Q: Gimp vs Photoshop










49















I have been using Photoshop since the beginning of time. Other than the infamous Paintshop Pro, it is the only image editor I have used.



I am about to embark on an adventure of trying out GIMP as a lot of people have been recommending it.



GIMP banner



Q: In What Areas (if Any) Does it Excel Over Photoshop?



It would be interesting to know from people who are seasoned with it if it excels over Photoshop in any areas or is it just a good as free alternative image editing application that is best suited to people on a budget?






adobe-photoshop gimp photo-editing image-editing applications







share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Cai♦
    Aug 30 '18 at 11:04






  • 3





    A cautionary tale about Photoshop's automatic phone-home to the mothership. Could be expanded into an answer. In a nutshell, Photoshop can cut you off in the middle of a presentation if you happen not to have internet right then; Gimp cannot (and will not).

    – Wildcard
    Aug 31 '18 at 4:15















49















I have been using Photoshop since the beginning of time. Other than the infamous Paintshop Pro, it is the only image editor I have used.



I am about to embark on an adventure of trying out GIMP as a lot of people have been recommending it.



GIMP banner



Q: In What Areas (if Any) Does it Excel Over Photoshop?



It would be interesting to know from people who are seasoned with it if it excels over Photoshop in any areas or is it just a good as free alternative image editing application that is best suited to people on a budget?






adobe-photoshop gimp photo-editing image-editing applications







share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Cai♦
    Aug 30 '18 at 11:04






  • 3





    A cautionary tale about Photoshop's automatic phone-home to the mothership. Could be expanded into an answer. In a nutshell, Photoshop can cut you off in the middle of a presentation if you happen not to have internet right then; Gimp cannot (and will not).

    – Wildcard
    Aug 31 '18 at 4:15













49












49








49


18






I have been using Photoshop since the beginning of time. Other than the infamous Paintshop Pro, it is the only image editor I have used.



I am about to embark on an adventure of trying out GIMP as a lot of people have been recommending it.



GIMP banner



Q: In What Areas (if Any) Does it Excel Over Photoshop?



It would be interesting to know from people who are seasoned with it if it excels over Photoshop in any areas or is it just a good as free alternative image editing application that is best suited to people on a budget?






adobe-photoshop gimp photo-editing image-editing applications







share|improve this question
















I have been using Photoshop since the beginning of time. Other than the infamous Paintshop Pro, it is the only image editor I have used.



I am about to embark on an adventure of trying out GIMP as a lot of people have been recommending it.



GIMP banner



Q: In What Areas (if Any) Does it Excel Over Photoshop?



It would be interesting to know from people who are seasoned with it if it excels over Photoshop in any areas or is it just a good as free alternative image editing application that is best suited to people on a budget?






adobe-photoshop gimp photo-editing image-editing applications




adobe-photoshop gimp photo-editing image-editing applications






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Sep 28 '18 at 13:19







Invariant Change

















asked Aug 26 '18 at 7:27









Invariant ChangeInvariant Change

1,2721624




1,2721624







  • 1





    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Cai♦
    Aug 30 '18 at 11:04






  • 3





    A cautionary tale about Photoshop's automatic phone-home to the mothership. Could be expanded into an answer. In a nutshell, Photoshop can cut you off in the middle of a presentation if you happen not to have internet right then; Gimp cannot (and will not).

    – Wildcard
    Aug 31 '18 at 4:15












  • 1





    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – Cai♦
    Aug 30 '18 at 11:04






  • 3





    A cautionary tale about Photoshop's automatic phone-home to the mothership. Could be expanded into an answer. In a nutshell, Photoshop can cut you off in the middle of a presentation if you happen not to have internet right then; Gimp cannot (and will not).

    – Wildcard
    Aug 31 '18 at 4:15







1




1





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Cai♦
Aug 30 '18 at 11:04





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Cai♦
Aug 30 '18 at 11:04




3




3





A cautionary tale about Photoshop's automatic phone-home to the mothership. Could be expanded into an answer. In a nutshell, Photoshop can cut you off in the middle of a presentation if you happen not to have internet right then; Gimp cannot (and will not).

