I expected ridiculous propaganda from Adobe, but they give absolutely no reasons why Photoshop is better than Gimp and list a bunch of things that Gimp can do too.
They only mention Gimp a few times at the top and they never mention it again after:
How is Photoshop different from Gimp?
They ask a question they literally never answer.
They could have lied, they could have stretched the truth, they could have brought up the paltry number of things Photoshop does that Gimp can’t. They never do. They never say what Gimp can or can’t do.
Like I said, I expected ridiculous propaganda. I didn’t expect them to just pretend Gimp doesn’t exist in their article about Gimp.
They may have made the page purely for SEO to grab a few people considering downloading GIMP.
That makes a lot of sense.
This seems to be the plan. It’s the third result for ‘photoshop vs gimp’ on DDG.
It’s this, but they’re not targeting GIMP.
Their SEO goons just see what searches contain photoshop and try to create content that will match. In this case they found “photoshop vs gimp”. I doubt that whoever wrote this had ever heard of GIMP.
Maybe they could get the AI to believe it while they are at it
Now that is an advantage of Gimp over Photoshop. They aren’t trying to bake AI into Gimp. There are AI plugins, but you don’t have to have that shit built into your image editor if you pick Gimp over Photoshop.
How is Photoshop different from Gimp?
Photoshop is a subscription-based…
Oh, so Gimp is better then, thanks Adobe!
I truly hate how shit like Adobe and ProTools become the only acceptable software to use “inside the industry”. Plenty of independent self publishers use tools like Gimp and Reaper. But the velvet rope mindset refuses to accept that in certain circles.
Those same types of folks are the most likely to get replaced by AI. So maybe that will be some bittersweet Schadenfreude.
I think, for the most part, is that GIMP is obscure. Not as in ‘unknown’ but as in ‘really hard to master, how does anything work?’ It has been this way, voluntarily.
I think it’s what lacks in GIMP, a good user experience.
I have used gimp for the better part of the last ten years. It’s good. I have used Photoshop less than ten times in the same timespan. But when I need to do something, it will always be easier to me on photoshop, eveh though I’m not acquainted with it…
Protools can suck it. :) REAPER is where it’s at.
How is Photoshop different from Gimp?
Photoshop is a subscription-based graphic design and photo editing program with a large catalog of advanced features that go beyond simple photo retouching. It’s the go-to tool for experienced photographers, graphic designers, web developers, and film editors. But at the same time, its tools are approachable enough for beginners and hobbyists looking to tweak images for work or create artwork in their free time.
Okay cool, that’s all technically true or unverifiable. What makes Gimp different, Adobe?
You don’t have to pay for it.
But they don’t like mentioning that part.
Edit: Having used both, the only real disadvantage I can see when it comes to Gimp in a Photoshop vs. Gimp comparison- apart from special cases- is that Gimp (for me anyway) has a higher learning curve. I end up having to look up how to do something more often with Gimp. But not having to pay Adobe a monthly fee makes up for that.
I once read that adobe also patents the simplest UX improvement, which means that gimp can’t implement good ideas that people are already used to.
I wonder if that’s why Gimp also has different hotkeys than Photoshop in some instances. Some of them seem pretty arbitrary. Like E is ellipse select in Gimp but eraser in Photoshop. The latter seems more intuitive to me.
Nah, there’s other apps that have similar or the same shortcut keys. Gump just tries to be it’s own thing and not worry about Photoshop.
I think they don’t take inspiration from Photoshop. Either it’s been a clone of a different product at some time or they developed it themselves. Hence the differences. I mean the whole UI doen’t really resemble similarity to Photoshop.
I think for a real Photoshop vs GIMP comparison from the eyes of a professional, I’d like to share Franklin Veaux’s perspective. He’s an author, graphic designer, and the infamous local polygamist.
I would note that the reply is 3 years old and many things have changed in the interim, so I think an updated reply would be warranted for a good comparison.
Just a cursory glance, but GIMP still doesn’t seem to support additive curves and CMYK support is still rudimentary and needs a plugin
I’m not surprised at least some of it applies, but I’m not sure what still applies and what doesn’t without looking it all up. But I do understand their general point.
