I'm always in favor of open source solutions, but GIMP is sadly not even in the same league as Photoshop. It's getting to be a fairly competent photo editor (although my understanding is that it has quite a ways to go still in terms of color management), but its design tools still lag horribly -- comparable to something in the Photoshop 4-6 range, which I suppose is usable, but wastes so much time doing simple things that a serious pro would be better off just buying PS. It would pay for itself in a week or two.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe need some competition!
- Thread starter Nick G
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm always in favor of open source solutions, but GIMP is sadly not even in the same league as Photoshop. It's getting to be a fairly competent photo editor (although my understanding is that it has quite a ways to go still in terms of color management), but its design tools still lag horribly -- comparable to something in the Photoshop 4-6 range, which I suppose is usable, but wastes so much time doing simple things that a serious pro would be better off just buying PS. It would pay for itself in a week or two.
I have yet to try Pixelmator but I have found another good graphics application called Compositor:
http://www.artlythere.com/Compositor.html
Seems a bit obscure but it has a good range of arty filters and effects. One BIG omission is layers, but perhaps that will be added in future releases.
There was also another application called Studio Artist from Synthetik Software - I remember trying a demo of it years ago and never managed to learn how to use it but it seemed pretty unique and again seemed aimed more at artists. Some amazing capabilities but it seems there has been no more development since version 3.5 in February 2006.
There is also Corel Painter but I have never tried this.
http://www.artlythere.com/Compositor.html
Seems a bit obscure but it has a good range of arty filters and effects. One BIG omission is layers, but perhaps that will be added in future releases.
There was also another application called Studio Artist from Synthetik Software - I remember trying a demo of it years ago and never managed to learn how to use it but it seemed pretty unique and again seemed aimed more at artists. Some amazing capabilities but it seems there has been no more development since version 3.5 in February 2006.
There is also Corel Painter but I have never tried this.
Right now you are looking right at one huge competitor, Apple and Quartz.
They cloned Postscript when Adobe asked too much money for each OS X install of display Postcript.
Would be nice to see Flash get the same treatment. Quite sure it couldn't be any slower than Abode's version.
They cloned Postscript when Adobe asked too much money for each OS X install of display Postcript.
Would be nice to see Flash get the same treatment. Quite sure it couldn't be any slower than Abode's version.
In some ways competition would be good, and those of us who have still continued to use QuarkXpress (as well as InDesign) have provided some support to the only realistic competitor in pro layout apps that Adobe have.
However, there's also something to be said for industry-wide monopolistic standards that a large majority of designers can use and agree on, as anyone who has been sent a Microsoft Publisher file will understand.
However, there's also something to be said for industry-wide monopolistic standards that a large majority of designers can use and agree on, as anyone who has been sent a Microsoft Publisher file will understand.
You can have standards without a monopoly. In fact, monopolies tend to undermine standards if anything -- just look at HTML.
There are technical standards, yes, that set out terms of agreement that developers or manufacturers can agree on to produce products, but I'm referring to standard apps that enable designers to transfer their skills pretty easily.
If I drop using the Creative Suite and somehow find (unlikely) replacements to do the same thing, I'm restricting my ability to find work or to work with clients and suppliers. Yes, we're locked in, but that has advantages that mitigate against the downside, for instance, a huge community of users that can offer support, advice, tips and tutorials.
Pages from Apple was a small shot across the bow, carefully targeted to fill a space left in the market by both Quark and Adobe because neither of them have produced a light or elements version of InDesign or Xpress. Likewise, there are a number of low-end replacements for Photoshop, but very few, if any of them, offer full support for spot colour work, for instance.
If Apple suddenly unveiled a rounded suite of professional design apps for both Windows and Mac, that fully replicated the Creative Suite's functions, then I have a hunch that Adobe would consider pulling out of the Mac platform altogether as retaliation... and that would pose problems for many of us.
