Is Photoshop really better

Is Photoshop really better?

Hi,

I'm a Mac and Linux geek rather than a true photographer. I have only
recently started using the Gimp but I'm learning fast from Akkana Peck's
"Beginning GIMP" book. I've never used Photoshop, which might surprise
you. I'd like to find someone who is experienced with both Photoshop and
the Gimp to help me advise a friend, or perhaps someone could point me
to a website where these two bits of software are compared fairly and
honestly. Let me explain the situation:

A pro photographer friend of mine is interested in switching to Linux, a
process I have offered to support her with 100%. However, she is
concerned about whether the Gimp will be sufficient for her needs.
Photoshop seems to be almost a religion amongst professionals. Many of
her photographer colleagues have been highly disparaging about the Gimp,
calling it slow, clunky, and likening it to where Photoshop was when it
first came out many years ago. I'm only a beginner with Gimp, and know
nothing of Photoshop, so I am unable to judge whether her colleagues'
advice is fair, or counter argue it if it isn't. My suspicion is that
Photoshop users are a clique, and that they're just snobbish about
alternative image editors without really trying them out properly. I
would like to be able to tell my friend that she will not be
disappointed with the Gimp and that it is not so clunky that it will
slow down her workflow, but more than that I want to give her honest
accurate advice regardless.

I've read elsewhere in this group that Gimp doesn't yet have 16-bit per
channel colour depth, or CMYK support (although I see you can make
separations with "Decompose"). Not being a pro photographer myself,
these things seem pretty esoteric to me. How important are they to
photographers such as my friend wishing to get the best out of her
photos before uploading them to a photo library?

Other than those colour space issues, would someone please offer their
own opinions about what it is the Photoshop has that the Gimp lacks? Is
the user interface of Photoshop so slick that general workflow is
faster? Does the Gimp have any advantages over Photoshop that I could
tell her about?

-- 
James Taylor

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

I use Gimp but it is a matter of fact that Photoshop can use 16 bits TIFF 
(and Gimp only 8 bits) and that there are more sophisticated layers 
managements in Photoshop. And an impressive lot of plugins and scripts.

-- 
J.P. Louvet
"James Taylor" <usenet@oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> a écrit dans le message 
de news: 1iogt5t.vtv26ur1c5bnN%usenet@oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> Hi,
>
> I'm a Mac and Linux geek rather than a true photographer. I have only
> recently started using the Gimp but I'm learning fast from Akkana Peck's
> "Beginning GIMP" book. I've never used Photoshop, which might surprise
> you. I'd like to find someone who is experienced with both Photoshop and
> the Gimp to help me advise a friend, or perhaps someone could point me
> to a website where these two bits of software are compared fairly and
> honestly. Let me explain the situation:
>
> A pro photographer friend of mine is interested in switching to Linux, a
> process I have offered to support her with 100%. However, she is
> concerned about whether the Gimp will be sufficient for her needs.
> Photoshop seems to be almost a religion amongst professionals. Many of
> her photographer colleagues have been highly disparaging about the Gimp,
> calling it slow, clunky, and likening it to where Photoshop was when it
> first came out many years ago. I'm only a beginner with Gimp, and know
> nothing of Photoshop, so I am unable to judge whether her colleagues'
> advice is fair, or counter argue it if it isn't. My suspicion is that
> Photoshop users are a clique, and that they're just snobbish about
> alternative image editors without really trying them out properly. I
> would like to be able to tell my friend that she will not be
> disappointed with the Gimp and that it is not so clunky that it will
> slow down her workflow, but more than that I want to give her honest
> accurate advice regardless.
>
> I've read elsewhere in this group that Gimp doesn't yet have 16-bit per
> channel colour depth, or CMYK support (although I see you can make
> separations with "Decompose"). Not being a pro photographer myself,
> these things seem pretty esoteric to me. How important are they to
> photographers such as my friend wishing to get the best out of her
> photos before uploading them to a photo library?
>
> Other than those colour space issues, would someone please offer their
> own opinions about what it is the Photoshop has that the Gimp lacks? Is
> the user interface of Photoshop so slick that general workflow is
> faster? Does the Gimp have any advantages over Photoshop that I could
> tell her about?
>
> -- 
> James Taylor 

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

James Taylor wrote:
> A pro photographer friend of mine is interested in switching to Linux, a
> process I have offered to support her with 100%. However, she is
> concerned about whether the Gimp will be sufficient for her needs.
> Photoshop seems to be almost a religion amongst professionals. Many of
> her photographer colleagues have been highly disparaging about the Gimp,
> calling it slow, clunky, and likening it to where Photoshop was when it
> first came out many years ago.

Irregardless of wether this is true or not, they will be comparing most
likely not GIMP and Photoshop, but their 10 years of Photoshop
experience with their 0 years Gimp experience. 

Absolutely normal. I do the same when somebody tells me how they do
something in Windows. I say : but in Linux it is so much easier, I just
do X, Y Z and I am done, where they do Z, Y, X.

So tell your friend that he will be learning a new program. If it is
worth for him to invest in that or not is up to him. I can imagine that
he wants to procduce and thus is interested in working and not so much
in learning.

Also there is the reason as to why he want to move to Linux. Linux is
not a Windows Replacement for people who are unhappy about Windows.

technicaly if he wants to use Photoshop and run Linux for other reasons,
there are solutions as well. Wine might be a solution (not sure) or he
can run Photoshop in a virtual manager.