– Wildcard
Aug 31 '18 at 4:15





A cautionary tale about Photoshop's automatic phone-home to the mothership. Could be expanded into an answer. In a nutshell, Photoshop can cut you off in the middle of a presentation if you happen not to have internet right then; Gimp cannot (and will not).

– Wildcard
Aug 31 '18 at 4:15










8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes


















51














To answer your literal question, there are a few areas where GIMP can be better than Photoshop. It's not particularly common (usually, at best you can expect them to do the job equally well), but it does happen. Off the top of my head (and keeping in mind that it's been many years since I last used Photoshop), here are a few examples:



  • As a historical example, GIMP had content-aware fill (via a free plugin) for several years before Adobe added an equivalent feature to Photoshop.


  • As far as I know, Photoshop still doesn't have anything quite equivalent to GIMP's Color to Alpha tool, even though it's very useful for things like replacing the background of an image while preserving soft edges. (Apparently there is an old plugin for it, but it's 32-bit only and no longer maintained.)


  • GIMP has built-in support for loading and saving multiresolution icons in the .ico format, e.g. for use as favicons on the web. For Photoshop, you need to find and install a plugin or use an external converter tool.


  • I haven't actually used the Adobe Camera Raw plugin in Photoshop, so I can't really compare it in detail with GIMP's UFRaw plugin. From what I've seen, Adobe's plugin certainly has a much smoother user interface and includes a bunch of editing options that UFRaw lacks, but on the other hand, UFRaw does have a pretty advanced technical back-end and supports lots of obscure camera formats. While Camera Raw is probably nicer to use for most people, I'd be surprised if one couldn't find anything that UFRaw does better.


I'm sure one could find quite a few more cases where GIMP does something better than Photoshop or has some feature Photoshop lacks, especially if plugins are included. (There are a lot of plugins for both GIMP and Photoshop, and not all of them have equivalents either way.) If you have both, you'll probably find that Photoshop offers more features and/or a better user interface for most common editing tasks. But every once in a while, there are some places where GIMP manages to shine.



And of course, there are two more advantages of GIMP worth noting:



  • Photoshop is proprietary software, and costs money to install (and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more). GIMP is free software (both "free as in beer" and "free as in speech"), meaning that you don't have to pay anything for it, can freely make as many copies as you want and even share them with others, and always get all the features.


  • Since anybody is free to download the source code to GIMP and compile it, GIMP runs on a lot of systems that Photoshop doesn't support. Sure, if you're using Windows or MacOS then you're probably fine, but even on x86-based Linux systems, you can only run Photoshop using an API emulation layer like WINE. And just try running Photoshop on a Raspberry Pi...






share|improve this answer

























  • Wow! Amazing feedback. Truly helpful. Thank you so much :)

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 26 '18 at 14:38






  • 7





    "and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more" - that isn't true any more with the latest CC versions. There is now only one version of Photoshop, no matter which CC subscription plan you have.

    – Billy Kerr
    Aug 27 '18 at 10:17






  • 8





    Please note that UFRaw is not really considered the currently supported Camera Raw plug-in - Rawtherapee and Darktable are preferred in GIMP 2.10.

    – Michael Schumacher
    Aug 27 '18 at 13:27


















47














Before I start, just to let you know I'm a happy and frequent user of GIMP, but I also have an Adobe CC account, and use the latest version of Photoshop, which I also enjoy using. I'm not a fanboy of anything.



GIMP is not Photoshop, and it doesn't really try to compete with Photoshop. It's not commercially developed, and so it's not a commercial competitor, and likely never will be. Also, it's not only free (as in no money), but it's also Open Source, which is something Photoshop will never be. If Adobe abandons development of software, it dies forever, and Adobe has a bad habit of doing things like that.



As for the user interface, it's different from Photsohop's, but similar enough to make people think it should be the same (but it's not). Single Window mode is the most similar experience to Photoshop. As a user of both Photoshop and GIMP, I find neither user interface to be particularly user friendly. Neither is really designed for a raw "beginner". However, once you get used to GIMP, the problem that it's not exactly the same as Photoshop goes away. And by the the way, Adobe has a habit of suing companies who try to copy their user interface, so GIMP's is probably different for a very good reason.



