58 Comments

• 
  +3 Shelley:

  So basically, Download GIMP because it copies Photoshops shortcuts, and I can open PSD files in it, which if I had PSD files would mean I probably already own Photoshop, and so why would I use GIMP?… 0_o

  March 7, 2010 at 3:21 pmReply

  • 
    +8 Skyler:

    They’re not saying that. They are saying if you’re working on a photoshop picture and you want to keep working on it, you can open up the files using gimp. They’re just saying it’s a nice feature. Dumbass

    December 9, 2010 at 5:17 pmReply

    • 
      Marc:

      Ouch! All in good humor, right ;). Also, you can download psd tutorial files or save as psd to share with someone. There are many reasons one would use that feature. And I am actually a fan pf PS but mine is paid for :)

      March 2, 2011 at 3:27 pmReply

      • 
        Lovelive:

        You cannot open every PSD to edit it in GIMP. Working with PSDs with clipping masks fails when loaded with the GIMP.
        Actually, in GIMP 2.7, there are less tools missing, the interface is more user friendly. All I miss are layer effects, clipping masks, and better out-of-the-box brushes and patterns. Also it would be better to have a better color selector.
        I always have a GIMP but still cannot use it for creation. Only for editing.

        October 28, 2011 at 12:19 pmReply

• 
  +7 Tim:

  That's “open PSD” as in always trail behind photoshop in format compatibility…

  Realistically, Gimp is not even in the same sport let alone the same league. The actual editing of images is way faster in photoshop; PS has mature support for 16- and 32-bit images compared to Gimp's 8 (or barely 16 with GEGL); gimp has no adjustment layers; I don't know what the author was smoking but I have *never* managed to find a usable batch-processing system in the Gimp but I rely on a handful of common batch actions in PS all the time.
  Cinepaint came closer, in that it didn't have all the toy filters detracting from the serious business of image-processing and concentrated on having 16-bit support; however, contrary to the propaganda above, the open-source community has persistently failed to support or develop it for years.

  March 7, 2010 at 3:29 pmReply

  • 
    Jeff:

    Sounds like another user feeling like an idiot because he had to take a second mortgage on his trailer to buy PS when he could have gotten everything he needed for free.

    Think GIMP!

    HeHe

    January 8, 2012 at 7:58 amReply

• 
  +2 ~බිன்ku~:

  Agree, As a Linux and Windows user I see this article is true but GIMP is not really partically.

  March 7, 2010 at 4:21 pmReply

• 
  +6 John Godwin:

  So basically, get GIMP if you have a hard drive from 1998, a processor from 1999, and you're broke. If you actually need to edit a photo, though, use Photoshop.

  Brilliant article.

  March 7, 2010 at 5:12 pmReply

  • 
    +1 Lovelive:

    1 Godwin point !
    Well, actually, GIMP is a failure *compared to* Photoshop, because the latter has very handy tools you cannot find elsewhere.

    October 28, 2011 at 12:22 pmReply

• 
  +6 Rick:

  I use GIMP all the time. I don't know if it's better than Photoshop or not, but it gets the job done for me.

  March 7, 2010 at 6:22 pmReply

• 
  +2 Mike Panic:

  John, GIMP is a great option if you are just starting out with photo editing or graphic design work and do not yet have the $700+ to invest in Photoshop. If you own a netbook it's also a nice little photo editor that won't totally bog down on the down-graded hardware that those little computers have on them.

  March 7, 2010 at 6:56 pmReply

  • 
    +1 Marc:

    I wish adobe would stop sleeping at the wheel and make Photoshop an a la cart program where you can buy upgrades of features to customize as needed. They could possibly even increase marginal profits that way by selling through tutorials. I am a fairly advanced feature and besides the features I don’t know about even today, there are many more that I don’t know how to use properly or even as effectively as possible.

    On another note, I wish gimp would be far more advanced and centralize the add ons in some easy marketplace type capability. Photographers may be gleeful about gimp being photo centric, it would be nice to do graphics too. Doesn’t the G stand for graphic?