But concerning Photoshop or Gimp, that very much depends on his
experience he already has with Photoshop, the willingness to start all
over again and what he does with it. If he only removes re-eye and
rescales images to put on a website,. or does he use each and every
aspect of Photoshop.

houghi
-- 
>>>> Run the following from the bashprompt if you have the kernel sources
for I in `find /usr/src/linux/ -name *.c`; \
do A=`grep -i -A 1 -B 1 fuck $I`;if [ "$A" != "" ]; \
then printf "$I \n$A \n\n"; fi ;done|less

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

James Taylor wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a Mac and Linux geek rather than a true photographer. I have only
> recently started using the Gimp but I'm learning fast from Akkana Peck's
> "Beginning GIMP" book. I've never used Photoshop, which might surprise
> you. I'd like to find someone who is experienced with both Photoshop and
> the Gimp to help me advise a friend, or perhaps someone could point me
> to a website where these two bits of software are compared fairly and
> honestly. Let me explain the situation:
> 
> A pro photographer friend of mine is interested in switching to Linux, a
> process I have offered to support her with 100%. However, she is
> concerned about whether the Gimp will be sufficient for her needs.
> Photoshop seems to be almost a religion amongst professionals. Many of
> her photographer colleagues have been highly disparaging about the Gimp,
> calling it slow, clunky, and likening it to where Photoshop was when it
> first came out many years ago. I'm only a beginner with Gimp, and know
> nothing of Photoshop, so I am unable to judge whether her colleagues'
> advice is fair, or counter argue it if it isn't. My suspicion is that
> Photoshop users are a clique, and that they're just snobbish about
> alternative image editors without really trying them out properly. I
> would like to be able to tell my friend that she will not be
> disappointed with the Gimp and that it is not so clunky that it will
> slow down her workflow, but more than that I want to give her honest
> accurate advice regardless.
> 
> I've read elsewhere in this group that Gimp doesn't yet have 16-bit per
> channel colour depth, or CMYK support (although I see you can make
> separations with "Decompose"). Not being a pro photographer myself,
> these things seem pretty esoteric to me. How important are they to
> photographers such as my friend wishing to get the best out of her
> photos before uploading them to a photo library?
> 
> Other than those colour space issues, would someone please offer their
> own opinions about what it is the Photoshop has that the Gimp lacks? Is
> the user interface of Photoshop so slick that general workflow is
> faster? Does the Gimp have any advantages over Photoshop that I could
> tell her about?
> 
Couldn't say. I've never had the desire to fork over massive amounts of 
cash to do something I can do for free, so I've never used Photoshop. 
However, from what I've read, Photoshop can be run in Linux using Wine 
or Crossover, so she doesn't have to give it up to switch to Linux. No 
reason why she can't use both for a while, then settle on the one she 
likes best.

TJ

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:58:37 -0800, fernman wrote:

> Walk into a well stocked book store and you will find a
>> 40-50 Photoshop books on the shelves, but seldom a GIMP book...
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more, J.R., and it's not only book stores but
> libraries as well.  Where I live on the outskirts of London, UK, I
> have a good public library that stocks a number of books on digital
> photgraphy, but every single one you look at makes the assumption that
> you're going to be using Photoshop, and that makes me cross.  Give the
> library its due, though, it does have a copy of Alana Peck's Beginning
> GIMP.... but it is the only copy in a borough of around 215,000
> residents.

Even if your library stocked every single Gimp book ever written you would
be saying the same thing about finding current version well written books
on Gimp.  That is because there are almost none out there.

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:58:37 -0800, fernman wrote:
>
>> Walk into a well stocked book store and you will find a
>>> 40-50 Photoshop books on the shelves, but seldom a GIMP book...
>>
>>
>> I couldn't agree more, J.R., and it's not only book stores but
>> libraries as well.  Where I live on the outskirts of London, UK, I
>> have a good public library that stocks a number of books on digital
>> photgraphy, but every single one you look at makes the assumption that
>> you're going to be using Photoshop, and that makes me cross.  Give the
>> library its due, though, it does have a copy of Alana Peck's Beginning
>> GIMP.... but it is the only copy in a borough of around 215,000
>> residents.
>
>Even if your library stocked every single Gimp book ever written you would
>be saying the same thing about finding current version well written books
>on Gimp.  That is because there are almost none out there.

And there is no need for them either.  That's why nobody
writes them.

Get on your computer and google "gimp tutorial".  You'll
get half a million hits.  Do you really need more????
You can, in fact, get personal instructions on precisely
how to used the *latest* bloody edge GIMP from the
development thread.

Buying books to learn Photoshop may or may not be
reasonable...  I don't know and don't care.  But I'll
admit that my guess is there aren't many books that are
up to date, nor are there many that are worth half their
price!

Buying books to learn GIMP would be wasted money, and
spending time suggesting the significance of there being
none is an exercise in illogical nonsense.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

> Buying books to learn GIMP would be wasted money, and spending time
> suggesting the significance of there being none is an exercise in
> illogical nonsense.

If you are the type of person that wants to learn the Gimp then you must 
have some sort of technical know how already  which means you can use on 
line sources. I agree that buying books on this type of subject would be 
a total  waste of money as well as being immediately out of date.
Check out the Gimp's own on line user manual, it is excellent. 

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Get on your computer and google "gimp tutorial".  You'll
> get half a million hits.  Do you really need more????

I would need more, yes. I like to hold a book in my hands to read
through it.

<snip>
> Buying books to learn GIMP would be wasted money, and
> spending time suggesting the significance of there being
> none is an exercise in illogical nonsense.

Please speak for your self. There are many people out there that love to
have books instead of looking at a screen. I have Running Linux and
Linux in a nutshell and from thse books I learned more then looking up
stuff.