And for that reason, I'm not going to list GIMP's user interface as either a Pro, or a Con.



Pros



  • GIMP has lots of free plugins. In fact they are probably all free since I've never yet found any that you have to pay for.

  • Updates/upgrades are free

  • The software works well on just about any old computer, it's smaller,
    and less resource hungry

  • It works on Linux natively (and also works on Mac and Windows)

  • You can legally install it on as many computers as you want

Cons



  • No CMYK mode, however there is a free plugin for CMYK output

  • No live layer effects, however there is a free layer effects plugin

  • Doesn't fully support the PSD format, although it will import basic PSDs, and can export to PSD. GIMP has its own native format - XCF.

  • Development is slower than commercial software such as Photoshop

Neither Con, nor Pro



  • GIMP has a steep learning curve, but then so too does Photoshop

  • Sometimes GIMP is quite bit slower than Photoshop, but that's probably a
    fair price to pay for a less resource hungry application anyway.

  • User interface is complex, but then so too is Photoshop's.





share|improve this answer


















  • 11





    Non-destructive editing is a huge strength of photoshop in comparison to GIMP. It's planned for 3.2, who knows when it will come out. wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap

    – Eric Duminil
    Aug 26 '18 at 11:35






  • 3





    @EricDuminil - yes you are right, it is a strength of Photoshop.

    – Billy Kerr
    Aug 26 '18 at 11:43






  • 4





    Not 100% related, but one can get CMYK and layer effects by using Krita.

    – Andrea Lazzarotto
    Aug 26 '18 at 22:48






  • 4





    @AndreaLazzarotto - yes I use Krita too, however Krita is a bit different from GIMP and Photoshop - it's really a painting and drawing application first and foremost, and wasn't really intended as a photo editor.

    – Billy Kerr
    Aug 27 '18 at 9:41






  • 4





    Its hard to understate just how broad the range of plugins is for GIMP. The fact that people can use python to programattically do things to images means there's tons of crazy stuff out there: content-aware fill plugins years before photoshop's version (though less easy to use), special image filtering techniques or compositing based on cutting edge research papers, and more...

    – mbrig
    Aug 29 '18 at 20:45


















13














Since many have said most of what I was going to, there is one situation, somewhat specialized, that GIMP can handle that Photoshop could not.



I do astrophotograpy, and if I want to process the RAW images from the telescope's camera (not a SLR/DSLR attached), GIMP can process these files while Photoshop can not without a special plugin designed jointly by the ESO and NASA.



The FITS file format (Flexible Image Transport System) can be processed by GIMP, and quite well if you want to go to, say, the Hubble Space Telescope image archives. All images are stored in FIT or FITS format.



ESO/NASA and the Hubble Space Telescope group, by popular demand, created a plugin for Photoshop CS (and they claim it will work with some non-CS versions and other editors, but did not list them) called the "Photoshop FITS Liberator" toolbox.



I have not used this toolbox yet, so I cannot comment on how it compares with using GIMP. Since I need to be able to process FITS with my normal photography files, GIMP is part of my image workflow process.






share|improve this answer

























  • Thanks, George. A great use case for GIMP - GIMP is better for finding UFOs on the moon. This could be a very good marketing strategy! :) #ViralMarketing

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 28 '18 at 11:02






  • 5





    I don't use it for finding UFO's, but if one does gets caught in front of my telescope, then cool 😉.

    – George McGinn
    Aug 28 '18 at 11:15











  • A bit unfair to count a function as lacking when ther is a generally available plugin for it.

    – Laurence Payne
    Aug 29 '18 at 19:14


















9














You can not compare GIMP and Photoshop because they do not represent the same category of tools.



The world is full of pixel manipulators that have



  • faster interaction speeds,

  • more filters,

  • better brushes,

and are



  • easier to use,

  • cheaper.

But this misrepresents Photoshop. Photoshop is mainly about its color management engine and its print related feature, CMYK and spot colors, Adobe’s Type engine and PDF/EPS support.