    March 2, 2011 at 3:37 pmReply

    • 
      +1 Peter Ridgers:

      G does not stand for graphics – it stands for Gnu

      April 5, 2011 at 11:11 amReply

• 
  +10 Menia:

  1. Free doesn't make it better.
  2. Smaller install doesn't make it a better editor.
  3. Got a point. Photoshop really can be slow even on computer less then a year old.
  4. They're the same.
  5. A theoretical possibility, unfortunately not a reality.
  6. This point made me wonder if you were talking about PS being better then GIMP, because that feature is just not there. Scripting is a different thing.
  7. This is sort of admitting Photoshop is better.
  8. See 1.
  9. See 7. And you're contradicting point 4.
  10. That's great, so GIMP is better on the go.

  Don't get me wrong, I love GIMP. I use it all the time.I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to do some advanced hobby photoshopping and not pay $$$. It can do almost anything Photoshop can for free. If chose GIMP over Photoshop because I know it so well and it does all I need. I don't use it for print.

  GIMP has features Photoshop doesn't. A better gradient tool, A better lasso tool, An ink tool. Drag handles on the rectangle and ellipse select tool. Mention them if you try to argue for GIMP.

  Don't underestimate GIMP, I hate it when people say it's crap, because it isn't. It's very good.
  But the truth is, it's way behind on Photoshop, who are you trying to kid?

  March 7, 2010 at 11:43 pmReply

• 
  +1 Arne Ludwig:

  At first I wanted to write some long comment like “Don't be foolish – none of them is better …” but I think I will just point out another alternative when it comes to preprocessing photos: Lightroom.

  It fits your needs if you just want to polish your photos a little.

  March 8, 2010 at 3:30 amReply

  • 
    Marc:

    Very good point. Although it’s fair to say photoshot may be a bit unfocused, touching up photos is definitely only a secondary use for Photoshop and far more firepower than 99.99% photographers need. Light room is a really good photo touchup and workflow warez

    March 2, 2011 at 3:42 pmReply

• 
  +1 Steve Schaper:

  The GIMP is much better than any of the other free alternatives out there, that I know aobut, and I've tried a good dozen.

  As great as it is, it is not suitable for professional photo editing. I wish it were, but more coders are doing to have to give more time to make that happen. It could happen.

  If you can't afford Photoshop, or you are an amateur, and Picasso and ilk just aren't doing it for you, try The GIMP, you'll learn to love it. It does much of what Photoshop does, but not at 16 bit. Not yet. It doesn't quite have the polish. It can use Photoshop plugins if you are willing to learn how to force it to do that. I love it, but you can't sell photos professionally that you've edited in it. For that you need Photoshop or Lightroom, or Dx0 or one or a combination of the commercial packages.

  March 8, 2010 at 8:42 amReply

• 
  +1 Blog H.Q:

  Like Rick said Gimp does the job for me who needs expensive photo software only photographers

  March 8, 2010 at 3:13 pmReply

• 
  +1 David:

  i've read all comment and agree with most, GIMP is no where near as close to PS as you think, also one major factor, it's not MAC OSX compatible.

  March 9, 2010 at 8:31 amReply

  • 
    Jeff:

    David,

    Do a little research before you post, it’ll save you some embarrassment.

    January 8, 2012 at 8:04 amReply

• 
  +7 rob:

  umm….http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/

  March 9, 2010 at 10:31 amReply

• 
  Aleksander Stacherski:

  About point 3. I don't now how it looks in the lates version of PS, but I use older PS SC (PS 8) and it's much faster then GIMP. In particular, when used to post-processing of panoramic photography. For GIMP it's hard to do it, particulary if you use several layers. And for PS it's relatively simply task.

  But I agree, GIMP is more user friendly. Some tools are better in use, for example: levels and curves.

  I have old computer, and only 768 MB of memory.

  March 13, 2010 at 9:11 pmReply

• 
  +2 tollahm:

  Hi, I concur with everything you have said technically, but what you failed to point out is that artists use Photoshop over GIMP. The GUI which is used in GIMP is not as advanced or even suitable for the hand of an artist or even for the methodology used by an artists. The GUI in Photoshop is more user friendly for the hand eye coordination used by the profile of an artist. Some times technology gets in the way of creativity. Pity that happens. However given what you have said, if Photoshop is listening then I am sure they will take these fine features into consideration and apply them to Photoshop. However as a Computer Scientist and artists myself Photoshop wins hands down any day. It is a sexier method to apply and it does not interfere with the creative process too much, whereas GIMP is cumbersome!

