The Gimp and Photoshop
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Nov 19, 2009 10:43 PM EDT |
I will undoubtedly be howled down for these thoughts, but nevertheless I think they are supported by research. In a not too long ago study, children were taught either Photoshop first then GIMP, or vice versa. Needless to say, the results indicated that the image editor each group was taught first was the one that most of the children moved back to over time, though all children acknowledged that each piece of software was pretty good. From where I stand, I will rarely use GIMP even though I agree it's good. I trained and learnt my image manipulation on Photoshop and always I ask: why should I have to learn an entirely new set of procedures and commands for GIMP when I can already do what I want with a copy of Photoshop7 that I own ? It is time (and therefore money) I do not have and I already have the convenience that I want. I have said before and say it again: without teaching the GIMP to children, the ONLY way GIMP will get much wider acceptance is to make it behave more like Photoshop. Why do you think that one independent developer even went so far as to put together a sort of "crossover command plugin" which tried to make GIMP answer to Photoshop commands and procedures ? He knew what I am trying to say here, but each time someone says this, my perception (probably wrong) is that he/she is howled down by the Linux masses who love GIMP. That's fine, but there are even bigger and highly professional masses that love Photoshop and they don't care if GIMP is free.....they just want to work on a piece of software that they understand completely and they do not understand GIMP because they trained on Photoshop. GIMP is great, it works, I have sometimes for very, very, very specialised tasks actually used it, and felt clumsy and pretty useless because I do not know its commands and procedures. But would I use it as my routine image software ? Nope....and for all the above reasons. I wish so much it could compete effectively....but until more children learn the GIMP as their number one image manipulation software program, GIMP is going to suffer by comparison with Photoshop. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 19, 2009 10:55 PM EDT |
I barely ever use Photoshop. I use the GIMP somewhat regularly. Photoshop almost brings an Illustrator-like feature set into the image editor: you can do a lot of things with type in layers that you can't do in the GIMP or in Inkscape, although I must say that Inkscape does a whole lot and merits further investigation on my part. Like I've written too many times to be anything less than annoying, for my work, which involves using images shot by photojournalists and generally processed in the proprietary Photo Mechanic application, which embeds captions and credits in the IPTC metadata ... if the GIMP (and Krita and MtPaint) not only allowed me to edit that data but didn't instead destroy it with every save, I'd be the world's biggest proponent of whichever app actually didn't destroy this vital metadata in JPEGs. Right now in FOSS my choices are digiKam and gThumb. Not bad choices, but I'd rather have a GIMP or Krita that did what I need them to do. Strictly from an "artistic" standpoint, if you forget all those type effects that Photoshop does (but which I hate to do even in Photoshop because I'm NOT a graphic artist and don't enjoy that kind of thing ...), the GIMP is surprisingly good at working with images. If it didn't mess with my metadata, I'd be its biggest fan. |
| vect Nov 20, 2009 12:02 AM EDT |
The complaints about GiMP's interface and it's work-flow are a result of GiMP's growing inability to remain competitive with Photoshop. If GiMP had 16/32 bit image processing, if it had advanced layer management, if it handled IPTC data, etc. etc., we would all be talking about GiMP's amazing interface and work-flow. I like GiMP, but it's competitive with, maybe, Photoshop6. |
| gus3 Nov 20, 2009 12:18 AM EDT |
@vect: What effect does the image bit-depth have on work flow in The GIMP? And how do you define "advanced layer management"? In such an unqualified context, that's a very vague term. Please explain. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 20, 2009 1:01 AM EDT |
GIMP seems to do all right with layers, but that's one of the things I learned to deal with in Photoshop and can't seem to get the hang of at least in Inkscape if not also GIMP. It's just a learning curve thing. |
| tuxchick Nov 20, 2009 1:06 AM EDT |
Ridcully, you're right that inertia drives most people :). Gimp is great and easy to learn. I think any complaints about it being hard are due to not really trying. There are several good free Gimp books online, and some great print books like 'Beginning GIMP: From Novice to Professional'. It takes maybe a couple of hours to get a handle on the basics, such as layers, filters, scripts, file management, plugins, and tools. Photoshop has functionality that Gimp doesn't, and people who need it don't mind forking over $700 or whatever the price tag is now. Maybe they mind but they do it anyway. Maybe they use copies pirated from work. It has a very devoted userbase. Good for them, they're happy and don't need Gimp. But far more people could have their needs met by Gimp, or any of a host of other non-Photoshop image editors. And yes, capture the chilluns. Oh wait no, I don't want them. But teach them FOSS and that is good. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 20, 2009 1:10 AM EDT |
For the basics, I like MtPaint. Even though I complain, it's super-quick and solid. |
