn't too much difference in the UIs. Gimp just seems to have stuck (more or less) with mid 2000's design concepts in the UI
Software design really needs to take a leaf out of game design’s book and let you change key binds. I suspect the only reason they don’t is because it would make troubleshooting more complicated.
This is very common for a lot of these programs, I'm not actually sure about Gimp, but Photoshop, Krita and Affinity Photo all let you. Same with a lot of the other digital art programs I use for work.
I think they don't take inspiration from Photoshop. Either it's been a clone of a different product at some time or they developed it themselves. Hence the differences. I mean the whole UI doen't really resemble similarity to Photoshop.
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.
I would note that the reply is 3 years old and many things have changed in the interim, so I think an updated reply would be warranted for a good comparison.
Just a cursory glance, but GIMP still doesn't seem to support additive curves and CMYK support is still rudimentary and needs a plugin
I'm not surprised at least some of it applies, but I'm not sure what still applies and what doesn't without looking it all up. But I do understand their general point.
I doubt that GIMP will ever overtake Photoshop. Adobe has the money to employ (and does employ) hundreds of experts in their fields to work on Photoshop for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Although GIMP is very impressive as an open-source project and a massive testament to how far the free software model can go, it is still, at the end of the day, made by a ragtag band of (mostly) amateurs volunteering their time. Adobe, by brute force, can deliver a higher-quality product just by having the resources to employ the best people to work for them.
I love GIMP. I use it for all my image editing needs and would never consider giving a dime to Adobe. But I don't do it for a living and I respect the opinions of those who do when they say that GIMP isn't a good replacement for Photoshop.
Oh yeah, I agree. Photoshop will probably continue to dominate, at least for the foreseeable future. The same with Premiere vs. Resolve. Resolve is free (and, in my opinion, pretty much on par with Premiere in most applications), but Adobe has the money.
You may be surprised. I use Photoshop in my profession and I am desperately trying to move away from it. Not just because of the obvious Adobe is the worst, but it has been getting progressively worse to use for me. I don't speak for everyone of course but at least for me there's really only a few very small things that would make me switch instantly.
Photoshop just infuriates me lately, you'd think with all their employees they'd figure out how not to lose my hotkeys every automatic update, or that I've been using it for over a decade and don't need annoying tutorial popups for every tool.
The priorities of a large company can often be opposed to making their software better, like adding AI into everything or adding new features nobody really needs so they can have a flashy presentation at some conference, or deprecating features in order to move people to their latest acquisitions program instead.
Blender is a great example of open source being totally viable for replacing commercial software. I use it professionally and it's never been a limiting factor for me.
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".