11-20-2017, 07:33 AM
I've been a Gimp user since 2000. I've been a PS user during the same time (and currently am a subscriber to CC). Before that, I used Micrographix Picture Publisher, a very capable photo editor not at all dissimilar to GIMP/PS (whatever happened to them?).
I recently installed Gimp 2.9.7 on my system, and I am thrilled with the steps forward in that version (runs solid on my Ubuntu 17.10 system).
That Gimp version also was packaged with Darktable as a RAW image plugin. I had previously toyed with Darktable, but, since it was packaged with Gimp, decided to spend some time with it. My first attempts were not unlike previous sessions toying with the application, no real direction on how to proceed. After watching a couple of tutorials, the workflow became clear, and now, I am an enthusiastic user of that application as well.
I guess it shouldn't matter to me what the general consensus is on editing applications, but, I confess, it matters to me.
Over the years, I have perused many an article comparing the relative merits of one editing application over another, and, it seems, whenever Gimp is mentioned, there is a chorus of comments about how steep is the learning curve. Why is this? Just yesterday, I came across an article listing 25 free editing applications for those who don't want to "pay a subscription fee". Obviously, the article could not deal with any of these applications in depth and still cover all 25 of them, but there were decent comments about all 25 except for Gimp which was described as being full of features, but not as user friendly as most. I wanted to add mine to the list of comments following the article, and registered to do just that only to find that the comment section was closed for the article (written in 2015).
I am left still wondering why the reviewer could not find anything better than that to report on the GIMP. I do pay a subscription, as I am curious and like to see what's happening on the PS side of things. I took the time to become reasonably proficient with LR, and, for me, that learning curve was not a downhill coast, nor was figuring out Darktable. The learning curve for GIMP is not a bit more steep than that of Photoshop. Both programs function in a very similar manner. Instead of changing your brush size through the tiny (and I do mean tiny) interface at the top left of the PS screen, GIMP's interface appears (on my machine) as a reasonably sized pane at lower left. There is a keyboard shortcut for PS Levels or you can use drop down menus two deep as I recall to invoke it with mouse gestures. In GIMP, you click "Colors" then "Levels" (if there is a shortcut key, I have never found it). It goes on and on. Levels in PS work essentially the same as they do in GIMP. The basics of selecting brushes and adjusting their size works the same in both programs. There is no major difference in the use of the clone tool (I do like that PS gives you a preview of the clone before you use the tool - useful in aligning elements such as trouser seams, etc. that you may want to clone).
OK, the tools are found in different locations, but it takes all of 5-minutes to discover these tools, then one is off and running. I keep asking myself why all the noise about how hard GIMP is to learn. I learned to use GIMP and Photoshop back in 2000, and I really do not see a big difference in the effort to learn either. GIMP wasn't exactly easy, but neither was Photoshop. I am still learning new tidbits about both to this day, and, IMHO, it is GIMP that has come the longest way in terms of development.
The other anthems that critics of GIMP love to sing are (make that WERE) it's lack of CMYK and 16-bit support. I doubt I will ever need CMYK, but I have GIMP 2.9.7 up and running and loaded with a Darktable gnerated 32 bit floating point file as I type this.
GIMP was the first with "content aware" fill, and all of these features are presented to me, the user, free of charge.
GIMP is an astounding editing application, and while we users have had to be patient as its development occurred, that development has been relentless and continues to this day.
I appreciate the GIMP development team for providing me with such a powerful application.
Sorry to rant (sort of).
Respectfully,
Caruso
I recently installed Gimp 2.9.7 on my system, and I am thrilled with the steps forward in that version (runs solid on my Ubuntu 17.10 system).
That Gimp version also was packaged with Darktable as a RAW image plugin. I had previously toyed with Darktable, but, since it was packaged with Gimp, decided to spend some time with it. My first attempts were not unlike previous sessions toying with the application, no real direction on how to proceed. After watching a couple of tutorials, the workflow became clear, and now, I am an enthusiastic user of that application as well.
I guess it shouldn't matter to me what the general consensus is on editing applications, but, I confess, it matters to me.
Over the years, I have perused many an article comparing the relative merits of one editing application over another, and, it seems, whenever Gimp is mentioned, there is a chorus of comments about how steep is the learning curve. Why is this? Just yesterday, I came across an article listing 25 free editing applications for those who don't want to "pay a subscription fee". Obviously, the article could not deal with any of these applications in depth and still cover all 25 of them, but there were decent comments about all 25 except for Gimp which was described as being full of features, but not as user friendly as most. I wanted to add mine to the list of comments following the article, and registered to do just that only to find that the comment section was closed for the article (written in 2015).
I am left still wondering why the reviewer could not find anything better than that to report on the GIMP. I do pay a subscription, as I am curious and like to see what's happening on the PS side of things. I took the time to become reasonably proficient with LR, and, for me, that learning curve was not a downhill coast, nor was figuring out Darktable. The learning curve for GIMP is not a bit more steep than that of Photoshop. Both programs function in a very similar manner. Instead of changing your brush size through the tiny (and I do mean tiny) interface at the top left of the PS screen, GIMP's interface appears (on my machine) as a reasonably sized pane at lower left. There is a keyboard shortcut for PS Levels or you can use drop down menus two deep as I recall to invoke it with mouse gestures. In GIMP, you click "Colors" then "Levels" (if there is a shortcut key, I have never found it). It goes on and on. Levels in PS work essentially the same as they do in GIMP. The basics of selecting brushes and adjusting their size works the same in both programs. There is no major difference in the use of the clone tool (I do like that PS gives you a preview of the clone before you use the tool - useful in aligning elements such as trouser seams, etc. that you may want to clone).
OK, the tools are found in different locations, but it takes all of 5-minutes to discover these tools, then one is off and running. I keep asking myself why all the noise about how hard GIMP is to learn. I learned to use GIMP and Photoshop back in 2000, and I really do not see a big difference in the effort to learn either. GIMP wasn't exactly easy, but neither was Photoshop. I am still learning new tidbits about both to this day, and, IMHO, it is GIMP that has come the longest way in terms of development.
The other anthems that critics of GIMP love to sing are (make that WERE) it's lack of CMYK and 16-bit support. I doubt I will ever need CMYK, but I have GIMP 2.9.7 up and running and loaded with a Darktable gnerated 32 bit floating point file as I type this.
GIMP was the first with "content aware" fill, and all of these features are presented to me, the user, free of charge.
GIMP is an astounding editing application, and while we users have had to be patient as its development occurred, that development has been relentless and continues to this day.
I appreciate the GIMP development team for providing me with such a powerful application.
Sorry to rant (sort of).
Respectfully,
Caruso