Competition doesn't necessarily mean skill incompatibility any more than it means file incompatibility. When InDesign took over the publishing world from Quark, printers were accepting both file formats (many still do), and designers who had used Quark learned to use InDesign. There were shops that used both, and employment for users of both (and there is in fact still room in this world for Quark experts, even if it's no longer dominant).
If anything, the new competitor added jobs, because houses that couldn't afford Quark and a zillion plugins could afford InDesign, and rather than having to spend months learning an arcane toolset, new InDesign users who understood design terminology and weren't afraid of poking through menus could get up and running within a few days.
There can be strong user bases, tutorials, etc. for multiple competing applications. Knowing how to use one doesn't preclude you from knowing how to use another. I bet you could find plenty of people on this board who were proficient in both Illustrator and Freehand before Macromedia was acquired.
Open standards for file formats would increase compatibility and open up the market to competition, which is a Good Thing (TM) as far as innovation and pricing.
If anything, the new competitor added jobs, because houses that couldn't afford Quark and a zillion plugins could afford InDesign, and rather than having to spend months learning an arcane toolset, new InDesign users who understood design terminology and weren't afraid of poking through menus could get up and running within a few days.
There can be strong user bases, tutorials, etc. for multiple competing applications. Knowing how to use one doesn't preclude you from knowing how to use another. I bet you could find plenty of people on this board who were proficient in both Illustrator and Freehand before Macromedia was acquired.
Open standards for file formats would increase compatibility and open up the market to competition, which is a Good Thing (TM) as far as innovation and pricing.
You've made good points but as far as this point goes, that is solely because Adobe could and did introduce InDesign as a loss leader and eventually bundle it with the Creative Suite, leveraging common tools to further integrate the apps and ease transition. They had the market position, the cash and the reputation to do so, unlike anyone else.
A competitor like Apple would be introducing something from scratch, a considerable hurdle to adoption. Even Quark have showed little interest in producing a fully-fledged photo editor; they've nibbled around the edges with limited Flash and photo manipulation within QuarkXpress.
Adobe are just like Microsoft with Office. The costs for a competitor to muscle in at this stage are considerable. The only people with the money and clout are Apple, Microsoft and Google, neither of which need to divert resources into this field to be successful.
Oh, I agree that the barrier to entry is too high right now to be practical. Still doesn't mean I don't wish there *were* competition or that I don't think it would be a good thing if there were.
It is inconceivable that they break things and/or release updates with bugs and rather that fix those issues for the current version they list them as 'features' for CSx that is about to be released. So if I don't want Dreamweaver to lock at startup, Photoshop to crash unexpectedly or have Illustrator actually feel faster than say ver. 8 I need to buy CS4? Excellent! (Which I did because I run a business and Cs3 was a horrible experience for me).
Maybe others don't feel this way but I've felt that the innovation stopped around CS1 with very minor additions to the tools and layer modes but with a full price upgrade. (Yes non-destructible layer effects are great but not worth $599) Time to stop stuffing these apps with more 'features' and just make the ones there work faster, more intuitively and feel snappier on today's hardware than PS6 did on my old PII system from 10yrs ago.
Maybe others don't feel this way but I've felt that the innovation stopped around CS1 with very minor additions to the tools and layer modes but with a full price upgrade. (Yes non-destructible layer effects are great but not worth $599) Time to stop stuffing these apps with more 'features' and just make the ones there work faster, more intuitively and feel snappier on today's hardware than PS6 did on my old PII system from 10yrs ago.
I disagree. While I still find it very unlikely Apple would release any sort of head-on competition to Adboe's Creative Suite, I don't think it would cause Adobe to take their ball and go home.
First of all, anything released by Apple (or any other company for that matter) would likely take a minimum of 5 years to see any significant adoption across the field - no matter how good the programs are. (I also doubt that Apple would release the programs for Windows, as they would want to entice more people to switch to their platform).
Secondly, for a similar example, Microsoft has not withdrawn Office for Mac even though Apple has essentially released their own office suite now (Pages, Numbers, Keynote), as well as integrating Exchange support into Snow Leopard. In fact, Microsoft is creating Outlook for Mac due in the next release.
