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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I stopped reading after “subscription-based”.