I have learned an enourmous amount of the manuals that used to come with
SuSE (then SUSE now openSUSE) and the fact that they are still available
in pdf is not the same.

The fact that you are satisfied with all that the net is giving you does
not mean that everybody is. The fact that you do not understand that
other people have other needs is a pity and I feel sorry for you.

houghi
-- 
>	  Beware of he who would deny you access to information,	 <
>	      for in his heart he dreams himself your master.		 <
>	   Commissioner Pravin Lal: "U.N. Declaration of Rights"	 <

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:34:47 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:58:37 -0800, fernman wrote:
>>
>>> Walk into a well stocked book store and you will find a
>>>> 40-50 Photoshop books on the shelves, but seldom a GIMP book...
>>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more, J.R., and it's not only book stores but
>>> libraries as well.  Where I live on the outskirts of London, UK, I
>>> have a good public library that stocks a number of books on digital
>>> photgraphy, but every single one you look at makes the assumption that
>>> you're going to be using Photoshop, and that makes me cross.  Give the
>>> library its due, though, it does have a copy of Alana Peck's Beginning
>>> GIMP.... but it is the only copy in a borough of around 215,000
>>> residents.
>>
>>Even if your library stocked every single Gimp book ever written you would
>>be saying the same thing about finding current version well written books
>>on Gimp.  That is because there are almost none out there.
> 
> And there is no need for them either.  That's why nobody
> writes them.
> 
> Get on your computer and google "gimp tutorial".  You'll
> get half a million hits.  Do you really need more????
> You can, in fact, get personal instructions on precisely
> how to used the *latest* bloody edge GIMP from the
> development thread.
> 
> Buying books to learn Photoshop may or may not be
> reasonable...  I don't know and don't care.  But I'll
> admit that my guess is there aren't many books that are
> up to date, nor are there many that are worth half their
> price!
> 
> Buying books to learn GIMP would be wasted money, and
> spending time suggesting the significance of there being
> none is an exercise in illogical nonsense.
>

That is not correct.  Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.  Plus a good well
written book can be better illustrated.  One may not always desire to sit
behind a computer all of the time.

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>That is not correct.

It was dead on correct, and your "arguments" are not
rational.

>Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
>Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.

A non sequitur.  I enjoy reading while I eat a meal, or
when I want to relax with a cup of coffee.  In fact, if
I do not have a companion for discussion, it is almost
impossible for me to sit still and eat without something
to read.

But I'm not dumb enough to think I'll learn GIMP reading
while I eat or drink coffee at a distance from a
computer either...  Which is to say the book may be
entertaining, but it won't be tutorial.

>Plus a good well
>written book can be better illustrated.

Plus a good well written web tutorial can be better
illustrated.

Or not, in either case!  It is simply wrong to claim one
is *necessarily* better illustrated than the other.

However, a book cannot be updated daily, while a web
page can.  By the time you buy the book, it is out of
date and has incorrect illustrations, necessarily.  That
may also be true of a web page, but it is not
necessarily true.

>One may not always desire to sit
>behind a computer all of the time.

But to learn GIMP you *necessarily* must sit at and
work with a computer.

If your logic is always that faulty, learning GIMP is
no doubt going to be very difficult because you'll be
exploring many false avenues before you find the right
path to walk.  It'll take you weeks, which may well be
enjoyable though, to learn what could be done in mere
hours.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>> That is not correct.
> 
> It was dead on correct, and your "arguments" are not
> rational.
> 

IMHO, neither side of this discussion is "dead on correct."

>> Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
>> Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.
> 
> A non sequitur.  I enjoy reading while I eat a meal, or
> when I want to relax with a cup of coffee.  In fact, if
> I do not have a companion for discussion, it is almost
> impossible for me to sit still and eat without something
> to read.
> 
> But I'm not dumb enough to think I'll learn GIMP reading
> while I eat or drink coffee at a distance from a
> computer either...  Which is to say the book may be
> entertaining, but it won't be tutorial.
> 
Is there some reason you can't read a book while sitting at a computer? 
Just imagine yourself, Gimp on the screen, book on the desk to one side, 
open to a tutorial. You look at the book, try something from it, look 
back to the book again. Oh, I suppose you can have a web tutorial on the 
screen and be trying it out yourself at the same time, but to do that 
efficiently you have to display both at the same time, and that would 
take two displays or two computers, or a display large enough to show 
both big enough to be workable. Switching back and forth between windows 
isn't nearly as efficient.

>> Plus a good well
>> written book can be better illustrated.
> 
> Plus a good well written web tutorial can be better
> illustrated.
> 
> Or not, in either case!  It is simply wrong to claim one
> is *necessarily* better illustrated than the other.
> 
> However, a book cannot be updated daily, while a web
> page can.  By the time you buy the book, it is out of
> date and has incorrect illustrations, necessarily.  That
> may also be true of a web page, but it is not
> necessarily true.
>

But it usually is. On-line tutorials are notorious for their lack of 
regular updates. Producing a tutorial can be fun, while updating one is 
often seen as a chore.

>> One may not always desire to sit
>> behind a computer all of the time.
> 
> But to learn GIMP you *necessarily* must sit at and
> work with a computer.
> 
> If your logic is always that faulty, learning GIMP is
> no doubt going to be very difficult because you'll be
> exploring many false avenues before you find the right
> path to walk.  It'll take you weeks, which may well be
> enjoyable though, to learn what could be done in mere
> hours.
> 

Measekite's logic is often strange, but not always faulty. Books have 
their place, as do on-line tutorials, but they are not mutually 
exclusive. I prefer a book to an on-line tutorial myself. You can't 
learn Photoshop without sitting at a computer, and I'm sure there are 
many on-line tutorials in its use, yet there are books, too. Photoshop 
books are published because there is sufficient demand for them that the 
publisher thinks he can make a profit on them. The demand for Gimp books 
is much lower, because there are far fewer people using it. Lower demand 
equals lower profit, so Gimp books don't get published - or even written.