| gus3 Nov 20, 2009 1:10 AM EDT |
@tc: The chilluns are good, and their honesty can be refreshing, even when it's inconvenient. Just ask helios. |
| tuxchick Nov 20, 2009 1:14 AM EDT |
True gus, but capturing implies taking them home. No thanks. *shudder* ;) Ok so it seemed funnier the first time. |
| r_a_trip Nov 20, 2009 4:42 AM EDT |
Ridcully has a point, but I think that point only pertains to people who are really trained on Photoshop and use it to make a living. I always wonder about the hordes of people clammoring for PS, who basically use it for nothing more than rotate, resize and red eye reduction. Why are they cheering for and demanding to have a very expensive piece of professional software? Is it "endorsement by authority"? Professional designers use it, so it must be good? Never mind that what they use it for could also be done in MS Paint (except the red eye reduction would be tedious to do manually). A sort of belief that using PS somehow lifts what they do to a higher level? A perceived level that can't be reached by other software? I'm not a graphic designer (far from it). From time to time I do muck about with graphics when the occasion calls for it, but I never had that urge to go out of my way to do it in PS. Maybe I'm atypical. I use what is available and at hand. I've even used MS Paint if it could do what I needed. I never got that "Photoshop, Photoshop, Photoshop" craze whenever there is a thread on image manipulation in Linux. I refuse to believe that every single commenter championing PS in those threads is a professionally trained graphic designer. So what is the magic that makes "Linux not ready for The Desktop (of Joe and Jane Average), until PS is available"? |
| vect Nov 20, 2009 6:57 AM EDT |
gus3, Image bit-depth does not have an effect on the work flow in GiMP. There are many who complain about GiMP's multiple-window work flow and there are, lately, many complaining about the name 'GiMP' and saying that the name should be changed. If GiMP were more competitive it would be regarded with more respect in general and fewer people would feel enabled to complain about GiMP's supposed work flow problems. Don't confuse what I'm saying. I like GiMP's interface and in fact I thought 2.4 had the best interface. For those who have experience with current versions of Photoshop, advanced layer management is not a vague and mysterious topic. 'Most important to me is the ability to organize layers into groups so that they take up less space. If you are designing a web page mock-up it becomes difficult when every element that you might want to quickly edit or turn off needs its own layer. There are a variety of intelligent things that Photoshop does with layers and if you want more clarity on the subject, you should try using Photoshop. If GiMP ever does add more advanced features, much of the criticism will go away, including the subjective criticism of the name and layout and things like that. |
| vect Nov 20, 2009 7:19 AM EDT |
gus3, Be more objective. It seems you thought I was criticizing GiMP and so you picked out the one part of my text that you didn't quite understand and you prompted me to explain myself. The religious fundamentalist says, 'The concept of evolution is vague and doesn't make sense. How can a monkey give birth to a man!? Impossible!' Instead of learning about the concept, they decide that all of science is invalid. If you look hard for a reason to dismiss someone, you'll find a reason. But if you are looking for the truth, you must be objective. |
| golem Nov 20, 2009 9:31 AM EDT |
If Ubuntu abandons GIMP, I'll have to abandon Ubuntu, with much regret. |
| helios Nov 20, 2009 9:47 AM EDT |
Let's get back to the naming thing...it's important, at least from a new user perspective. I make it a point to show our recipients how to install software from synaptic by doing a search for what they want to install. Say "picture" or "picture editor", for example. Remember, we are dealing with young kids who don't think in terms of "image editing" or "image manipulation". The first search string returned a few candidates but with gimp, it only returned one or two plugins. The second returned nothing useful. That's point one but really only deals with the descriptors of the applications. How many people, kids or adults, are going to click on an installation candidate and read the descriptors? Our devs, or many of them it seems, are too caught up in geek-think, not user-think. "General Interface Manipulation Program" might be accurate but it's hardly helpful or even descriptive of what it can do...at least through the eyes of the uninitiated. And let's face it...the acronym is horrible. It is crippled by its very name...subliminal maybe but it should be obvious. I realize, however annoying; that MS applications are mentally identified and catagorized by Windows Users. Photoshop is good, Photoshop Pro is better and more expensive. While we probably would want to stay away from that particular naming model, I would suggest looking through the synaptic results for many catagories and seeing how detached some of the application names are from their purpose. Or how completely goofy. Just an observation from the field. h |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2009 10:34 AM EDT |
Helios -- Yeah. I shudder to think of the application for which GIMP would be an intuitive name. In fairness, it's not limited to Linux. Which name, for example, makes more sense for a spreadsheet: Excel or Gnumeric? You can get away with that when you are the market leader and/or have a big advertising budget. Firefox, anyone? |
| tuxchick Nov 20, 2009 10:55 AM EDT |