  March 15, 2010 at 6:53 pmReply

  • 
    Matthew:

    Well Said Sir! I agree as a Pro Photoshop wins hands down. I get GIMP stuff all the time and it’s OK. But not better than photoshop. GIMP users think they are smart because they are using a Free program. Folks you get what you pay for. I am not saying GIMP users are dumb btw. You guys make it work for you. But no pro uses it. Photoshop just gets better results. Yes you have to have a top of the line system to run it.
    But finished products just look better. The GIMP stuff I end up re-working CS behind the clients back to make it even printable…

    March 30, 2011 at 7:56 pmReply

  • 
    +2 Dolores:

    “The GUI which is used in GIMP is not as advanced or even suitable for the hand of an artist”

    I do not agree with this assessment AT ALL. I have found gimp’s interface to be far more intuitive than photoshop’s.

    I used photoshop for 5 years, before switching to gimp because gimp was much faster and cheaper, with nearly identical functionality.

    I love gimp’s right click menus. When you select something on an image, you can right click on that selection and hit “crop to selection”, use filters, change contrast, hue/saturation, etc, etc. Its intuitive and faster than going up to the top of the screen and using a tool bar.

    I also like the way gimp handles brushes much more than photoshop. Its more organized and easier to find the brush you want. Plus all the options for that brush are all in one spot. Want to make it 40% transparent, dodge and the shape of a star? its easier and faster to do in gimp.

    I think people believe that gimp is harder simply because they are not familiar with it. If people would take the time to learn gimp and do tutorials, etc they would see that gimp can do 99% of the things photoshop can.

    Plus even if you do use photoshop for big projects, sometimes you just want to do a quick edit. Waiting for photoshop to load is a pain, and you can open gimp, make the edit and save the file in the time it takes for photoshop to even load. I think it is very much worth it for people learn how to use gimp. Its a very powerful tool.

    July 22, 2011 at 8:49 amReply

    • 
      +1 Jeff:

      Thank you Dolores.

      Dolores’ comments are from someone that used PS for 5 years!

      I believe most people will find that PS may be ‘better’ in some regards, but many people that think they ‘need’ PS can actually do everything they require in GIMP.

      It’s kinda like Apple hardware – just because it is supposed to be better they let you pay 50% more for it. Except in this case it’s 100% more.

      Yes PS is the industry standard, but again, ‘most’ people can do anything they need to in GIMP. Plus, GIMP is closing any gap between the two with every new revision.

      Lastly, with what you save on not buying PS you can buy a new computer to run GIMP on. ; )

      January 8, 2012 at 8:27 amReply

• 
  Daniel J:

  This seems pretty bias. Like yeah, gimp is just great for beginer editors and stuff. But your not going to get the detail that Photoshop will give you. And when using multiple pictures in one peice, you won't be able to get each picture in there exactly how you want to. Photoshop offers all of that and more, and when you're working on becoming or already are a professional artist, it is worth knowing how to use photoshop. Plus, it's harder to learn, but once you have, you may find that its way better than gimp

  April 2, 2010 at 4:41 amReply

• 
  +5 Light Stalking:

  There are definitely arguments for both of the programs for sure. ;)

  April 5, 2010 at 1:48 amReply

• 
  +7 maria:

  i’ve used both and truthfully i prefer gimp.. not because its free but because i have done my best editing throught it

  June 16, 2010 at 3:16 pmReply

• 
  +1 Bob:

  There is no way that GIMP is even in the same league as Photoshop. On Windows, the lack of MDI windowing makes the Gimp almost impossible to use, and its weaker colour management and CMYK capabilities makes it useless for publishing of any seriousness.

  On Linux, the UI behaves better (the lack of MDI is not a problem), but its scratch disk performance is terrible. Photoshop handles large file image editing with ease, but Linux Gimp can barely open a picture from a home camera.

  July 2, 2010 at 6:09 pmReply

• 
  +2 dave:

  Look, I love GIMP and think it is excellent software, but are you seriously suggesting is more user friendly than Photoshop – I think both are difficult, and neither is designed to be easy. Also you said GIMP is “amazingly fast and stable” – I’m sorry but that is not true. GIMP can toil with big images that Photoshop will zip through.