TJ

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:46 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>That is not correct.
> 
> It was dead on correct, and your "arguments" are not
> rational.
> 
>>Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
>>Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.
> 
> A non sequitur.  I enjoy reading while I eat a meal, or
> when I want to relax with a cup of coffee.  In fact, if
> I do not have a companion for discussion, it is almost
> impossible for me to sit still and eat without something
> to read.
> 
> But I'm not dumb enough to think I'll learn GIMP reading
> while I eat or drink coffee at a distance from a
> computer either...  Which is to say the book may be
> entertaining, but it won't be tutorial.


Maybe you are not reading it to learn Gimp but would like to get familiar
with it.  Or you already know much but want to review certain aspects.





> 
>>Plus a good well
>>written book can be better illustrated.
> 
> Plus a good well written web tutorial can be better
> illustrated.
> 
> Or not, in either case!  It is simply wrong to claim one
> is *necessarily* better illustrated than the other.
> 
> However, a book cannot be updated daily, while a web
> page can.  By the time you buy the book, it is out of
> date and has incorrect illustrations, necessarily.  That
> may also be true of a web page, but it is not
> necessarily true.
> 
>>One may not always desire to sit
>>behind a computer all of the time.
> 
> But to learn GIMP you *necessarily* must sit at and
> work with a computer.
> 
> If your logic is always that faulty, learning GIMP is
> no doubt going to be very difficult because you'll be
> exploring many false avenues before you find the right
> path to walk.  It'll take you weeks, which may well be
> enjoyable though, to learn what could be done in mere
> hours.
>



You can sit behind a computer all day.  You do not have to read a Gimp
book.  But many others find them useful.

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:46 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>>That is not correct.
>>
>> It was dead on correct, and your "arguments" are not
>> rational.
>>
>>>Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
>>>Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.
>>
>> A non sequitur.  I enjoy reading while I eat a meal, or
>> when I want to relax with a cup of coffee.  In fact, if
>> I do not have a companion for discussion, it is almost
>> impossible for me to sit still and eat without something
>> to read.
>>
>> But I'm not dumb enough to think I'll learn GIMP reading
>> while I eat or drink coffee at a distance from a
>> computer either...  Which is to say the book may be
>> entertaining, but it won't be tutorial.
>
>Maybe you are not reading it to learn Gimp but would like to get familiar
>with it.  Or you already know much but want to review certain aspects.
>
>>
>>>Plus a good well
>>>written book can be better illustrated.
>>
>> Plus a good well written web tutorial can be better
>> illustrated.
>>
>> Or not, in either case!  It is simply wrong to claim one
>> is *necessarily* better illustrated than the other.
>>
>> However, a book cannot be updated daily, while a web
>> page can.  By the time you buy the book, it is out of
>> date and has incorrect illustrations, necessarily.  That
>> may also be true of a web page, but it is not
>> necessarily true.
>>
>>>One may not always desire to sit
>>>behind a computer all of the time.
>>
>> But to learn GIMP you *necessarily* must sit at and
>> work with a computer.
>>
>> If your logic is always that faulty, learning GIMP is
>> no doubt going to be very difficult because you'll be
>> exploring many false avenues before you find the right
>> path to walk.  It'll take you weeks, which may well be
>> enjoyable though, to learn what could be done in mere
>> hours.
>>
>
>You can sit behind a computer all day.  You do not have to read a Gimp
>book.  But many others find them useful.

Lets keep in mind that you commonly post to this
newsgroup asking questions.

And I am commonly posting to this newsgroup answering
questions.

I would suggest that the most significant reason for the
difference is because you continue to reference printed
material to learn GIMP, and will never get within a
couple of years of the latest release.  I'm doing web
searches and reading the source code from SVN, which I
download about once a week.

And lets be real honest, I am *not* a guru, and am not
even an expert at GIMP.  (I am very expert at doing web
research... :-)

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

Fair comment, Floyd, but it would be nice if all the dozens of general
digital photography books, as well as the imaging ones, at least
acknowledged the existence of GIMP, instead of showing you "how to" in
nothing but Photoshop all the time.  Any newcomer that comes along and
looks at books for information isn't going to find out about GIMP from
them.  I only discovered GIMP by chance because I spend a lot of time
on my PC looking for good freeware.

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

fernman wrote:
> Fair comment, Floyd, but it would be nice if all the dozens of general
> digital photography books, as well as the imaging ones, at least
> acknowledged the existence of GIMP, instead of showing you "how to" in
> nothing but Photoshop all the time.  Any newcomer that comes along and
> looks at books for information isn't going to find out about GIMP from
> them.  I only discovered GIMP by chance because I spend a lot of time
> on my PC looking for good freeware.

Don't look for that to change any time soon. All other image 
manipulation programs lost out when "photoshop" morphed into a verb, 
just as all other search engines became superfluous when "google" became 
one. It's as if any competitors don't even exist. The same thing goes on 
with every news story abut the latest threat to computers. 99+% of these 
threats only threaten Windows computers, yet there is never any mention 
that they don't affect Macs or Linux.

The World at large has not yet realized the importance of alternatives.

TJ

Is Photoshop really better?

