10 Reasons GIMP is Better Than Photoshop
Categories: Post Production
Written By: Mike Panic
Digital photography has changed all of our lives and given us the ability to sit behind a computer monitor and be our own Ansel Adams with the post production. But it’s not that simple, there are several pieces of software to edit your photos with after you take them, the most well known being Photoshop. There is a clear cut rival to Photoshop called GIMP, an open source software that is very similar to Photoshop, and some say better.
1. Starting with the most obvious and possibly most important, GIMP is free. Yes free, no charge, nada, zip, zero. Photoshop costs upwards of $700 for a single license! The old saying stays true, if it’s free it’s for me.
2. GIMP is a much smaller install, about 20x smaller then Photoshop. Not only does the install go much quicker, but it takes up far less hard drive making it the perfect image editing software for laptops and netbooks where hard drive space may be at a premium.
3. Photoshop is extremely resource intensive, it will run on older hardware but it’s not optimized to and will be sluggish and slow. GIMP on the other hand is amazingly fast and stable. It will install on nearly any hardware running Mac, Windows or even Unix!
4. Gimp is more user friendly. Photoshop was actually created as a piece of software intended for graphics and photographic editing, never just digital photo editing. Because of this it’s bloated with features and functions most photographs don’t want or need. The physical layout of the screen is similar to that of Photoshop, but is also customizable and flexible to fit your needs.
5. Open source architecture means anyone can modify the core code and develop plugins and new features, you don’t need to be approved by Adobes’ development team.
6. Batch processing through automated actions is far superior in GIMP. Because photographers often need to do repeatable actions to large groups of images, this feature alone is worth its weight in gold.
7. Open, edit and save Photoshop’s native PSD file format with GIMP. If you’re editing for someone else, it doesn’t matter if they’ve started the job in Photoshop because GIMP can handle the file format.
8. Free upgrades. Not only is GIMP free to download, install and use, upgrades are free! Photoshop upgrades, which happen on average every 12-18 months can cost as much as $200, on top of the original purchase price!
9. Replicate the look and feel of Photoshop and its keyboard shortcuts in GIMP. There are several tutorial sites aimed at skinning and rearranging GIMP to fully replicate the Photoshop layout if that’s what you are used to using.
10. GIMP goes portable! As if the install of GIMP wasn’t small enough already, a portable version is available to load on your USB thumb drive to take on the go and edit programs on anyone’s computer, anywhere!
With all the benefits and upsides to GIMP and the free price of the software, it’s most definitely worth looking at when searching for an image editing software.
March 7th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
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 7th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
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 7th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Agree, As a Linux and Windows user I see this article is true but GIMP is not really partically.
March 7th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
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 7th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
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 7th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
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 7th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
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 8th, 2010 at 3:30 am
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 8th, 2010 at 8:42 am
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 8th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Like Rick said Gimp does the job for me who needs expensive photo software only photographers
March 9th, 2010 at 8:31 am
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 9th, 2010 at 10:31 am
umm….http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/
March 13th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
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 15th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
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!
April 2nd, 2010 at 4:41 am
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 5th, 2010 at 1:48 am
There are definitely arguments for both of the programs for sure. ;)
June 16th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
i’ve used both and truthfully i prefer gimp.. not because its free but because i have done my best editing throught it
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
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 26th, 2010 at 3:10 am
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.
August 21st, 2010 at 6:42 am
Gimp is more user-friendly than Photoshop?? No. No, it’s not.