Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

rileybrandt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 130 posts

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#51

Post by skrowl »

tracker1 wrote: post #26
skrowl wrote: post #2

If you use Windows, consider Paint.NET ( http://www.getpaint.net ) instead of GIMP. It's much quicker (particularly the 4.0 beta builds) and has a much more Photoshop-like UI out of the box.

I like Paint.Net a lot on the windows side... for Mac/Linux alternative, look into Pinta http://pinta-project.com/ ... it's essentially a cross-platform port of Paint.Net They do the vast majority of what most people need in a simple photo editor.

Looks like a clone rather than a port (as paint.net isn't open source you can't really port it), but I'll take a look.

Their github (https://github.com/PintaProject/Pinta) makes it look like the project may be abandoned.

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#52

Post by pessimizer »

dperfect wrote: post #32
pessimizer wrote: post #25

This is like using Vim-mode to switch to Emacs, or installing Lindows. If people could accept the trivial conventions of the software you're moving to ("How can I use GIMP? The hotkeys are different!") and stop treating it like a free badly-executed Photoshop clone, they might realize that it's really nice to work in. My problems with GIMP were the CMYK stuff and a few terminology issues. I really love the GIMP inter…

The thing you're missing is that the differences between GIMP and Photoshop are not just user interface idioms. I wish it were that simple (I'd love to switch to GIMP if I could). It's not a matter of "learning something new"; it's the fact that without real non-destructive editing features, GIMP is basically just an enhanced version of MS Paint in the hands of serious photographers and retouchers. Non-destructive ed…

I'm not trying to deny that GIMP has technical deficits compared to current versions of Photoshop - I'm certainly not enough of a Photoshop power-user to say that. I am annoyed about the amount of time wasted in making GIMP look like Photoshop rather than attacking the feature deficits. (Of course, those developers are just scratching their own itch, and we should all be grateful to them for it, and if I care about it so much, I should be coding it.)

If I were a Photoshop user, and GIMP looked just like Photoshop but worked differently, it would leave a really sour taste in my mouth. Additionally, Photoshop can change interface elements at a whim, so it's a moving target of dubious benefit.

>GIMP is basically just an enhanced version of MS Paint

GIMP is 10000x the tools that people used to do wonderful graphic work over the history of photography. If you're willing to pay thousands in order not to devise a workflow that doesn't need "real non-destructive editing features," the GIMP is currently not for you.

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#53

Post by agumonkey »

pessimizer wrote: post #25

This is like using Vim-mode to switch to Emacs, or installing Lindows. If people could accept the trivial conventions of the software you're moving to ("How can I use GIMP? The hotkeys are different!") and stop treating it like a free badly-executed Photoshop clone, they might realize that it's really nice to work in. My problems with GIMP were the CMYK stuff and a few terminology issues. I really love the GIMP inter…

Funny, I've used many image editing software using different paradigm and Gimp manages to cut me at every corner.

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#54

Post by dperfect »

themodelplumber wrote: post #50
dperfect wrote: post #14

If you're using Photoshop for the purpose it was designed for (editing photos, not illustration/painting from scratch), then GIMP is absolutely inferior in its current form. If you're making edits directly to source pixel layers (or even making duplicate flattened layers and working on those), you're doing it wrong. Photoshop is designed for non-destructive editing. An essential part of that is adjustment layers. Man…

If you're making edits directly to source pixel layers (or even making duplicate flattened layers and working on those), you're doing it wrong. That seems like a rather absolutist statement. I work with PS CC and its great features all day at work but I guess I still remember the fantastic work that was done before those features existed. I have colleagues who still edit their photos using the apparently-despised tec…

Agreed. Some gifted people create stunning works of art with unconventional or limited tools. Tatsuo Horiuchi uses Excel to create beautiful paintings.

I guess my point is that it's hard to argue against using non-destructive editing if it's available and you understand it. Can you create great things without it? Of course.

Bringing the analogy back to programming: some people create useful/beautiful apps without using any form of revision control, and that's fine for them. But if you know how to use revision control and have access to it, then is there really any strong reason not to use it, especially if you're working professionally? It helps increase productivity far more than not using it. For that reason, I'd definitely tell other developers that if they aren't using revision control for professional work, they're doing it wrong.

If you were to pick two professional photographers or retouchers at random - one who uses non-destructive editing and the other who doesn't, I'd be willing to bet the one who uses it (all else being equal) produces more consistent, high quality results and with greater efficiency than the one who doesn't.

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#55

Post by windsurfer »

niels_olson wrote: post #20
Joeboy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Makes me wish people weren't so inflexible about the tiniest UI differences. It's difficult to please the converts. I replaced Photoshop with Gimp years ago, but I still find Gimp incredibly painful to use. It accounts for a tiny proportion of my software use, but a massive proportion of my swearing. I use to think it was just down to being familiar with Photoshop, but I think I can only excuse it on that basis for…

Yeah, is it just me or are InkScape and GIMP both set up with rather unhelpful defaults? I didn't run into such problems with Huygen.

Inkscape is actually very good, and certainly comparable to Adobe Illustrator, if not superior nowadays. The main problem I see people have with Inkscape is when they have a MacOS computer, the only available build is from 3 years ago.