Hi,

I'm a Mac and Linux geek rather than a true photographer. I have only
recently started using the Gimp but I'm learning fast from Akkana Peck's
"Beginning GIMP" book. I've never used Photoshop, which might surprise
you. I'd like to find someone who is experienced with both Photoshop and
the Gimp to help me advise a friend, or perhaps someone could point me
to a website where these two bits of software are compared fairly and
honestly. Let me explain the situation:

A pro photographer friend of mine is interested in switching to Linux, a
process I have offered to support her with 100%. However, she is
concerned about whether the Gimp will be sufficient for her needs.
Photoshop seems to be almost a religion amongst professionals. Many of
her photographer colleagues have been highly disparaging about the Gimp,
calling it slow, clunky, and likening it to where Photoshop was when it
first came out many years ago. I'm only a beginner with Gimp, and know
nothing of Photoshop, so I am unable to judge whether her colleagues'
advice is fair, or counter argue it if it isn't. My suspicion is that
Photoshop users are a clique, and that they're just snobbish about
alternative image editors without really trying them out properly. I
would like to be able to tell my friend that she will not be
disappointed with the Gimp and that it is not so clunky that it will
slow down her workflow, but more than that I want to give her honest
accurate advice regardless.

I've read elsewhere in this group that Gimp doesn't yet have 16-bit per
channel colour depth, or CMYK support (although I see you can make
separations with "Decompose"). Not being a pro photographer myself,
these things seem pretty esoteric to me. How important are they to
photographers such as my friend wishing to get the best out of her
photos before uploading them to a photo library?

Other than those colour space issues, would someone please offer their
own opinions about what it is the Photoshop has that the Gimp lacks? Is
the user interface of Photoshop so slick that general workflow is
faster? Does the Gimp have any advantages over Photoshop that I could
tell her about?

-- 
James Taylor

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

I use Gimp but it is a matter of fact that Photoshop can use 16 bits TIFF 
(and Gimp only 8 bits) and that there are more sophisticated layers 
managements in Photoshop. And an impressive lot of plugins and scripts.

-- 
J.P. Louvet
"James Taylor" <usenet@oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> a écrit dans le message 
de news: 1iogt5t.vtv26ur1c5bnN%usenet@oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> Hi,
>
> I'm a Mac and Linux geek rather than a true photographer. I have only
> recently started using the Gimp but I'm learning fast from Akkana Peck's
> "Beginning GIMP" book. I've never used Photoshop, which might surprise
> you. I'd like to find someone who is experienced with both Photoshop and
> the Gimp to help me advise a friend, or perhaps someone could point me
> to a website where these two bits of software are compared fairly and
> honestly. Let me explain the situation:
>
> A pro photographer friend of mine is interested in switching to Linux, a
> process I have offered to support her with 100%. However, she is
> concerned about whether the Gimp will be sufficient for her needs.
> Photoshop seems to be almost a religion amongst professionals. Many of
> her photographer colleagues have been highly disparaging about the Gimp,
> calling it slow, clunky, and likening it to where Photoshop was when it
> first came out many years ago. I'm only a beginner with Gimp, and know
> nothing of Photoshop, so I am unable to judge whether her colleagues'
> advice is fair, or counter argue it if it isn't. My suspicion is that
> Photoshop users are a clique, and that they're just snobbish about
> alternative image editors without really trying them out properly. I
> would like to be able to tell my friend that she will not be
> disappointed with the Gimp and that it is not so clunky that it will
> slow down her workflow, but more than that I want to give her honest
> accurate advice regardless.
>
> I've read elsewhere in this group that Gimp doesn't yet have 16-bit per
> channel colour depth, or CMYK support (although I see you can make
> separations with "Decompose"). Not being a pro photographer myself,
> these things seem pretty esoteric to me. How important are they to
> photographers such as my friend wishing to get the best out of her
> photos before uploading them to a photo library?
>
> Other than those colour space issues, would someone please offer their
> own opinions about what it is the Photoshop has that the Gimp lacks? Is
> the user interface of Photoshop so slick that general workflow is
> faster? Does the Gimp have any advantages over Photoshop that I could
> tell her about?
>
> -- 
> James Taylor 

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

James Taylor wrote:
> A pro photographer friend of mine is interested in switching to Linux, a
> process I have offered to support her with 100%. However, she is
> concerned about whether the Gimp will be sufficient for her needs.
> Photoshop seems to be almost a religion amongst professionals. Many of
> her photographer colleagues have been highly disparaging about the Gimp,
> calling it slow, clunky, and likening it to where Photoshop was when it
> first came out many years ago.

Irregardless of wether this is true or not, they will be comparing most
likely not GIMP and Photoshop, but their 10 years of Photoshop
experience with their 0 years Gimp experience. 

Absolutely normal. I do the same when somebody tells me how they do
something in Windows. I say : but in Linux it is so much easier, I just
do X, Y Z and I am done, where they do Z, Y, X.

So tell your friend that he will be learning a new program. If it is
worth for him to invest in that or not is up to him. I can imagine that
he wants to procduce and thus is interested in working and not so much
in learning.

Also there is the reason as to why he want to move to Linux. Linux is
not a Windows Replacement for people who are unhappy about Windows.

technicaly if he wants to use Photoshop and run Linux for other reasons,
there are solutions as well. Wine might be a solution (not sure) or he
can run Photoshop in a virtual manager.

