|
[gimphelp.org FAQ]
|
|
Fav Resources
Coming
|
What is a GIMP?
(It doesn't sound too healthy.)
An image editor that is robust, mature, very actively maintained and constantly improved. GIMP
stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program -- and was the initial purpose (over 10 years ago) for the popular,
cross-platform widget set GTK (the GIMP ToolKit.)
Although I am certainly biased toward the GIMP, I realize this is so because it fits my needs very well.
Below I hope I am able to give a realistic summary of what GIMP is good for, and if it is the right image editor
for your uses . . .
|
What would I use it for?
|
Photo editing. Creating web graphics, fliers, business cards . . . just about anything that can be done with pixels. If
you check out my other site, WPClipart, you'll find over 9,000 images all edited and many
created with the GIMP. It does photo editing, advanced manipulation, is scriptable in several languages, does animations, batch processing,
converts, opens and saves a multitude of image formats and comes with over 100 filters/plugins.
|
What can I compare it to?
There are a lot of image editors out there. A few new ones are designed to edit vector-based
(usually SVG) images, but the majority work on raster images, like photos. (Often referred to as BITMAP images.) Many come bundled with cameras or office suites,
but they are meant for speed and simplicity -- resize, adjust brightness/contrast, throw on a frame or automatically reduce red-eye.
If all you do is a quick and dirty edit of camera pictures, one of those is likely more efficient for you.
Then there are dedicated image editors. Several have come and gone, but there are two few heavy-hitters I will concentrate on --
Photoshop and the GIMP.
|
Before diving into that comparison I should also mention Paint Shop Pro, recently acquired by Corel.
Corel's PSP page
PSP has less functionality than either GIMP or Photoshop, but DOES support 16 bits-per-color (PS does, GIMP does not), which
is usually not noticeable to most users, but when manipulating picture qualities heavily, especially contrast, will make a difference in the
quality of final output. You may not see the difference on your computer screen. You may not be able to tell from the best output
your printer can muster -- and therefore you might not care. But pro photographers and discerning hobbyists with really good printers may
find the distinction important.
So if you are real fussy about your photos, and tend to tweak color and contrast on them -- PSP might be a good way to have
good quality output for a much lower price than Photoshop. PSP 10 sells for $119.
And lastly, PSP does do lots of stuff other than just photo tweaking -- but the level of editing capabilities is not on par with GIMP and Photoshop
due to the great assortment of tools and plugins, level manipulation, scriptability, etc. of the two I will concentrate on . . .
|
GIMP advantages over Photoshop . . .
-
Price. Photoshop costs $649 (US), GIMP costs $0.
-
Bundles extras. GIMP comes bundles with a slew of patterns and filters and "Script-FUs", including
drop shadows, lighting effects, frames, logo-maker, etc.
-
Multiple document interface (MDI) -- might seem awkward if you are accostomed to Photoshop's SDI (single...),
but it is flexible and powerful. I have used both programs extensively and find the MDI much easier to navigate, especially when
several images are opened at the same time. It is simple to shove things nearly offscreen as well as minimize, and separate
menus for each image cuts down on "oops" factor. Simply put, the UI is more modern and powerful. If someone says different,
it is because of old habit.
Disadvantages . . .
-
GIMP is not part of a workflow suite, whereas Photoshop allows documents to be easily transfered into
Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat . . .
-
Photoshop does color separations, but the GIMP only has a rudimentary plugin for this before version 2.4,
and while v.2.4 DOES have color sep capabilities, it has a way to go for production use.
-
Photoshop works with ICC color profiles, but the GIMP just begins to use them in the upcoming 2.4 version, and it
will not be at a par with Photoshop's capabilities.
-
If you work in commercial arts, you will be expected to know Photoshop, not the GIMP.
Conclusion . . . (from a GIMP fan)
Unless you need to do color seps for prepress, work in a shop that demands Adobe, or work extensively with
photos in which you intend to manipulate contrast/color values (and have excellent equiptment to reproduce them) then there
really isn't anything beyond the GIMP needed to satisfy your raster graphic needs.
And what shortcomings there are listed above in "disadvantages" will for the most part be eliminated relatively soon.
Improved color depth, CMYK and color calibration are slated to be fully incorporated after "merging" with the GEGL project,
currently being developed.
You can't go wrong learning and using Photoshop, but most of the time you can do just as well -- and sometimes even better --
using Wilber's venerable GIMP.
|
|
|