Sorry no, but in your dreams. GIMP is not a professional tool -- very far from it. It's has little more functionality than Elements. It lacks essential professional tools. It's worthless to a professional.
Perhaps the subtitle should be "From Novice to Enthusiastic Amateur".
Support for color modes other than greyscale and RGB, for one thing.
Those will come soon, and if you're not doing print or broadcast work, that isn't such a big deal.
Is that the same "come soon" as when 16 bit colour channels are "coming soon"? Ten years after 16 bit colour channels were offered GIMP still doesn't have it.
Support for Image Analysis that is as good as Photoshop (in the least)
That is not to say Photoshop is the best, IMHO, the best image analysis program is the free and open source ImageJ
1. Color-managed workflow - a must for even a serious amateur 2. Proper printing (see also 1) 3. No need to spend numerous hours learning a new UI and workflow 4. A massive library of plugins 5. Built-in stitching (used by landscape pros) 6. GIMP probably doesn't have Smart Filters and some other advanced doodads which have made later CS versions indispensable for those (admittedly few people) who know how to use them
I used GIMP when I really wanted to move entirely to Ubuntu. But points 1, 2 and 6 broke GIMP for me. I hate sticking to XP just so I can have PS, but that's the price I have to pay to have proper photo editing.
I have three machines running Ubuntu 8.04LTS + Virtualbox + Windows XP. This works pretty well for those cases where you prefer Linux but have to be able to run specific Windows applications. I have 4GB of RAM in each of these machines so as to be able to have adequate of RAM for the virtual machine(s).
1. Color-managed workflow - a must for even a serious amateur 2. Proper printing (see also 1) 3. No need to spend numerous hours learning a new UI and workflow 4. A massive library of plugins 5. Built-in stitching (used by landscape pros) 6. GIMP probably doesn't have Smart Filters and some other advanced doodads which have made later CS versions indispensable for those (admittedly few people) who know how to use them
1. I don't have work that requires rigorous color management so I don't use any such feature from GIMP, but I'll trust that you know what you're talking about.
Hey, wait a second! What's this [gimp.org], then! That was back in 2.4! Man, I'm going to have to be careful about trusting what you say.
2. You'll have to say specifically what's missing here.
3. That's a bogus complaint. I mean, the difficulty of learning a new interface, and even extra awkwardness because of being accustomed to another, is a legitimate issue, but it is not something unique or inherent to GIMP. But an already-learned interface is not something "a professional image editor [has] that GIMP doesn't" -- one still has to learn the interface of closed-source applications. It's a legitimate complaint outside the topic you're addressing.
4. Is there a specific plug-in capability that you think is lacking in GIMP's large provided-with-app plug-in library or is lacking in the available realm of plug-ins provided by third parties?
5. That's a pretty specific need. But at a glance I see four different plug-ins for stitching? Why is built-in critical here, especially on the heels of talking up the value of plug-ins?
6. As far as I can tell this is correct. I mean, Smart Filters. "Other indispensible advanced doodads" is vague, though, innit?
Any bets on when GIMP gets Smart Filters? Shortly before you start using it, perhaps?
1. I don't remember which version of GIMP it was, but it was... 3-4 years ago. But yeah, appears GIMP now has color management. How robust and reliable it is I'll have to find out myself - I need ProPhoto as that's what Lightroom spits out (I know you can export in other color spaces but why would I want to lose majority of the color info when it's there). Thanks for pointing this out!
2. Printing was just not done - no drivers for GIMP/Ubuntu for any serious photo printer (7+ inks) was the killer. Doubt tha
I used GIMP when I really wanted to move entirely to Ubuntu. But points 1, 2 and 6 broke GIMP for me. I hate sticking to XP just so I can have PS, but that's the price I have to pay to have proper photo editing.
If you're using Ubuntu have you tried CinePaint [cinepaint.org]? I don't know if it meets your requirements but it may.
If you mean: "I do photography for a magazine," or "I do big budget advertising work." Yeah, sure. Lack of CMYK support and good color calibration are a killer. The GIMP is not a suitable tool for those professionals.
If you mean: "I'm a reporter for a small weekly newspaper who is also expected to be her own photographer and do her own photo cropping and correction," the GIMP is ready today. It was ready several years ago when a friend in exactly that position gave it a try. She was using Photoshop to do the work and found that the GIMP was a complete replacement. (She didn't like the interface, but GIMPshop [gimpshop.com] instantly eliminated that complaint.) If you mean, "I'm doing web design for a small company," the GIMP is ready today.
I am also curious what people did before Photoshop itself got CMYK support, or good color calibration, or whatever it is you're whining about today. Were there just no professionals in the field then?
I am also curious what people did before Photoshop itself got...
When I used photoshop some time ago it didn't even have undo (which gimp had at the time). I assumed I just couldn't find it and asked a newsgroup about it - getting dozens of flames saying "real professionals would never need to use undo" (a bit bizzare since I said I was just learning how to use it). Now of course gimp and the current photoshop are both far superior in every way to that early photoshop. 99% of the time the people that dema
That term... I do not think it means what you think...