Now, are there areas where GIMP is better? Yes, GIMP has more and better filters than Photoshop. But again nearly any competent pixel manipulation software would have, because ultimately that is not what Photoshop is about.



But would I choose GIMP? No, not really. I would choose one of the other open-source or cheap editors out there, such as Krita, for example.






share|improve this answer

























  • Thanks for your answer Joojaa. Some great points here. :)

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 26 '18 at 10:50






  • 1





    I like Krita, but since it does not support FITS format (just checked current version), it never made it into my imaging workflow. But it is an editor worth considering if you do not need to use it for what some call the lesser known file formats.

    – George McGinn
    Aug 28 '18 at 9:10






  • 2





    @GeorgeMcGinn use imagamagic for the rest ;)

    – joojaa
    Aug 28 '18 at 10:10






  • 1





    @joojaa you mean ImageMagick? I have the web version of it as I have a system called Editorial Stock Pro that managed my stock photography website including sales, and I needed ImageMagick to convert the images to the format requested by the user. I had not known they made a version to run on a PC/Mac, or from Filestack. Thanks.

    – George McGinn
    Aug 28 '18 at 11:11






  • 1





    @GeorgeMcGinn Yeah i do.

    – joojaa
    Aug 28 '18 at 13:20


















9














I've taken advantage of most of the things listed in other answers but there were a few which I didn't see highlighted...



Really flexible keybindings



Also called keyboard-shortcuts or 'accelerators' depending on where you're from, I found that – at least in CS3 – Adobe arbitrarily limited which key-bindings were allowed for certain functions.



The specific example I remember is that CS2/CS3 considered Full-Screen Mode to be a "Tool" which could only be bound to a letter-key like F, rather than something more standard like the F11 key, which was not allowed. This was one of the things that tipped me toward GIMP.



Subsequently, I've taken advantage of 6 hooks for "increase/decrease current foreground swatch hue/value/saturation" which are really useful for some tasks, especially painting.



No-fuss portable settings



A big host of settings in GIMP including tool defaults, brushes, and even scripts and extensions can simply be placed in one's ~/.gimp<version>/ directory (or %USERPROFILE%.gimp<version> in Windows), and ported between different workstations using a USB-drive or using Git. This is nice if you use GIMP both at home and at the office, since once the file-links are set, settings are picked up automatically so there's no remembering to click on Import/Export Settings when sitting down or getting ready to leave.



Community and source-structure



This is a general advantage of open-source softwares; if you or your company want to develop or pay to develop/improve GIMP's functionality, this can be done and the resulting code is then (per GIMP's license) given back to the community, which might maintain it for everyone in perpetuum for free (if it's useful).



Looking forward, updates to GIMP tend to be focused on what users need, rather than what might allow a proprietary-software company to charge more, lock its users into their own software suites, or otherwise make money.



In many cases, it's also possible to find out exactly how and why something does (or doesn't) work straight from the developers themselves. This can help to inform decisions about which fixes or improvements might be worth the cost of contributing, if you're using GIMP as a part of your hobbies or business.



Other stuff



Many of the answers (and a few comments) cover a lot of the advantages that GIMP has I would also talk about, including:



  • Price

  • Lenient license

  • Hackable (ease of scripting, creating extensions, etc.)





share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Nice answer. So many contenders to accept as the answer - is there a multi accept options, hehe! Many thanks for this and your time - All very useful stuff for myself and anyone reading :)

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 28 '18 at 1:32






  • 6





    Just to avoid a possible "See, you are forced to publish any modifications you make to Free Software!" argument: you can both distribute a modified GPL-covered program fully internally in an organisation, and even pay someone external to develop these modifications, without having to publish them: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution and gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

    – Michael Schumacher
    Aug 29 '18 at 7:25






  • 3





    It just makes more sense from a Game Theory perspective to release your contributions, though, unless the patch gives you a competitive advantage and you care more about beating your competition than being more efficient overall. (Because, you know, it's not a zero-sum game.)