I still think the best scenario would be for Quark to release a vector app, photo editing app (some of which is integrated into Quark already), and some sort of web publishing app. Because it's making less and less sense to purchase Quark on top of Creative Suite when it already includes a page layout program.
---------
I haven't used Quark since v4. Back when they had a mild amount of contempt for their users. Wasn't one Quark exec quoted as saying that switching to InDesign was essentially suicide for a user? Anyway, I hear Quark is leaps and bounds ahead of where they were back in the days of version 4. And I would honestly consider switching back to it, but it's very hard to justify the cost at this point.
That's fairly persuasive, although I wouldn't imagine Microsoft see anything in iWork as much as of a threat to their core business.
It seems that Quark have decided to concentrate on larger publishing systems in corporate publishing workflows. Last year, there were even rumours that Quark 8 would be the last desktop version.
For all the knocks that Adobe gets, I still think the entire suite represents excellent value, but if I had to buy upgrades right now which I'm not, I'd probably skip each alternate version.
IMO adobe is keeping us trained on using non-uniform software, considering half of the panels and functions that do the same thing in different programs look and act completely different for no reason.
Frankly my resentment toward this company has risen 1000 fold over the last year or so. I look forward to any alternatives that come along in the future. It's just so many bugs, so many workarounds, the insulting installation/deinstallation processes, adobe updater (go **** yourself), all the inconsistencies across apps, the Windowsification of their interface, flash on mac, reader... and on and on.
Frankly my resentment toward this company has risen 1000 fold over the last year or so. I look forward to any alternatives that come along in the future. It's just so many bugs, so many workarounds, the insulting installation/deinstallation processes, adobe updater (go **** yourself), all the inconsistencies across apps, the Windowsification of their interface, flash on mac, reader... and on and on.
Er. I've changed my mind. Pass the pitchforks, heat up the tar and fetch the feathers.
Especially the Windowsification of their interface
Ya Adobe costs too much and updates waay to fast anymore. Its sad how fast they drop support for their programs. (No Snow Leopard updates for CS3? Seriously!?)
I hate to support piracy (as a programmer TRUST ME I hate it) but I think its even worse when a company charges you $2500 for a software suite they drop support for a year and a half later.
This doesn't justify anything, but there have apparently been some massive layoffs at Adobe over the past year due to the economy. I honestly think that they don't support CS3 because they lack the manpower to do so.
--------------------------------------
Oh, and for all of the Adobe gripers on this thread....It ain't just you who has noticed a steady decline in quality.
Well if Apple ever does release a design suite to challenge Adobe, I think the best start would be to acquire and revive Freehand, seeing as Adobe no longer seem to want it. Add some new features, bring it up-to-date and you'd have a very good way to start gaining some loyal customers, as I know Freehand was very popular. Bundle it with Aperture 3, a raster graphics app and a web design/management app and Mac users would finally have a credible alternative that'd be optimised for the platform instead of being treated as second best.
Adobe just laid off 680 more people yesterday 9% of their workforce. Ouch.
In other words, I wouldn't expect any significant improvements in quality control anytime soon. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised to see a mediocre half-baked CS5 rushed out of the gate in Q2 2010 to boost profits. Which unfortunately, I will be buying since I'm on CS3.
Yeah. I'm a cynic.
In other words, I wouldn't expect any significant improvements in quality control anytime soon. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised to see a mediocre half-baked CS5 rushed out of the gate in Q2 2010 to boost profits. Which unfortunately, I will be buying since I'm on CS3.
Yeah. I'm a cynic.
The whole point of Open Source is that YOU (Yes YOU) have total access to the source code and can change it any why you like. There is no need to wait or ask first. Don't complain, do something about it.
OK so you don't know anything about software or how computers work and don't know how to add the features you want. But you can find other who think like you do. You can organizes and write requirements and user manuals and test and do quality control and chip in some cash to hire a software engineer.
ou can mockup some conntrol pannels and write descriptions of what the controls do and shop these idea around, listen to comments and modify those mockups. You can lead focus groups and study user interface designs. There are plenty of software people who are not good at this kind of work and would love to implement good ground breaking new ideas. few of them however would be willing to write a PS clone. No fun in doing what's been done.