Names are important. Firefox, Excel, and Gnumeric don't sound dorky like Gimp. Gnumeric is actually clever and makes sense. Gimp is dumb. Yeah I know, it stands for GNU Image Manipulation Project. I guess we should be glad it's not Free Ultimate Creative Kit or some such. Ken, the naming thing gets even worse as Gnome can't decide what to use in installers and menus-- is it Gedit, or Text Editor, or Text Editor (Gedit)? Is it GParted, or Partition Editor, or GParted (Partition Editor)? And so on. Like there is only one of anything, and knowing the actual application name will harm users. |
| caitlyn Nov 20, 2009 11:20 AM EDT |
I've used GIMP since 1.0. Back then I found a book called "The GIMP For Artists" which was very good in its day and really got me started. I have no doubt that Photoshop Pro may have some functionality that the latest GIMP doesn't have but, for what I do, GIMP more than meets my needs. I still don't use anywhere near all the features of GIMP. Why would I pay for more features that I won't use? The name does sound a bit silly. So do a lot of MS apps. However, if you change the name you also lose what I believe, at this point, is an excellent reputation and have to start over. Don't get me started in GNOME and KDE menus, tc. |
| tuxchick Nov 20, 2009 12:39 PM EDT |
Now Caitlyn, why hold back? :) Especially with Gnome's claims of following scientifical Human Interface Design studies, which apparently prove that combining too simple with too difficult is what computer users want. This may be a Fedora customization, it may be Gnome, I don't know-- on my Fedora 10 box the menus go like this: Firefox Web Browser Internet Messenger (it's Pidgin but it doesn't say) Abiword (dear me, I am a dumb luser and I don't know what this is) Dictionary (which one?) There is no consistency to it. F12 might be different, I haven't looked yet. One of the best things *buntu has done is bring order to system menus. On many distros they are chaotic and redundant. |
| caitlyn Nov 20, 2009 1:28 PM EDT |
I agree, tuxchick. I especially hate it when I have three or four apps simply called "Web Browser". When I design or change a web page I want to check it in multiple browsers. It would be nice to know which is which without having to mouse over (KDE menu, new style) or, worse, open the app. Right now both KDE and GNOME drive me batty. I much prefer Xfce, as old school as it is with menus. KDE looks pretty but it lacks in sane menu organization and requires way too many clicks to get where I want. Despite that I tend to give Vista users KDE because it looks most like what they are used to. For myself, though, it's almost painful how the pretty has been put in and the ease of use has been left out. Oh, and yes, I know how to switch back to the Classic menu from the Lancelot thingy or whatever they call the third choice. None of them is consistent in labeling or done in a sane way. GNOME isn't any better, either. |
| vainrveenr Nov 20, 2009 1:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:I have said before and say it again: without teaching the GIMP to children, the ONLY way GIMP will get much wider acceptance is to make it behave more like Photoshop.OTOH, a serious concern is that any such "perceivable" duplication in an application's behavior (i.e., its "look and feel") could readily bring out patent attorneys to thwart any "conceivable" infringement. An historical example of a perceived "look and feel" violation is described in the 'Look and feel' Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_and_feel : Quoting:Lawsuits overSo the precedent exists that one has to tread carefully when one application attempts to duplicate some of the functionality and the resultant "behavior" of another ..... conceivably applicable even to GIMP. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2009 2:27 PM EDT |
vainrveenr - Can you name an instance in which anyone was ever sued successfully -- heck, even unsuccessfull -- for patent infringement on the basis of software look and feel? There's been some degree of success in asserting copyright claims on the basis of look and feel, but that protection is pretty thin. It almost requires exact mimicry. |
| gus3 Nov 20, 2009 3:46 PM EDT |
@vect: Thank you for your answers. If I gave you the impression that I was being dismissive, please accept my apologies. I simply wanted a fuller explanation of what I saw as a hasty comment that wasn't well-assembled. You obliged. So it's cool. |
| henke54 Nov 20, 2009 7:40 PM EDT |
I(newbie2) posted this article on the ubuntu forum :
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1332209 but didn't know there was already a poll on the ubuntuforum about it : http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1330937 |
| vect Nov 21, 2009 12:06 AM EDT |