But concerning Photoshop or Gimp, that very much depends on his
experience he already has with Photoshop, the willingness to start all
over again and what he does with it. If he only removes re-eye and
rescales images to put on a website,. or does he use each and every
aspect of Photoshop.

houghi
-- 
>>>> Run the following from the bashprompt if you have the kernel sources
for I in `find /usr/src/linux/ -name *.c`; \
do A=`grep -i -A 1 -B 1 fuck $I`;if [ "$A" != "" ]; \
then printf "$I \n$A \n\n"; fi ;done|less

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

James Taylor wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a Mac and Linux geek rather than a true photographer. I have only
> recently started using the Gimp but I'm learning fast from Akkana Peck's
> "Beginning GIMP" book. I've never used Photoshop, which might surprise
> you. I'd like to find someone who is experienced with both Photoshop and
> the Gimp to help me advise a friend, or perhaps someone could point me
> to a website where these two bits of software are compared fairly and
> honestly. Let me explain the situation:
> 
> A pro photographer friend of mine is interested in switching to Linux, a
> process I have offered to support her with 100%. However, she is
> concerned about whether the Gimp will be sufficient for her needs.
> Photoshop seems to be almost a religion amongst professionals. Many of
> her photographer colleagues have been highly disparaging about the Gimp,
> calling it slow, clunky, and likening it to where Photoshop was when it
> first came out many years ago. I'm only a beginner with Gimp, and know
> nothing of Photoshop, so I am unable to judge whether her colleagues'
> advice is fair, or counter argue it if it isn't. My suspicion is that
> Photoshop users are a clique, and that they're just snobbish about
> alternative image editors without really trying them out properly. I
> would like to be able to tell my friend that she will not be
> disappointed with the Gimp and that it is not so clunky that it will
> slow down her workflow, but more than that I want to give her honest
> accurate advice regardless.
> 
> I've read elsewhere in this group that Gimp doesn't yet have 16-bit per
> channel colour depth, or CMYK support (although I see you can make
> separations with "Decompose"). Not being a pro photographer myself,
> these things seem pretty esoteric to me. How important are they to
> photographers such as my friend wishing to get the best out of her
> photos before uploading them to a photo library?
> 
> Other than those colour space issues, would someone please offer their
> own opinions about what it is the Photoshop has that the Gimp lacks? Is
> the user interface of Photoshop so slick that general workflow is
> faster? Does the Gimp have any advantages over Photoshop that I could
> tell her about?
> 
Couldn't say. I've never had the desire to fork over massive amounts of 
cash to do something I can do for free, so I've never used Photoshop. 
However, from what I've read, Photoshop can be run in Linux using Wine 
or Crossover, so she doesn't have to give it up to switch to Linux. No 
reason why she can't use both for a while, then settle on the one she 
likes best.

TJ

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:58:37 -0800, fernman wrote:

> Walk into a well stocked book store and you will find a
>> 40-50 Photoshop books on the shelves, but seldom a GIMP book...
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more, J.R., and it's not only book stores but
> libraries as well.  Where I live on the outskirts of London, UK, I
> have a good public library that stocks a number of books on digital
> photgraphy, but every single one you look at makes the assumption that
> you're going to be using Photoshop, and that makes me cross.  Give the
> library its due, though, it does have a copy of Alana Peck's Beginning
> GIMP.... but it is the only copy in a borough of around 215,000
> residents.

Even if your library stocked every single Gimp book ever written you would
be saying the same thing about finding current version well written books
on Gimp.  That is because there are almost none out there.

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:58:37 -0800, fernman wrote:
>
>> Walk into a well stocked book store and you will find a
>>> 40-50 Photoshop books on the shelves, but seldom a GIMP book...
>>
>>
>> I couldn't agree more, J.R., and it's not only book stores but
>> libraries as well.  Where I live on the outskirts of London, UK, I
>> have a good public library that stocks a number of books on digital
>> photgraphy, but every single one you look at makes the assumption that
>> you're going to be using Photoshop, and that makes me cross.  Give the
>> library its due, though, it does have a copy of Alana Peck's Beginning
>> GIMP.... but it is the only copy in a borough of around 215,000
>> residents.
>
>Even if your library stocked every single Gimp book ever written you would
>be saying the same thing about finding current version well written books
>on Gimp.  That is because there are almost none out there.

And there is no need for them either.  That's why nobody
writes them.

Get on your computer and google "gimp tutorial".  You'll
get half a million hits.  Do you really need more????
You can, in fact, get personal instructions on precisely
how to used the *latest* bloody edge GIMP from the
development thread.

Buying books to learn Photoshop may or may not be
reasonable...  I don't know and don't care.  But I'll
admit that my guess is there aren't many books that are
up to date, nor are there many that are worth half their
price!

Buying books to learn GIMP would be wasted money, and
spending time suggesting the significance of there being
none is an exercise in illogical nonsense.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

> Buying books to learn GIMP would be wasted money, and spending time
> suggesting the significance of there being none is an exercise in
> illogical nonsense.

If you are the type of person that wants to learn the Gimp then you must 
have some sort of technical know how already  which means you can use on 
line sources. I agree that buying books on this type of subject would be 
a total  waste of money as well as being immediately out of date.
Check out the Gimp's own on line user manual, it is excellent. 

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Get on your computer and google "gimp tutorial".  You'll
> get half a million hits.  Do you really need more????

I would need more, yes. I like to hold a book in my hands to read
through it.

<snip>
> Buying books to learn GIMP would be wasted money, and
> spending time suggesting the significance of there being
> none is an exercise in illogical nonsense.

Please speak for your self. There are many people out there that love to
have books instead of looking at a screen. I have Running Linux and
Linux in a nutshell and from thse books I learned more then looking up
stuff.

I have learned an enourmous amount of the manuals that used to come with
SuSE (then SUSE now openSUSE) and the fact that they are still available
in pdf is not the same.

