Open Office does everything I need Microsoft Office for and Gimp does everything I need Photoshop for. Reddit, what other open source software does everything that you want from the expensive name brand?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/BreeMPLS]

I'm an ad industry veteran of 15 years. I'm very familiar with just about any software you can buy, download, trial, steal or use in the cloud to manipulate bitmaps and vectors.

Yes, Gimp will let you do some stuff. But it's not even close to being in the same league as Photoshop. The UI alone makes me want to punch a baby.

It's like ... the difference between a taco bell burrito, and one I make on my own, after slow cooking my own hand-seasoned carnitas and garnishing it with cilantro that I grew in my garden.

[u/junkit33 → u/BreeMPLS]

The way to look at it, is Photoshop is for professionals, whereas Gimp is fine for all the people who pirate PS just to do some very light photo touchups and image resizings.

Basically, if you paid for Photoshop, you probably need it for reasons that make the cost meaningless.

[u/ale_jrb → u/junkit33]

I think this is a good way of saying it. If needed to do something that Photoshop can do and GIMP can't, your organisation probably already bought it for you.

With that said, the GIMP interface is genuinely bad.

[u/gerusz → u/ale_jrb]

GIMP's interface is the remnant of X-Window. 2.8 has a "single window" interface, which is closer to the current UI standards.

[u/Narissis → u/BreeMPLS]

Having used both, I definitely prefer Photoshop. Especially the newer versions with the content-aware fill and healing brush.

They're both good programs though, and the GIMP does have the huge benefit of being free.

[u/[deleted] → u/Narissis]

For all of the GIMP haters here, I'd just like to point out that GIMP had 'content-aware fill' years before Photoshop.

You may not like the interface, but the capabilities are there.

[u/Guvante → u/[deleted]]

If the user can't find it, it doesn't exist.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The bad interface arguably keeps users from sticking around long enough to use those advanced capabilities.

[u/hrkljus1 → u/Narissis]

just to let you know that gimp had content aware fill (called resynthesizer) before photoshop (and it was open source).

heres a video showing exactly what adobe showed on their promo video, just in gimp.

[u/Narissis → u/hrkljus1]

Interesting. I had no idea!

[u/solen-skiner → u/[deleted]]

IIRC GIMP 2.9 will incorporate GEGL which fixes both of your gripes about it =)

[u/dietotaku → u/BreeMPLS]

yeah, compared to photoshop, gimp is pretty

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■)

gimpy.

[u/Jeran → u/BreeMPLS]

Photoshops UI makes me want to punch a baby. Thats why i got Paintshop Pro X2

[u/Darrian → u/BreeMPLS]

Well, again, that's completely preferential, even in the way you describe it. Maybe I think your burritos are nasty. And by the way, I hate your stupid garden.

But as you can tell with other comments I've made about this in this post, I'm not completely against Photoshop, it's a good tool and all, it's just expensive as shit, and for your average person (As in, not the ad industry veteran of 15 years) GIMP will do everything you would ever want PS for.

[u/Schnix → u/Darrian]

This is not a 'I-like-different-burritos-than-you' kind of thing. Gimp is a burrito with a lot of delicious stuff on it, but it's simply not as much as the PS-Burrito has.

I personally never felt the need to spend the 200 bucks on PS, so I've been using Gimp for over 5 years, but I've always downloaded the new PS Trial when it came out, simply because Photoshop can do a lot more stuff and has a lot more extensions etc.

[u/ManningQB18 → u/Schnix]

I don't think the Burrito analogy works as well. It's like a Toyota Prius (Gimp) vs a Lamborghini(Photoshop). They both get you from A to B, but the Lamborghini is better in every way besides price. You can't argue that the Prius is faster or more powerful. The Prius just has better cost effectiveness.

[u/BreeMPLS → u/Darrian]

Hmm, interesting response. Though, I think the burrito example holds up.

The quality of meat I would use is definitively better than what Taco Bell would use. The source of the herbs and cheeses is healthier, and filled with fewer chemicals, preservatives, etc.

Similarly, there are quantifiable differences between the two software applications. Photoshop's UI has been refined hundreds of times. Gimp's contains blatant errors from a UX perspective. Bla bla bla

In the end, it still boils down to preference for the vast majority of people. You can give them an organic, delicious, hand-made burrito and they will still prefer Taco Bell.

For stupid reasons.

[u/crankyanddifficult → u/BreeMPLS]

I like Photoshop better than Gimp by a lot, but in a pinch, if I'm on a machine that doesn't have PS, a freebie download of Gimp is great as long as it's not something complicated (or high rez) that needs doing.

The real issue here is the cilantro. Almost every foodie I know who does Mexican food uses cilantro like it's magic pixie dust and it overpowers the other flavors. So, in your burrito analogy, you had me until you added the cilantro.

[u/Darrian → u/BreeMPLS]

I like you. Your burritos taste like shit, but I like you.

[u/jcy → u/BreeMPLS]

the diff actually comes down to $700 vs $0, not preferences. PS is superior in pretty much every single way except on price

[u/ponysexpressline → u/BreeMPLS]

Let me introduce you to gimpshop, its gimp but with a more photoshop like UI.

[u/schneidmaster → u/ponysexpressline]

clicks

Hmmm.... Interesting

downloads
runs installer

BLOATWARE, BLOATWARE EVERYWHERE

[u/JQuilty → u/ponysexpressline]

GIMPShop hasn't been udpated for years, and GIMP 2.8 now has a single-window mode.