  And then you said “Batch processing through automated actions is far superior” – But GIMP doesn’t do batch processing – “actions” are a feature of Photoshop not GIMP. Gimp has “Scripfu” for automation but it is inferior to Photoshop in this regard.

  July 26, 2010 at 3:10 amReply

• 
  +2 ken workingstaff:

  Gimp is more user-friendly than Photoshop?? No. No, it’s not.

  August 21, 2010 at 6:42 amReply

• 
  +3 Jasper:

  Photoshop is an awesome program, BUT, if I didn’t have the chance of student’s license, I would use GIMP. Adobe is just way too expensive for alot of people.
  Gimp is very good as well, Photoshop is just better.
  But taking the price into account, I’d go with GIMP anyway. It does the trick good enough, and there’s no-one that can deny that.

  And the price DOES matter, alot.

  October 11, 2010 at 12:08 pmReply

• 
  +3 Shivam:

  Photoshop is overrated and oversized for a normal computer.
  GIMP is easy to use and photoshop very complicated.

  November 8, 2010 at 7:50 pmReply

• 
  +4 Shivam:

  Photoshop is overrated and oversized for a normal computer.
  GIMP is easy to use and photoshop very complicated.

  November 8, 2010 at 7:51 pmReply

• 
  +1 Dre:

  Alright I will say it, since no one else will. Photoshop is not that hard to download for free. Not saying I do it, but if your broke, I am sure Adobe will not go bankrupt because of it.

  November 8, 2010 at 11:33 pmReply

  • 
    +2 Deere:

    But that’s PIRATING. Illegal. AND Adobe does try to hard to prevent pirating. This is not from me only. A lot of PS users have stated it.

    January 27, 2011 at 12:23 amReply

    • 
      lokochikimikimoo:

      Yes, Pirating is Illegal.

      I’m sure 100% of your MP3′s are paid for and never from an unpaid ripped source.

      I had Photoshop, Flash, Acrobat Pro etc pirated. All software developers try hard to prevent it. They charge US$699 so OF COURSE most people would pirate it. They didn’t lose any money because I would have NEVER forked over the $$ for a full license. They would make more $$ if the price was a reasonable 10 – 15% of that.

      That being said, Gimp is free, easy to use after a learning curve as nothing is easy at first, NOT EVEN PS; It is a great editor for a Non commercial or professional user because lets face it, most users aren’t and wouldn’t know what they’re missing.

      January 2, 2012 at 12:36 pmReply

• 
  +5 W1N0Ws4e7a!!!!:

  100% agreed mate. Gimp ROCKS. Ignore the haters, OK? They’re only saying that they wasted 700 bucks on a piece of junk.

  November 12, 2010 at 11:44 pmReply

• 
  +3 Feliks:

  Dre, I don’t feel it’s right to download PS (or other non-free software) for free. That’s why I use Gimp. I’m no pro and it does a very good job for me. But it can be very slow. Recently I saw someone using PS and many operations were much, much faster. I admit I was a little envious.

  November 13, 2010 at 12:37 pmReply

• 
  +2 Deeg:

  Interesting. Now I have been using gimp to edit my pictures. Now I used photoshop years ago so understoof that menu system more. It did take a while to adjust to a different menu system and layout. For myself I find the Gimp layout freindlier and quicker, and more than capable to edit an original photo to my desired result whatever it is, so I personally feel Gimp is well up to the task. That is not to say that gimp does not have its shortcomings, and I did try shift back to Photoshop and honestly the number of mouse clicks needed to accomplish the same tasks was so much more and more tedious I am back using gimp.

  As a side note, Gimp 2.8 will feature 16bit and is due for release shortly, nice going to the guys who make Gimp happen, and for free.

  February 1, 2011 at 5:58 amReply

• 
  +3 Matthew:

  I realize this is a somewhat old article, but I need to debunk this list. Sorry.

  1. Using this non-logic, walking around without any clothing in the arctic circle is better than wearing expensive gear. Not buying clothes is free, so it -must- be better.

  Sorry, but in terms of quality of product, the price is not quality that can be used.

  2. This might have been a reason 20 years ago, but storage has grown so much, that the size of the application is hardly relevant.