I doubt that GIMP will ever overtake Photoshop. Adobe has the money to employ (and does employ) hundreds of experts in their fields to work on Photoshop for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Although GIMP is very impressive as an open-source project and a massive testament to how far the free software model can go, it is still, at the end of the day, made by a ragtag band of (mostly) amateurs volunteering their time. Adobe, by brute force, can deliver a higher-quality product just by having the resources to employ the best people to work for them.
I love GIMP. I use it for all my image editing needs and would never consider giving a dime to Adobe. But I don’t do it for a living and I respect the opinions of those who do when they say that GIMP isn’t a good replacement for Photoshop.
Oh yeah, I agree. Photoshop will probably continue to dominate, at least for the foreseeable future. The same with Premiere vs. Resolve. Resolve is free (and, in my opinion, pretty much on par with Premiere in most applications), but Adobe has the money.
You may be surprised. I use Photoshop in my profession and I am desperately trying to move away from it. Not just because of the obvious Adobe is the worst, but it has been getting progressively worse to use for me. I don’t speak for everyone of course but at least for me there’s really only a few very small things that would make me switch instantly.
Photoshop just infuriates me lately, you’d think with all their employees they’d figure out how not to lose my hotkeys every automatic update, or that I’ve been using it for over a decade and don’t need annoying tutorial popups for every tool.
The priorities of a large company can often be opposed to making their software better, like adding AI into everything or adding new features nobody really needs so they can have a flashy presentation at some conference, or deprecating features in order to move people to their latest acquisitions program instead.
Blender is a great example of open source being totally viable for replacing commercial software. I use it professionally and it’s never been a limiting factor for me.
For a real Photoshop vs GIMP discussion, I think I’ll leave a link to Franklin Veaux’s Quora post here.
tl;dr there is actually a lot of functionality in Photoshop not present in GIMP that most casual users will never use, but is very important to professionals. People don’t pay hundreds of dollars to Adobe just for funsies.
I would argue that there’s also lots of professionals who don’t use or need those features. Not everyone is using photoshop for print work, which that link seems to mostly discuss. It is still true, though, and every time I try to switch away from photoshop I run into some niche missing feature I need that most people wouldn’t care about.
There’s a ton of functionality in Photoshop that even pros never use. Every user of Photoshop needs something different from it. Sure, there’s a core of features that everyone uses (and which the Gimp also has) but there’s also countless other niche features that are a crucial part of the workflow for tons of users and they won’t give them up. This is one of the reasons Photoshop is so hard to replace.
It’s also the reason Latex is tough to replace as well. It’s a phenomenon which is not limited to commercial software, that’s for sure.
Photoshop lets you draw a circle
This one hurt.
So does Gimp…
It’s more complex. In Photoshop, it’s a single tool. In GIMP, you make a circular selection, convert it to a path, and then stroke the path.
Not only is this more convoluted, it’s bewilderingly unintuitive to beginners and is definitely one of GIMP’s shortcomings.
One can reduce to two steps:
- Draw elipse selection
- Fill with paint bucket
I’ll not disagree that it is unintuitive, however. But, that was not the statement.
That doesn’t do the same thing, I guess the goal is really how to draw the outline of a circle
Yeah. That’s different. The way that I’d do it, supposing it didn’t need to be perfect (I’d use a vector-based program like Inkscape for that), would be to create the selection, paint bucket, contact selection by desired number of pixels, clear. Not as good as converting to a path but more intuitive to me having learned PS circa early 2000s.
It’s just standard corporatese - if it’s not insulting your intelligence they’re not doing it right.
Obligatory: Do people not know that Krita exists?
Krita isn’t for image editing
I’ve found Krita to be a less clumsy way to edit images than GIMP, been using it that way for years.
Yes, GIMP is powerful when used correctly, but Krita is far closer to Photoshop in terms of UI and out of the box features.
I edit images in Krita…
It isn’t for image editing
Well I’m not gonna stop doing it.
No, don’t you understand? It is not for image editing
They are honestly different beasts