Really, I think the terms 'Novice' and 'Professional' were meant to be applied to proficiency with the GIMP, and not digital photo manipulation in general.
GIMP has a number of tools which are actually really useful - for professionals and amateurs alike. The select tools for example are far better than those provided even in photoshop cs3. yes, CMYK support is lacking, 9 times out of 10 thats the main argument people give me for when this topic invariably comes up and i would say 6 or 7 times out of ten they have no actual need for CMYK output.
Photoshop is brilliant, GIMP is also brilliant. I frequently use both in tandem to get things done. comparing GIMP
I can understand a professional pooh-poohing GIMP, because I've taught Photoshop to professional photographers now for a couple of years, and they love to try GIMP out for a couple of days and then add it to their software sh** list.
Overly flexible use of the word "professional" is the problem. Out of all of my students who can be considered professionals, I've noticed that my students who started out with GIMP and keep using it alongside Photoshop after they learn Photoshop are, as a rule far more profe
It's nice to hear corroboration of the idea that competent and happy GIMP users are generally smarter and more capable graphics editors than their gripey counterparts, but I should beware my own confirmation bias. How many students are we talking about here? How many classes? Over what span of time? You mention bit depth and "pixels" -- are there more evidentiary details you can share to clarify your claim of their greater skill? Have you seen this greater skill tendency beyond your classes and student
20-25 per class, 10 classes per year, over 2 years so far, yes (they would still be more or less anecdotal if you really want to pursue that path), and yes. (WHY did I just answer your essay in my spare time? not sure)
I think you may be misunderstanding the power of the TANSTAAFL culture, looking at the rest of your comment. From my POV, people like to verify their consumer DNA from time to time; having a Photoshop box on your shelf and a subscription to an overpriced graphics magazine actually does count
Out of all of my students who can be considered professionals, I've noticed that my students who started out with GIMP and keep using it alongside Photoshop after they learn Photoshop are, as a rule far more professional than all respects than their peers.
They all do a mixture of both, like any photographer would - printing work sometimes, for competitions or art shows, and using their tools of choice for web graphics and website updates at other times. BTW, you know that GIMP's "niche printing issues" would almost never bother a photographer, right? They are not going to be doing pre-press stuff, and most involved with that sort of printing report back to me that their pre-press people keep asking for JPEGs, which...is what it is, I guess.
BTW, you know that GIMP's "niche printing issues" would almost never bother a photographer, right?
Other than GIMP not being capable of more than 8 bits per colour channel, I don't know or recall about GIMP's "niche printing issues".
I really want to try CinePaint [cinepaint.org] but I haven't found an online tutorial on using it, even CinePaint's online tutorial [cinepaint.org] does not say how to use it. And unlike GIMP for which there are books, including the one being reviewed here, I haven't been able to find one for CinePaint. If yo
Subtitle is misleading. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry no, but in your dreams. GIMP is not a professional tool -- very far from it. It's has little more functionality than Elements. It lacks essential professional tools. It's worthless to a professional.
Perhaps the subtitle should be "From Novice to Enthusiastic Amateur".
Re: (Score:1)
OK, so what does a professional image editor have to have that GIMP doesn't?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
what is missing from GIMP? (Score:2)
Support for color modes other than greyscale and RGB, for one thing.
Those will come soon, and if you're not doing print or broadcast work, that isn't such a big deal.
Is that the same "come soon" as when 16 bit colour channels are "coming soon"? Ten years after 16 bit colour channels were offered GIMP still doesn't have it.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what, I'll be a nice guy and sell you this copy of GIMP here for a very reasonable $1,800.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Subtitle is misleading. (Score:4, Informative)
1. Color-managed workflow - a must for even a serious amateur
2. Proper printing (see also 1)
3. No need to spend numerous hours learning a new UI and workflow
4. A massive library of plugins
5. Built-in stitching (used by landscape pros)
6. GIMP probably doesn't have Smart Filters and some other advanced doodads which have made later CS versions indispensable for those (admittedly few people) who know how to use them
I used GIMP when I really wanted to move entirely to Ubuntu. But points 1, 2 and 6 broke GIMP for me. I hate sticking to XP just so I can have PS, but that's the price I have to pay to have proper photo editing.
Re: (Score:1)
I have three machines running Ubuntu 8.04LTS + Virtualbox + Windows XP. This works pretty well
for those cases where you prefer Linux but have to be able to run specific Windows applications.
I have 4GB of RAM in each of these machines so as to be able to have adequate of RAM for the virtual
machine(s).
Re:Subtitle is misleading. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I don't have work that requires rigorous color management so I don't use any such feature from GIMP, but I'll trust that you know what you're talking about.
Hey, wait a second! What's this [gimp.org], then! That was back in 2.4! Man, I'm going to have to be careful about trusting what you say.
2. You'll have to say specifically what's missing here.
3. That's a bogus complaint. I mean, the difficulty of learning a new interface, and even extra awkwardness because of being accustomed to another, is a legitimate issue, but it is not something unique or inherent to GIMP. But an already-learned interface is not something "a professional image editor [has] that GIMP doesn't" -- one still has to learn the interface of closed-source applications. It's a legitimate complaint outside the topic you're addressing.