  I have 2 video files, 1 is low resolution, the other is HD. The HD one takes up over twice as much hard drive space, so the standard definition one must be better right? Wrong. The size of the application is irrelevant when discussing quality.

  3. But photoshop runs just fine on a decent system. Gimp is an attiquite substitution for photoshop if your computer is bad, and requires lightweight software to run. The only thing this attribute has going for it, is that linux users can use it.

  4. That’s entirely subjective. Personally I find the photoshop interface incredibly user friendly.

  5. This point passes. There are many things in GIMP that I wouldn’t mind extending, or improving. But with photoshop, no issues. It works just fine just the way it is.

  6. Good point. Photoshop also has this feature.

  7. Gimp is better than photoshop because it can use photoshop files? So can photoshop. This isn’t a reason making GIMP better. It’s a feature that makes GIMP tolerable when using photoshop files that other people made.

  8. This isn’t a reason either. This reason piggybacks on reason 1, which isn’t a reason that Gimp is better.

  Also, when you upgrade Gimp, you’re paying the same price as the first price. It’s free. Once something is free to begin with, you can’t use free upgrades in an argument like this… If it cost $10, then free upgrades means something. Free upgrades on free software doesn’t mean anything.

  9. Gimp is better than photoshop because it can look like photoshop. That’s the way you presented this, but I’ll agree, a custom interface is nice. But as far as I can tell, CS4 (don’t personally have CS4, so this is all I can go by) can also be customized. Not sure about CS3, or whatever was out at the time of this writing.

  10. Ok. This is one good point. Photoshop does not have a portable version.

  Well… that’s not entirely true. There are portable versions of photoshop but I’ve never used them. I don’t know if it’s legal though.

  This is more of a list of reasons that someone who wants to do basic image editing might want to take a look at Gimp. But at the end of the day, photoshop blows gimp out of the water. And don’t get me wrong, I’m a strong avocater for free, open source software. When I need software to do something, I usually go with the open source solutions. In terms of image editing, the same can not be said. Photoshop is so much better, so much more powerful, and on an entirely different level than Gimp.

  April 7, 2011 at 10:00 amReply

• 
  +3 Sally:

  GIMP is free and doesn’t take up much hard disk space. I have a load of dog poop in my back yard that’s free and doesn’t take up much space. Is it “better than Photoshop”?

  April 16, 2011 at 10:01 amReply

  • 
    +2 toadstool:

    That depends on what you want to do with your photos. If you want poop streaks on photos, it very well might be.

    November 10, 2011 at 12:21 pmReply

• 
  +2 annasoffia:

  Is it not one thing many of you are forgeting, if you are going to use all that money on Ps you must be getting something for all that money. If you do not have that money GIMP is maybe the best, definately it does much more than the other free softwares.

  July 23, 2011 at 1:17 amReply

• 
  Roger:

  Right we’re at September 2011 and much of this article still stands as far as I’m concerned. I had a lot of trouble switching to GIMP initially and kept booting into my hardly-used Windows partition to use Photoshop for its superior liquify tool. To be honest though, the number of superior tools photoshop has are being matched in other areas by the GIMP:

  1. Photoshop has a rubbish lasso (mentioned in another comment) which invariably crashes straight to a selection when you’re lassoing a difficult area.

  The GIMP’s is 100% solid.

  2. However, the GIMP doesn’t have decent enough transformation tools, like the (Ctrl+T) that allows you to free transform things. Photoshop’s are better.

  3. The GIMP groups colour/white balance/contrast-brightness etc., manipulation tools better.

  4. I don’t care what anyone says, when zooming even large format photos photoshop starts to pixellate and mosaic before GIMP does. I always use the GIMP to do zoomed-in touch-ups because I can’t properly see what I’m doing in Photoshop.

  5. Photoshop’s save-for-web and it’s image saving in general is better. The GIMP has an unnecessarily messy business of saving everything through the same path with you having to change the extensions (psd, xcf, jpg…) I have made mistakes through this.

  Contrary to what Matthew says two comments back, the fact that the GIMP is free IS a valid factor. It has some superior tools and processes and these cost nothing to have at your disposal, whereas Adobe is charging a stupendous amount of money for a programme with some grave faults, which don’t seem to be improved despite costly upgrades.