The fact that you are satisfied with all that the net is giving you does
not mean that everybody is. The fact that you do not understand that
other people have other needs is a pity and I feel sorry for you.

houghi
-- 
>	  Beware of he who would deny you access to information,	 <
>	      for in his heart he dreams himself your master.		 <
>	   Commissioner Pravin Lal: "U.N. Declaration of Rights"	 <

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:34:47 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:58:37 -0800, fernman wrote:
>>
>>> Walk into a well stocked book store and you will find a
>>>> 40-50 Photoshop books on the shelves, but seldom a GIMP book...
>>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more, J.R., and it's not only book stores but
>>> libraries as well.  Where I live on the outskirts of London, UK, I
>>> have a good public library that stocks a number of books on digital
>>> photgraphy, but every single one you look at makes the assumption that
>>> you're going to be using Photoshop, and that makes me cross.  Give the
>>> library its due, though, it does have a copy of Alana Peck's Beginning
>>> GIMP.... but it is the only copy in a borough of around 215,000
>>> residents.
>>
>>Even if your library stocked every single Gimp book ever written you would
>>be saying the same thing about finding current version well written books
>>on Gimp.  That is because there are almost none out there.
> 
> And there is no need for them either.  That's why nobody
> writes them.
> 
> Get on your computer and google "gimp tutorial".  You'll
> get half a million hits.  Do you really need more????
> You can, in fact, get personal instructions on precisely
> how to used the *latest* bloody edge GIMP from the
> development thread.
> 
> Buying books to learn Photoshop may or may not be
> reasonable...  I don't know and don't care.  But I'll
> admit that my guess is there aren't many books that are
> up to date, nor are there many that are worth half their
> price!
> 
> Buying books to learn GIMP would be wasted money, and
> spending time suggesting the significance of there being
> none is an exercise in illogical nonsense.
>

That is not correct.  Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.  Plus a good well
written book can be better illustrated.  One may not always desire to sit
behind a computer all of the time.

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>That is not correct.

It was dead on correct, and your "arguments" are not
rational.

>Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
>Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.

A non sequitur.  I enjoy reading while I eat a meal, or
when I want to relax with a cup of coffee.  In fact, if
I do not have a companion for discussion, it is almost
impossible for me to sit still and eat without something
to read.

But I'm not dumb enough to think I'll learn GIMP reading
while I eat or drink coffee at a distance from a
computer either...  Which is to say the book may be
entertaining, but it won't be tutorial.

>Plus a good well
>written book can be better illustrated.

Plus a good well written web tutorial can be better
illustrated.

Or not, in either case!  It is simply wrong to claim one
is *necessarily* better illustrated than the other.

However, a book cannot be updated daily, while a web
page can.  By the time you buy the book, it is out of
date and has incorrect illustrations, necessarily.  That
may also be true of a web page, but it is not
necessarily true.

>One may not always desire to sit
>behind a computer all of the time.

But to learn GIMP you *necessarily* must sit at and
work with a computer.

If your logic is always that faulty, learning GIMP is
no doubt going to be very difficult because you'll be
exploring many false avenues before you find the right
path to walk.  It'll take you weeks, which may well be
enjoyable though, to learn what could be done in mere
hours.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>> That is not correct.
> 
> It was dead on correct, and your "arguments" are not
> rational.
> 

IMHO, neither side of this discussion is "dead on correct."

>> Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
>> Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.
> 
> A non sequitur.  I enjoy reading while I eat a meal, or
> when I want to relax with a cup of coffee.  In fact, if
> I do not have a companion for discussion, it is almost
> impossible for me to sit still and eat without something
> to read.
> 
> But I'm not dumb enough to think I'll learn GIMP reading
> while I eat or drink coffee at a distance from a
> computer either...  Which is to say the book may be
> entertaining, but it won't be tutorial.
> 
Is there some reason you can't read a book while sitting at a computer? 
Just imagine yourself, Gimp on the screen, book on the desk to one side, 
open to a tutorial. You look at the book, try something from it, look 
back to the book again. Oh, I suppose you can have a web tutorial on the 
screen and be trying it out yourself at the same time, but to do that 
efficiently you have to display both at the same time, and that would 
take two displays or two computers, or a display large enough to show 
both big enough to be workable. Switching back and forth between windows 
isn't nearly as efficient.

>> Plus a good well
>> written book can be better illustrated.
> 
> Plus a good well written web tutorial can be better
> illustrated.
> 
> Or not, in either case!  It is simply wrong to claim one
> is *necessarily* better illustrated than the other.
> 
> However, a book cannot be updated daily, while a web
> page can.  By the time you buy the book, it is out of
> date and has incorrect illustrations, necessarily.  That
> may also be true of a web page, but it is not
> necessarily true.
>

But it usually is. On-line tutorials are notorious for their lack of 
regular updates. Producing a tutorial can be fun, while updating one is 
often seen as a chore.

>> One may not always desire to sit
>> behind a computer all of the time.
> 
> But to learn GIMP you *necessarily* must sit at and
> work with a computer.
> 
> If your logic is always that faulty, learning GIMP is
> no doubt going to be very difficult because you'll be
> exploring many false avenues before you find the right
> path to walk.  It'll take you weeks, which may well be
> enjoyable though, to learn what could be done in mere
> hours.
> 

Measekite's logic is often strange, but not always faulty. Books have 
their place, as do on-line tutorials, but they are not mutually 
exclusive. I prefer a book to an on-line tutorial myself. You can't 
learn Photoshop without sitting at a computer, and I'm sure there are 
many on-line tutorials in its use, yet there are books, too. Photoshop 
books are published because there is sufficient demand for them that the 
publisher thinks he can make a profit on them. The demand for Gimp books 
is much lower, because there are far fewer people using it. Lower demand 
equals lower profit, so Gimp books don't get published - or even written.