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#56

Post by thinkersilver »

dperfect wrote: post #32
pessimizer wrote: post #25

This is like using Vim-mode to switch to Emacs, or installing Lindows. If people could accept the trivial conventions of the software you're moving to ("How can I use GIMP? The hotkeys are different!") and stop treating it like a free badly-executed Photoshop clone, they might realize that it's really nice to work in. My problems with GIMP were the CMYK stuff and a few terminology issues. I really love the GIMP inter…

The thing you're missing is that the differences between GIMP and Photoshop are not just user interface idioms. I wish it were that simple (I'd love to switch to GIMP if I could). It's not a matter of "learning something new"; it's the fact that without real non-destructive editing features, GIMP is basically just an enhanced version of MS Paint in the hands of serious photographers and retouchers. Non-destructive ed…

Ex-Gimp User here. The article does point out that most photographer workflows are in their raw editors. You get Non Destructive Editing with tools like Darktable in Linux. Non destructive editing helps to improve your productivity. It's similar to making code changes knowing you have a revision system behind and to when you don't. That being said non destructive doesn't make you a better retoucher, it's there to save your ass, which happens less often for the seasoned professional. Professionals were productive long before non destructive editing. Gimp is used professionally, even though we hear little about that. Krita and Blender have all been used on big budget movies as well. Gimps biggest problem IMHO ( and strictly from my experience) is usability. This post isn't going to turn into a typical gimp ui rant even though gimp does makes my head hurt; a lot but I don't think I'll be going back to gimp unless I really have to. I have used since it since 2001 and seeing it lag behind other open source editors makes me sometimes wonder why usability is an after thought.

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#57

Post by Guvante »

pessimizer wrote: post #52
dperfect wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing you're missing is that the differences between GIMP and Photoshop are not just user interface idioms. I wish it were that simple (I'd love to switch to GIMP if I could). It's not a matter of "learning something new"; it's the fact that without real non-destructive editing features, GIMP is basically just an enhanced version of MS Paint in the hands of serious photographers and retouchers. Non-destructive ed…

I'm not trying to deny that GIMP has technical deficits compared to current versions of Photoshop - I'm certainly not enough of a Photoshop power-user to say that. I am annoyed about the amount of time wasted in making GIMP look like Photoshop rather than attacking the feature deficits. (Of course, those developers are just scratching their own itch, and we should all be grateful to them for it, and if I care about i…

> If you're willing to pay thousands

Photoshop CS6 is $700. If you are doing professional work that is a trivial amount of money.

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#58

Post by adamwong246 »

dperfect wrote: post #32
pessimizer wrote: post #25

This is like using Vim-mode to switch to Emacs, or installing Lindows. If people could accept the trivial conventions of the software you're moving to ("How can I use GIMP? The hotkeys are different!") and stop treating it like a free badly-executed Photoshop clone, they might realize that it's really nice to work in. My problems with GIMP were the CMYK stuff and a few terminology issues. I really love the GIMP inter…

The thing you're missing is that the differences between GIMP and Photoshop are not just user interface idioms. I wish it were that simple (I'd love to switch to GIMP if I could). It's not a matter of "learning something new"; it's the fact that without real non-destructive editing features, GIMP is basically just an enhanced version of MS Paint in the hands of serious photographers and retouchers. Non-destructive ed…

Perhaps off subject but I think there is a need for a non-destructive, functional script-based image editor. I find, as a programmer, I prefer using ImageMagick when I can. Wouldn't it be nice to have the intuition of a UI backed by scripting? Imagine that at each step in your function, you can tweak it using traditional ui tools and the "tweaks" are automatically reflected in the script. To get the final export, you simply use the original image as the argument of your function.

Or perhaps such a thing already exists. If so, I'd like to see it.

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#59

Post by evan_ »

th0ma5 wrote: post #45

As a developer, I've often felt that if I can't script something, embed it into my own software or service, or even redistribute it, then I haven't really done it with software. This is an unrealistic goal if I was in DTP work still, but by setting this bar, I've been amazed about how my understanding of the context of a problem has broadened my horizons. For instance I feel I now have a great grasp on Nurbs, Voxels,…

Photoshop got full scripting support in 2003 with Photoshop CS. Before that you had to install a free plugin and it didn't support everything but it was still pretty powerful, I don't remember exactly when that came out but I think it was first for version 6 in 2000.

Photoshop has also had full recordable macro support ("Actions") since 1996. Many photographers I've worked with have developed huge suites of actions they've created that enable them to automate much of their workflow despite having no coding ability whatsoever.

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/scripting.html

Re: Switch from Photoshop to Gimp: Tips From a Pro

#60

Post by acomjean »

Guvante wrote: post #57
pessimizer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to deny that GIMP has technical deficits compared to current versions of Photoshop - I'm certainly not enough of a Photoshop power-user to say that. I am annoyed about the amount of time wasted in making GIMP look like Photoshop rather than attacking the feature deficits. (Of course, those developers are just scratching their own itch, and we should all be grateful to them for it, and if I care about i…

> If you're willing to pay thousands Photoshop CS6 is $700. If you are doing professional work that is a trivial amount of money.

I don't think you can just buy photoshop anymore.

You have to subscribe to it for a monthly fee

Post reply on HN