Any professional designers using Gimpshop instead of Adobe?

[bousozoku]

Actually, if you were to ask my wife she would tell you that she is constantly running into factories overseas that work with Corel products vs. Adobe. Not saying that it is so here in the states but I do also know of some smaller studios that use Corel as well as some artist who use Photo-Paint. I don't think it really matters as to who made the application but rather more does it do what the desiner/artist/studio wants. Corel can export and accept most major formats just as Adobe products can... This is no way an endorsement for Corel.. just saying that there might be more using it then we know..
...

I'm not saying that people don't use Corel products. In fact, I bought the Corel Draw 10 upgrade simply because it was first on Mac OS X natively and could handle my printing needs instead of having to re-boot into Mac OS 9.

The difference between Corel and other applications can be seen clearly in one step: looking up a Pantone colour. If I know the number or the general number range, I can get to it quickly with Freehand or Illustrator, but Corel Draw makes me scroll through every colour and the slider isn't that precise. Of course, The GIMP probably doesn't even have any support for Pantone colours and therefore would be spot process hell and illustrates how spending $399 can save you and your printer thousands.

 

[zim]

I'm not saying that people don't use Corel products. In fact, I bought the Corel Draw 10 upgrade simply because it was first on Mac OS X natively and could handle my printing needs instead of having to re-boot into Mac OS 9.

The difference between Corel and other applications can be seen clearly in one step: looking up a Pantone colour. If I know the number or the general number range, I can get to it quickly with Freehand or Illustrator, but Corel Draw makes me scroll through every colour and the slider isn't that precise. Of course, The GIMP probably doesn't even have any support for Pantone colours and therefore would be spot process hell and illustrates how spending $399 can save you and your printer thousands.

Sigh.. Pantone.. why can't Adobe make Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop all have the same pantone search ? It annoys me that the are all different... sorry, had to get that out.

I know that you weren't saying people don't use it. I read it as you were possibly saying people in the "profession" didn't, whatever profession that is we are talking about here .. design is such a board term.

 

[bousozoku]

Sigh.. Pantone.. why can't Adobe make Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop all have the same pantone search ? It annoys me that the are all different... sorry, had to get that out.

I know that you weren't saying people don't use it. I read it as you were possibly saying people in the "profession" didn't, whatever profession that is we are talking about here .. design is such a board term.

At least, Adobe isn't as inconsistent as Macromedia but I love that select all and de-select all differs between applications.

People, working in the profession and in their right mind, don't use it. However, it has its uses. It comes with quite a lot of ITC typefaces that are worth more than the retail price. It seems to me that Corel Draw is used quite a bit in real estate and other small offices where they're not quite so concerned with precision or art.

 

[Blue Velvet]

It's not there yet, but I think it will happen...

We've given you a dozen reasons why not, yet you persist with this odd pipe-dream, bumping the topic without casting any more light on the situation.

Can I easily work in 16bit or CMYK or produce duo or tritones with GimpShop? No.

Those who compare open-source design apps to their commercial counterparts haven't a clue about getting work to print. They might be OK for your holiday snaps going to your inkjet but that's about it.

Pointless and circular thread.

 

[eclipse]

OK, ok. I seriously didn't mean any offence.
All I meant was that there are thousands of people working on open source and given time it might just do all these whizzbang things.
But for now, I take your word for it and am prepared to drop it.

I check with a positive renewable energy and sustainable news site called Worldchanging which seem to think that almost everything is going to be Open Source one day.

However, I hear that you are saying that "one day" could be way distant if the technical differences are currently that vast. I was not intentionally "bumping" this thread —*it's not as if it's like peak oil to me.

In the meantime, I will go back to studying Quark and Photoshop with extra enthusiasm after this thread! Live it, learn it, love it.

Sorry if I caused any offence.

 

[Skeeball236]

del

 

[slooksterPSV]

If two people from this forum meet up and get married, I want to know, cause then you'll be true MacRumorians for life. -- Sorry that's off topic.

I saw a post about Pantone color searches - can't you define your own? Personally, I'd rather use CMYK, ya know I don't care for RGB really either. CYMK gives me a lot of control because I can tell difference in tints, if something is slighly more green, I can tell, something more red, I can tell etc. Anyways there is my color theory.

 

[bousozoku]

If two people from this forum meet up and get married, I want to know, cause then you'll be true MacRumorians for life. -- Sorry that's off topic.