  If the GIMP produces a better liquify tool and free transformation. I’d dump photoshop tomorrow forever.

  September 1, 2011 at 1:49 pmReply

• 
  Thaiprighter:

  Like comparing a decent car Kia (Gimp) to a high class Ferrari (PS)
  Hehe.
  There’s a good reason designers choose Photoshop!

  September 28, 2011 at 11:54 amReply

  • 
    +2 toadstool:

    I don’t think the two are that extreme. Paint .Net and Photoshop I could agree with this analogy, but there are feature in GIMP that Photoshop doesn’t have, and so long as that hold true the two are much closer to equals even if I agree that Photoshop is still the winner. The key thing is because gimp is free there is no excuse not to have it for the things it can do and Photoshop can’t.

    November 10, 2011 at 12:32 pmReply

  • 
    +2 toadstool:

    Who wants to take their Ferrari to a supermarket? I mean they don’t have a ton of trunk space. Some times it’s better to use the Kia, because it offers something the Ferrari doesn’t, especially if the Kia was free.

    November 10, 2011 at 12:44 pmReply

    • 
      jmouse888:

      … then the title of this article should say “10 Reasons GIMP is Better Than Photoshop IF NOT USED FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN TASKS”

      January 16, 2012 at 6:17 pmReply

• 
  Rickolos:

  Completely flawed points. You can’t say a software is better because its free and because the install is smaller.. if anything this should tell you something about the program.

  Maybe for some kid with a low spec pc who likes to use an image software to do very basic things it would be better.

  For serious image editing and in industry photoshop is unrivalled.

  October 1, 2011 at 11:34 amReply

  • 
    +3 toadstool:

    Actually what it means is there isn’t a good reason to not have Gimp.

    November 10, 2011 at 12:49 pmReply

• 
  me:

  Photoshop can do such basic thing as moving a selection from picture around, even paintbrush can do this.
  But in GIMP this seems to use inhuman effort to do this!

  October 18, 2011 at 7:49 amReply

• 
  SHiV:

  For common people the upcoming release of GIMP should be fair enough.
  For deeper use is still going to miss 16-bit color depth & non destructive operations.

  Just to let you know guys there is something else..

  It is called Photoline, not free but very cheap. And the cost does worth it all.
  I played for many years with all the softwares available and I would bet this is the sole able to compete against Photoshop, and in many areas possibly winning.
  Have a look to the outstanding features for free (30 days demo) and change your mind: Photoshop has got a competitor.

  October 21, 2011 at 12:44 pmReply

• 
  +1 MTPrower:

  You’re an idiot, article writer. I don’t care HOW big Photoshop is or that GIMP is free. If you have to do twice the work to get half the quality while being twice as frustrated at trying to figure out how it works, then it sucks! When GIMP starts to look less forboding and starts to be less confusing to use, then I will consider it better than Photoshop.

  GIMP’s interface is a nightmare. As long as people keep pushing GIMP, or at least the GIMP that is, Photoshop will remain a $500-$1200 graphics monopoly. Get with the program!

  October 25, 2011 at 7:52 amReply

  • 
    +1 Darkademic:

    That’s only because you’re used to Photoshop. It’s exactly the opposite for me. I started using GIMP in 1998 so I’m very familiar with it, whereas I’ve barely used Photoshop and *it* is a nightmare.

    It’s nothing to do with the quality of either software, they just work differently.

    December 8, 2011 at 8:38 amReply

• 
  Jim:

  I’ve been using PS since PS 6. I upgrade every other version or so and am on CS5. Adobe’s new upgrade policy will force me to upgrade every year. I’m diving into Gimp on principle alone. If it’s half as good as some people claim, I’ll make the switch.

  December 7, 2011 at 4:36 pmReply

• 
  RAB SMITH:

  I can’t speak for selling pro-level photos using GIMP, but I’ve sold loads of colored comic-strip frames using this free program, and no-one ever complained about the quality. In fact, some customers came back for repeat business. True, GIMP took a bit of time to get to grips with, but the same is probably true of PS. I’ve seen examples of cartoon graphics by some artists with expensive Cintiq equipment, but often the results are far short of what GIMP does, or even what a trad cartoonist can do: it all depends how the artist utilizes the technology.

  December 13, 2011 at 1:21 pmReply

Leave a Comment