4. Is there a specific plug-in capability that you think is lacking in GIMP's large provided-with-app plug-in library or is lacking in the available realm of plug-ins provided by third parties?
5. That's a pretty specific need. But at a glance I see four different plug-ins for stitching? Why is built-in critical here, especially on the heels of talking up the value of plug-ins?
6. As far as I can tell this is correct. I mean, Smart Filters. "Other indispensible advanced doodads" is vague, though, innit?
Any bets on when GIMP gets Smart Filters? Shortly before you start using it, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
1. I don't remember which version of GIMP it was, but it was... 3-4 years ago. But yeah, appears GIMP now has color management. How robust and reliable it is I'll have to find out myself - I need ProPhoto as that's what Lightroom spits out (I know you can export in other color spaces but why would I want to lose majority of the color info when it's there). Thanks for pointing this out!
2. Printing was just not done - no drivers for GIMP/Ubuntu for any serious photo printer (7+ inks) was the killer. Doubt tha
Ubuntu (Score:2)
I used GIMP when I really wanted to move entirely to Ubuntu. But points 1, 2 and 6 broke GIMP for me. I hate sticking to XP just so I can have PS, but that's the price I have to pay to have proper photo editing.
If you're using Ubuntu have you tried CinePaint [cinepaint.org]? I don't know if it meets your requirements but it may.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so what does a professional image editor have to have that GIMP doesn't?
To name two, 16 bit colour channels if not 24 or 32 and CYMK output.
Falcon
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:2)
It's worthless to a professional.
Oops - Sounds like someone just dropped some major dollarage on PS!
Re:Subtitle is misleading. (Score:5, Insightful)
What professionals are you talking about?
If you mean: "I do photography for a magazine," or "I do big budget advertising work." Yeah, sure. Lack of CMYK support and good color calibration are a killer. The GIMP is not a suitable tool for those professionals.
If you mean: "I'm a reporter for a small weekly newspaper who is also expected to be her own photographer and do her own photo cropping and correction," the GIMP is ready today. It was ready several years ago when a friend in exactly that position gave it a try. She was using Photoshop to do the work and found that the GIMP was a complete replacement. (She didn't like the interface, but GIMPshop [gimpshop.com] instantly eliminated that complaint.) If you mean, "I'm doing web design for a small company," the GIMP is ready today.
I am also curious what people did before Photoshop itself got CMYK support, or good color calibration, or whatever it is you're whining about today. Were there just no professionals in the field then?
Re: (Score:1)
If you mean, "I'm doing web design for a small company," the GIMP is ready today.
That's me. But I tell ya, not a day goes by that I don't dream about the boss buying me a photoshop license.
Re: (Score:2)
It got CMYK, and thus raised the bar for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
When I used photoshop some time ago it didn't even have undo (which gimp had at the time). I assumed I just couldn't find it and asked a newsgroup about it - getting dozens of flames saying "real professionals would never need to use undo" (a bit bizzare since I said I was just learning how to use it). Now of course gimp and the current photoshop are both far superior in every way to that early photoshop.
99% of the time the people that dema
Re: (Score:2)
Really, I think the terms 'Novice' and 'Professional' were meant to be applied to proficiency with the GIMP, and not digital photo manipulation in general.
Re: (Score:1)
Photoshop is brilliant, GIMP is also brilliant. I frequently use both in tandem to get things done. comparing GIMP
Re: (Score:2)
Overly flexible use of the word "professional" is the problem. Out of all of my students who can be considered professionals, I've noticed that my students who started out with GIMP and keep using it alongside Photoshop after they learn Photoshop are, as a rule far more profe
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice to hear corroboration of the idea that competent and happy GIMP users are generally smarter and more capable graphics editors than their gripey counterparts, but I should beware my own confirmation bias. How many students are we talking about here? How many classes? Over what span of time? You mention bit depth and "pixels" -- are there more evidentiary details you can share to clarify your claim of their greater skill? Have you seen this greater skill tendency beyond your classes and student
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may be misunderstanding the power of the TANSTAAFL culture, looking at the rest of your comment. From my POV, people like to verify their consumer DNA from time to time; having a Photoshop box on your shelf and a subscription to an overpriced graphics magazine actually does count
Re: (Score:2)
Out of all of my students who can be considered professionals, I've noticed that my students who started out with GIMP and keep using it alongside Photoshop after they learn Photoshop are, as a rule far more professional than all respects than their peers.
How many of them do web work versus print work?
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
The pre-press peo
GIMP (Score:2)
BTW, you know that GIMP's "niche printing issues" would almost never bother a photographer, right?
Other than GIMP not being capable of more than 8 bits per colour channel, I don't know or recall about GIMP's "niche printing issues".
I really want to try CinePaint [cinepaint.org] but I haven't found an online tutorial on using it, even CinePaint's online tutorial [cinepaint.org] does not say how to use it. And unlike GIMP for which there are books, including the one being reviewed here, I haven't been able to find one for CinePaint. If yo
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry no, but in your dreams. GIMP is not a professional tool
I guess being used to produce major films [wikipedia.org], including Harry Potter, doesn't count as professional?