I saw a post about Pantone color searches - can't you define your own? Personally, I'd rather use CMYK, ya know I don't care for RGB really either. CYMK gives me a lot of control because I can tell difference in tints, if something is slighly more green, I can tell, something more red, I can tell etc. Anyways there is my color theory.

If you don't have the Pantone definitions, it would be extremely difficult to add them since they would need to be recognised at the printer and the inks have to be loaded to give that precise colour that is certified by Pantone.

I don't see the company that charges over $200 for a kit of swatches going open source any time soon.

 

[RacerX]

I don't see the company that charges over $200 for a kit of swatches going open source any time soon.

You also don't see Apple including Pantone colors with the Colors panel (which was included with NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP and early versions of Rhapsody). Pantone is expensive to incorporate into your software... in any way.

 

[bousozoku]

You also don't see Apple including Pantone colors with the Colors panel (which was included with NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP and early versions of Rhapsody). Pantone is expensive to incorporate into your software... in any way.

Awww, those 40,000+ users were so lucky.

Apple said that they have around 19 million active Mac OS X users. That's a lot more money to pay for a lot of consumers to waste on a Pantone colour chooser when they barely use one colour chooser now.

 

[xPismo]

I found that very interesting. I too would like to see more opensource apps become more robust and used more regularly, but I do see the counter argument for the pro level app from a single company.

I switched to NeoOffice from MSWord, but I would never think of dropping FCS or Avid for a open source alternative. One I use as a basic text editor, and the other makes my bread.

 

[ATD]

I saw a post about Pantone color searches - can't you define your own? Personally, I'd rather use CMYK, ya know I don't care for RGB really either. CYMK gives me a lot of control because I can tell difference in tints, if something is slighly more green, I can tell, something more red, I can tell etc. Anyways there is my color theory.

As bousozoku said and I will add Pantones have nothing to do with how you see colors in your Photoshop files. Many of the Pantone inks are beyond the CMYK spectrum. If your client only has the money for a 2 color printing job you can't hand the printer a CMYK or RGB file. You spec it with Pantones and print it with Pantones. I have clients that run 8 color jobs, they want rich printed pieces that go beyond the CMYK spectrum. In that case it's CMYK + varnishes + Pantones. Guessing at the Pantone definitions is not a very good idea.

 

[maxrobertson]

I tried GimpShop... hated it. Photoshop is just so much more Mac-like, even on Windows. Plus, I really dislike the click-to-focus weirdness, and the way they tried to Aquafy it, but failed miserably because they don't understand what Aqua is about. Plus, I just like the menubar on top.

But other than that, it's good. I mean, if I didn't have a weirdness about interfaces, its functionality isn't bad at all.

 

[BakedBeans]

GIMP.... not for me. Adobe Photoshop is quite simply an amazing application allowing me to do a LOT of cool stuff that stuff like GIMP wont let me do.

Wont be happening in a hurry.

 

[slooksterPSV]

As bousozoku said and I will add Pantones have nothing to do with how you see colors in your Photoshop files. Many of the Pantone inks are beyond the CMYK spectrum. If your client only has the money for a 2 color printing job you can't hand the printer a CMYK or RGB file. You spec it with Pantones and print it with Pantones. I have clients that run 8 color jobs, they want rich printed pieces that go beyond the CMYK spectrum. In that case it's CMYK + varnishes + Pantones. Guessing at the Pantone definitions is not a very good idea.

That's true. Didn't think about that.

 

[zim]

I like you


.

Thank you, I think you're special too.

If two people from this forum meet up and get married, I want to know, cause then you'll be true MacRumorians for life. -- Sorry that's off topic.

Already married, she also happens to be a Mac enthusiast too.. maybe not as much as me.

At least, Adobe isn't as inconsistent as Macromedia but I love that select all and de-select all differs between applications.

This is true and now that Macromedia is Adobe we should see that fixed.

People, working in the profession and in their right mind, don't use it. However, it has its uses. It comes with quite a lot of ITC typefaces that are worth more than the retail price. It seems to me that Corel Draw is used quite a bit in real estate and other small offices where they're not quite so concerned with precision or art.

True, couldn't agree more. My wife (product designer), says taht Corel seems to be used quite a bit in factories in China also.

 

[mrblah]

I hear a lot of people say "gimp is just as good as photoshop" but all those people are the type that never use Photoshop professionally. Sure gimp is just as good as photoshop if all you do is resize pictures and do minor artwork (even though it looks horrible, its interesting how clearly non-artists try to make an art program), but if you do professional level stuff then gimp isnt even 1/100th as good as photoshop.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

GIMP is a very good application but Photoshop it is not.