Too much of the GiMP is hype. GiMP is an example of the bazaar development model, the good and the bad of that model. The good is, well, what we all know is good about a bazaar development model. What I want to focus on, however, is the bad. The bad is not so obvious to everyone and that's why I would like to write about it. First, let me say something about myself. I am, among other things, an artist and a few years ago I exhibited a solo show. I hyped myself up and I hyped my work up, -it didn't seem like hype. I was genuinely excited about the work I was making and the progress I was making and the discoveries... I wanted to share that with people. When the show finally happened my work wasn't quite ready. People were not engaged with my product. I failed when I confidently made everything sound brilliant and significant to everyone. Creating something is an organic process. We cannot possibly predict what will happen with our final creations or what their effect on an audience will be. They can only succeed when they are completely finished. When they are an expression of our vision and when no flaw and no inconsistency interferes with them. We can never accurately predict how close our final products will come to the potential that we imagine for them. This is the reason why Apple is secretive about its development activities. Releasing information about our plans doesn't really help us too much but it can hurt us very much if, later, the reality of our activity does not live up to the publicised plan. If we keep quiet about our plans we can continue to be excited about the effect our project will have on people. We can continue working methodically towards the goal without an audience breathing down our back. We will have room to be creative. We will have an incentive to finish things _correctly_, so that the full impact of our creation will be felt at once. Basically, we will have more time and incentive to do things correctly if we aren't talking about our plans to everyone. The GiMP is becoming dwarfed by the hype that surrounds it. Martin Nordholts is supposedly working on one-window interface and Oyvind Kolas is working on the GEGL engine. It's all hype though and none of it ever really seems to get done. GEGL was pushed from 2.6 to 2.8 and now it's been pushed from 2.8 to 3.0. When it eventually gets finished, I guarantee it won't be fully finished and our attitudes will be 'It's half finished. Finally...'. Too much hype over extended periods of time hurts a product's reputation and the bazaar development model is one that allows damaging amounts of hype to surround a product. Everyone working on the GiMP should be quiet and just present their product when it is finished and stop talking to everyone about the plan. |
| caitlyn Nov 21, 2009 1:06 AM EDT |
@Vect: I'm not sure any of that matters at all. What does matter is how well (or poorly) GIMP gets the job done. It does very well for me. My non-technical 70-something mom wanted to edit photos and I showed her how in GIMP. She has no problem using it for what she wants to do. The idea that the UI is somehow horribly unfriendly compared to Photoshop is irrelevant to someone who doesn't know Photoshop. She didn't find it difficult at all. Is GIMP everything Photoshop Pro is? No, almost certainly not. Is it good enough to satisfly maybe 95% of the users out there. I think so. I really don't care about future plans or promises. I care that it's a decent, stable product and that improvements keep happening in each release. |
| wjl Nov 21, 2009 3:02 PM EDT |
I'm just testing whether the GIMP really cannot save EXIF data. Its help (which you have to manually install on Debian) says: "JPEG files from many digital cameras contain extra information, called EXIF data, which specifies camera settings and other information concerning the circumstances under which the image was created. GIMP's ability to handle EXIF data depends on whether the “libexif” library is available on your system; it is not automatically packaged with GIMP. If GIMP was built with libexif support, then EXIF data is preserved if you open a JPEG file, work with the resulting image, and then save it as JPEG. The EXIF data is not altered in any way when you do this (which means that some of its fields are no longer valid). If GIMP was not built with EXIF support, this does not prevent files with EXIF data from being opened, but it does mean that the EXIF data will not be present when the resulting image is later saved." So I just installed libexif-gtk5, and I will test this. Otherwise, the GIMP does everything and more than I would ever need. And cropping or resizing is really wonderful and easy with it. |
| wjl Nov 21, 2009 3:23 PM EDT |
Hi again, yeah, works. I took a picture today (not a very good one), and saved a copy with the GIMP, using the JPG Advanced Dialog where it said "save EXIF data". And it's there. See http://picasaweb.google.de/lh/photo/h5beSb_8yw-Gwz_J5Sc0RA?f... (original, ~4.5MB) and http://picasaweb.google.de/lh/photo/gt0khQQOC86B36PaFilQjw?f... (saved with the GIMP, ~1.5MB) |
| jdixon Nov 21, 2009 3:29 PM EDT |
> ...yeah, works Steven, are you reading? |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 23, 2009 6:11 PM EDT |
Wolfgang left this info on my blog as well. I had assumed in the past that GIMP needed to be compiled against this library, and you couldn't just add it. I did add this, and I can confirm that it does leave the EXIF data untouched if you decide to keep that box checked. Two problems: It does nothing to preserve IPTC data (which is what I really need). And while it preserves the EXIF data, you can't seem to edit that data in GIMP. The EXIF caption appears in the "Comments" portion of Image Properties in GIMP, but adding to that box doesn't affect how the EXIF captions looks in other applications. So GIMP can keep EXIF but still kills out IPTC and still can't edit EXIF or IPTC. ... digiKam edits all (but for some reason limits the number of characters in the IPTC credit box, not a deal-breaker, but I've got some shooters with long names; not a deal-breaker, just an annoyance). gThumb can edit IPTC captions and create them via its "comments" area. It can't edit content in the IPTC credit area, but it doesn't destroy it either. As far as image editing goes, I'd rather use GIMP, but I need either to preserve and /or control that JPEG metadata, and GIMP still can't/won't do it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!