TJ

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:46 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>That is not correct.
> 
> It was dead on correct, and your "arguments" are not
> rational.
> 
>>Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
>>Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.
> 
> A non sequitur.  I enjoy reading while I eat a meal, or
> when I want to relax with a cup of coffee.  In fact, if
> I do not have a companion for discussion, it is almost
> impossible for me to sit still and eat without something
> to read.
> 
> But I'm not dumb enough to think I'll learn GIMP reading
> while I eat or drink coffee at a distance from a
> computer either...  Which is to say the book may be
> entertaining, but it won't be tutorial.


Maybe you are not reading it to learn Gimp but would like to get familiar
with it.  Or you already know much but want to review certain aspects.





> 
>>Plus a good well
>>written book can be better illustrated.
> 
> Plus a good well written web tutorial can be better
> illustrated.
> 
> Or not, in either case!  It is simply wrong to claim one
> is *necessarily* better illustrated than the other.
> 
> However, a book cannot be updated daily, while a web
> page can.  By the time you buy the book, it is out of
> date and has incorrect illustrations, necessarily.  That
> may also be true of a web page, but it is not
> necessarily true.
> 
>>One may not always desire to sit
>>behind a computer all of the time.
> 
> But to learn GIMP you *necessarily* must sit at and
> work with a computer.
> 
> If your logic is always that faulty, learning GIMP is
> no doubt going to be very difficult because you'll be
> exploring many false avenues before you find the right
> path to walk.  It'll take you weeks, which may well be
> enjoyable though, to learn what could be done in mere
> hours.
>



You can sit behind a computer all day.  You do not have to read a Gimp
book.  But many others find them useful.

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:38:46 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>>>That is not correct.
>>
>> It was dead on correct, and your "arguments" are not
>> rational.
>>
>>>Many times one may enjoy spending a few hours in
>>>Starbucks with a latte and a book of their choice.
>>
>> A non sequitur.  I enjoy reading while I eat a meal, or
>> when I want to relax with a cup of coffee.  In fact, if
>> I do not have a companion for discussion, it is almost
>> impossible for me to sit still and eat without something
>> to read.
>>
>> But I'm not dumb enough to think I'll learn GIMP reading
>> while I eat or drink coffee at a distance from a
>> computer either...  Which is to say the book may be
>> entertaining, but it won't be tutorial.
>
>Maybe you are not reading it to learn Gimp but would like to get familiar
>with it.  Or you already know much but want to review certain aspects.
>
>>
>>>Plus a good well
>>>written book can be better illustrated.
>>
>> Plus a good well written web tutorial can be better
>> illustrated.
>>
>> Or not, in either case!  It is simply wrong to claim one
>> is *necessarily* better illustrated than the other.
>>
>> However, a book cannot be updated daily, while a web
>> page can.  By the time you buy the book, it is out of
>> date and has incorrect illustrations, necessarily.  That
>> may also be true of a web page, but it is not
>> necessarily true.
>>
>>>One may not always desire to sit
>>>behind a computer all of the time.
>>
>> But to learn GIMP you *necessarily* must sit at and
>> work with a computer.
>>
>> If your logic is always that faulty, learning GIMP is
>> no doubt going to be very difficult because you'll be
>> exploring many false avenues before you find the right
>> path to walk.  It'll take you weeks, which may well be
>> enjoyable though, to learn what could be done in mere
>> hours.
>>
>
>You can sit behind a computer all day.  You do not have to read a Gimp
>book.  But many others find them useful.

Lets keep in mind that you commonly post to this
newsgroup asking questions.

And I am commonly posting to this newsgroup answering
questions.

I would suggest that the most significant reason for the
difference is because you continue to reference printed
material to learn GIMP, and will never get within a
couple of years of the latest release.  I'm doing web
searches and reading the source code from SVN, which I
download about once a week.

And lets be real honest, I am *not* a guru, and am not
even an expert at GIMP.  (I am very expert at doing web
research... :-)

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              floyd@apaflo.com

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

Fair comment, Floyd, but it would be nice if all the dozens of general
digital photography books, as well as the imaging ones, at least
acknowledged the existence of GIMP, instead of showing you "how to" in
nothing but Photoshop all the time.  Any newcomer that comes along and
looks at books for information isn't going to find out about GIMP from
them.  I only discovered GIMP by chance because I spend a lot of time
on my PC looking for good freeware.

Re: Is Photoshop really better?

fernman wrote:
> Fair comment, Floyd, but it would be nice if all the dozens of general
> digital photography books, as well as the imaging ones, at least
> acknowledged the existence of GIMP, instead of showing you "how to" in
> nothing but Photoshop all the time.  Any newcomer that comes along and
> looks at books for information isn't going to find out about GIMP from
> them.  I only discovered GIMP by chance because I spend a lot of time
> on my PC looking for good freeware.

Don't look for that to change any time soon. All other image 
manipulation programs lost out when "photoshop" morphed into a verb, 
just as all other search engines became superfluous when "google" became 
one. It's as if any competitors don't even exist. The same thing goes on 
with every news story abut the latest threat to computers. 99+% of these 
threats only threaten Windows computers, yet there is never any mention 
that they don't affect Macs or Linux.

The World at large has not yet realized the importance of alternatives.

TJ

© 2009 THBComponentware - all rights reserved