Photoshop does things that GIMP cannot do, the colour support in Photoshop is far superior. For a prosumer GIMP is an excellent option but in no means will it eat into Adobe's market share, it just wont happen.

You get what you pay for when it comes to graphics software, open source and free software has a time and place and ironically like drugs the place is called university.

Personally I would like to see cheaper professional software however I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[eclipse]

Thanks for that. I've copied and pasted some of the replies above to this mate of mine that keeps pushing the Gimp, and he recently backed down. Adobe only costs about $800 every 2 years, so for $400 a year I'm sure we can handle it for the state of the art industry standard!

I think it was this article that finally convinced him... by people promoting open source, but even they concluded that professional designers needed Photoshop.

Paid-for version: Adobe Photoshop
Open-source alternative: GIMP

GIMP is a package for creating digital images and manipulating photographs. It's been in production for 12 years and is compatible with most of the commonly used image formats such as JPG, TIFF, PNG, BMP and GIF, as well as most Adobe Photoshop and PaintShop Pro files.

The Good: It's no secret that many people download illegal copies of the enormously feature-packed Adobe Photoshop purely for cropping and resizing photos. GIMP takes care of this task without the risk of lawsuits. It's also got an array of tools for creating original raster graphics. The whole colour spectrum can be used with existing brushes or user-created ones, an array of filters and effects can be applied -- drop shadow being a popular choice. Once you've had some practice it's very easy to use and quickly proves itself to be a capable image editor.

The Bad: GIMP doesn't offer the extensive design and manipulation options that the £500 industry-standard Photoshop offers, though it has never aimed to. There really isn't any bad side to GIMP, considering what it's capable of doing. If you're used to editing images in Windows Paint, you'll need to spend a few hours getting to know it, but that's true with all applications that aren't aimed at children and the artistically backwards.

Conclusion: There's no need to illegally download spend £500 on Photoshop if all you're doing is resizing images, applying fancy effects and cropping photos, because GIMP is extremely capable at these tasks. If you're looking for a career in design however, you might still want to keep saving for the Adobe standard.

 

[ChrisA]

I guess the thing that amazes me is that there's even free software out there at all.

Most of what ships on the Mac OS X Tiger/Leopard DVD is free Open Source software that Apple has collected and repackaged. They have written a nice user interface layer and some applications. Apple saved a decade of work by scooping up BSD and 100 other Open Source packages.

Don't "no opend source here" if you have a Mac

I know you can't see any of it. To use the old car analogy: You think a car is made out of paint and plastic but really, it's mostly steel even it you can't see any steel on a modern car

 

[Jim Campbell]

Oooohh ooooh, pick me, pick me. Those are two solid programs right there. Plus, they are a little bit easier on the wallet.

This isn't a pop specifically at you, but I'd like to point out that when I worked at firm of printers, the amount of time I spent getting jobs that clients had prepared themselves in packages like CorelDraw into a fit state to go to press was astronomical. In all honesty, it would have been quicker to have done the artwork myself.

Cheers

Jim

 

[eclipse]

But that was then, and Scribus is now. The thing I understand is different about Open Source is that everyone can see the code, everyone can contribute, everyone can make suggestions, the business model is more receptive to those suggestions, big corporate sponsors get on board (as in the recent case when IBM donated 35 programmers to speed up Open Office) and finally, the whole thing starts to evolve exponentially.

Scribus and Gimp are way too far behind Adobe for serious graphic designers to even consider. Maybe after the 2020's.... (to pick a completely arbitrary figure).

 

[ezekielrage_99]

But that was then, and Scribus is now. The thing I understand is different about Open Source is that everyone can see the code, everyone can contribute, everyone can make suggestions, the business model is more receptive to those suggestions, big corporate sponsors get on board (as in the recent case when IBM donated 35 programmers to speed up Open Office) and finally, the whole thing starts to evolve exponentially.

Scribus and Gimp are way too far behind Adobe for serious graphic designers to even consider. Maybe after the 2020's.... (to pick a completely arbitrary figure).

I don't think it's a matter whether or not a product is in front or behind the rest of the competition it's a matter of what is industry standard.

I have seen many different imagery software from my time in the Air Force and commercially however I have found some of the best software out there usually isn't industry standard and has been knocked out by uncompetitive companies that cannibalise market share (I"m not just talking about Adobe or M$ here).

Would GIMP ever be on par with Photoshop in time? I'm not sure but I doubt it could ever knock Adobe off its perch.