Open Source is "owned" by the users themselves and if the software does not work for them only the owners are to blame.
You know, I love the open source model, and I'm usually an advocate of open source. I use open source web apps every day to do my job; I hunt bugs, and contribute patches and plugins where I can.
But this is where the zealots get it wrong.
I use and contribute to open source apps that have already been developed to the point where they're useful to me. My time is valuable and I'm not going to waste it fooling around with something that *might* be useful in a few years if enough other people bother to work on it.
GIMP is not currently useful at all to the professional designer. Getting it just to where Photoshop was 5 years ago represents hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars worth of developer hours, and would take a few years to complete even if you could find enough users willing to pool their resources to pay someone to do it. Bringing it up to par with Photoshop's current capabilities isn't likely to happen within any timeframe worth bothering with.
And in the meantime we still have to pay for our Adobe software just to do our jobs. Given that the total pool of potential users of the functionality I'm talking about is miniscule compared to the potential userbase of the most successful open source apps like Firefox and OpenOffice, and given that almost none of us are expert graphics programmers with lots of free time to spare, where do you think all that cash and all those developer hours are coming from?
ChrisA: I see where you're coming from, and you do make some valid points....but...I seriously doubt I'll find a printer who won't have problems with source files made with a homebrew version of GIMP - or any other open-source graphic design application.
As for open source, yes it's great that they provide software for free, and yes, if you have the programming background you can do your own tweaks but I like most other people don't have this knowledge. So of course I'm prepared to pay for an app that does a professional job. However, when you consider the likes of PhotoLine and Pixelmator cost between £30-50 then Photoshop's asking price seems pretty steep to me. Is it the likes of colour swatches that bump up the prices too?
Also, I remember reading somewhere that in the US students can use the educational versions of Adobe software for commercial use. Is this true? If so, then us in the UK are definitely getting a raw deal as this is a violation of the license here, and we also have to pay more for the software. Why should we lose out in a global economy?
The upgrade policy sucks too. I have Photoshop 7.0 on my old Mac (which I don't use any more as it's so SLOOOOW) which i realise is 7 years old. But why should I have to pay full price for an upgrade? Seems greedy IMO. Am I really getting another £600 worth of new features compared to version 7.0? I think not! Pirating is tempting but I don't want to go that route. I'd like to get the software legitimately and benefit from the online help & support etc.
With Adobe seriously struggling and Apple doing so well it would be somewhat ironic if Apple did revive Freehand. Does anyone think this is a possibility? Seems like a smart business move to me.
Also, I remember reading somewhere that in the US students can use the educational versions of Adobe software for commercial use. Is this true? If so, then us in the UK are definitely getting a raw deal as this is a violation of the license here, and we also have to pay more for the software. Why should we lose out in a global economy?
The upgrade policy sucks too. I have Photoshop 7.0 on my old Mac (which I don't use any more as it's so SLOOOOW) which i realise is 7 years old. But why should I have to pay full price for an upgrade? Seems greedy IMO. Am I really getting another £600 worth of new features compared to version 7.0? I think not! Pirating is tempting but I don't want to go that route. I'd like to get the software legitimately and benefit from the online help & support etc.
With Adobe seriously struggling and Apple doing so well it would be somewhat ironic if Apple did revive Freehand. Does anyone think this is a possibility? Seems like a smart business move to me.
You're confusing "standardised best industry standard/practice" with "aggressive market capitalisation", there's a difference....
One dictates procedure, standard and terminology for an industry the other dictates ownership of features by one specific organisation in an industry.
I've had great results with Pixelmator as a Photoshop alternative, I have yet to find a decent illustrator substitute. I might just end up getting CS4, $299 (Education pricing) is not that bad, but it could get expensive after upgrading to CS5.