Functionality: Gimp vs Photoshop
Let’s bypass the issues of features for a moment. And let’s even skip over the user interface, an area GIMP has historic issues. Let’s address basic functionality, which over the last few months has been driving me nuts. The Layer’s pallet visibility eye-con (pun intended) was unreliable, and exported JPG files would sometimes include layers that had been made invisible. It was hair-pulling. Yes, we are still working with a slight prerelease, called "Release Candidate 2" (RC2). But still, it was a version the developers had felt was ready to ship.
UI: Gimp vs Photoshop
The Whangdoodle is a goofy non-descript fictional character from the 1800s. And I’ve often thought of it when discussing GIMP’s somewhat oddball user interface. In much the same way, the Frankenstein monster is also a fictional character from the 1800s. It was put together with disparate body parts, much the way Photoshop has hacked on 3D, animation, AI, and other tools over the years.
Distorted Realities
When it comes to altering the position and arrangement of pixels, we turn to the transformation and distortion toolsets. Once again, PS solutions work elegantly. GIMP’s work as well, but are kludgy.
Isolating the Subject
Here is another daily need, isolating objects in an image. Sometimes that’s green screen, and often it can be more complex subject matter. In recent years PS has added more automated ways of doing this that can make the task far easier. In fact, as easy as pressing a single button.
Non-Destructive Editing (NDE)
This has been the battle-cry for those criticizing GIMP for a long time. It’s taken absurdly long to get what they have now. And some parts of it, their Smart Objects equivalent, have still been pushed back to version 3.2, due out…lord knows when.
CM Why Knot?
Lack of real CMYK support is a far less sexy complaint than some of the others, and hence we don’t hear much about it. This is also because we do a lot less commercial printing than we used to. The web is all RGB. Lack of CMYK was, and still can be, a perfectly legitimate reason to pass on GIMP.
Final Verdict
Let’s assume that by the time a final version 3.0 ships (it’s almost a year past the original promised dates now), that the Windows and Mac versions will get buttoned up and running like the Linux version. If that is the case, or if like me you also plan on living in Linux, then there is little question that GIMP will do most of what you need. This is good news, indeed!
FAQs
Q: Can I use GIMP for commercial work?
A: Yes, but be aware of its limitations, such as slow performance and lack of GPU boost.
Q: What are the key differences between GIMP and Photoshop?
A: GIMP is open-source, while Photoshop is proprietary. GIMP has a more kludgy user interface and fewer automated tools.
Q: Is GIMP suitable for professionals?
A: Yes, but with some caveats, such as the need for extra copies of layers for non-destructive editing and the lack of real CMYK support.
Q: What is the future of GIMP development?
A: The GIMP team is working to improve the software, but progress is slow.