    – wizzwizz4
    Aug 29 '18 at 10:55



















6














GIMP has plenty of free add-ons, some of them can be and also have been extremely useful. Even the basic package and the G'MIC-collection have so many that I still haven't tried them all.



I must say that fabulous available tricks in GIMP do not compensate lack of CMYK capablity, diverged user interface and missing advanced layer & object functionality.






share|improve this answer

























  • Thanks, I will look out for this. I don't use CMYK as all my work is internet based, but it's definitely, something that could be an issue later on down the line if not added.

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 26 '18 at 8:11











  • @user287001 Photoshop-like UI. CMYK support isn't complete yet, though.

    – wizzwizz4
    Aug 29 '18 at 11:01


















5














I have used both. Like you I had several years of Photoshop use before using GIMP. The thing is that we tend to forget how much of a learning curve there is with Photoshop. GIMP is very powerful but also has quite a learning curve. The way you do things on GIMP is different than the way you would do them on Photoshop.



The only thing which I think may actually be better in GIMP than Photoshop would be the way you can do masking in GIMP. I have heard that batch automations are better in GIMP but in my current job I am neither a photographer nor a designer, so most automation I do with image manipulation is done on the server with PIL.



Everything else is at either comparable or not quite as a good as Photoshop. Also there's the knowledge that that Adobe can't one day stop supporting your software - or shake you down for an upgrade - that's pretty nice.






share|improve this answer






























    0














    Amazing But Not a Photoshop Replacement - Yet



    After playing around with it for a while, I have found it to be an amazing application for anyone on a who doesn't want to pay out a lot of money for priority software. However, for professional use, there are a few limitations which might prevent it from being a replacement for Photoshop at the moment, most noticeably in the UI, I found it uneasy to work with, but maybe after more use, this won't bother me so much? I think the basic UI is because GIMP has an amazing community of devs developing, but not so many UX/UI designers.



    The Future is Bright



    You have to take your hats off to this open source and free product for doing a fine job. Not now, but in the future, it could start to challenge the big players and priority software such as Photoshop. As bad as it looks, I am impressed.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 6





      "I could not find any area that excelled over Photoshop". Gimp's price is far better than Photoshop's one.

      – aloisdg
      Aug 26 '18 at 13:34











    • Haha! The most obvious one staring me right in the face. Thanks :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 13:35






    • 5





      How did you manage to answer your own question in just one day?

      – nicoguaro
      Aug 28 '18 at 3:36






    • 2





      Good point. Even though I'm a season Photoshop user, I probably should of held off a bit longer before answering. I've used it a lot more since though and the above statements still holds true. However, there are features that I am enjoying a lot and as such, I should really update my answer soon with fairer feedback.

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 28 '18 at 7:51










    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "174"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgraphicdesign.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f114222%2fq-gimp-vs-photoshop%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    8 Answers
    8






    active

    oldest

    votes








    8 Answers
    8






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    51














    To answer your literal question, there are a few areas where GIMP can be better than Photoshop. It's not particularly common (usually, at best you can expect them to do the job equally well), but it does happen. Off the top of my head (and keeping in mind that it's been many years since I last used Photoshop), here are a few examples:



    • As a historical example, GIMP had content-aware fill (via a free plugin) for several years before Adobe added an equivalent feature to Photoshop.


    • As far as I know, Photoshop still doesn't have anything quite equivalent to GIMP's Color to Alpha tool, even though it's very useful for things like replacing the background of an image while preserving soft edges. (Apparently there is an old plugin for it, but it's 32-bit only and no longer maintained.)


    • GIMP has built-in support for loading and saving multiresolution icons in the .ico format, e.g. for use as favicons on the web. For Photoshop, you need to find and install a plugin or use an external converter tool.


    • I haven't actually used the Adobe Camera Raw plugin in Photoshop, so I can't really compare it in detail with GIMP's UFRaw plugin. From what I've seen, Adobe's plugin certainly has a much smoother user interface and includes a bunch of editing options that UFRaw lacks, but on the other hand, UFRaw does have a pretty advanced technical back-end and supports lots of obscure camera formats. While Camera Raw is probably nicer to use for most people, I'd be surprised if one couldn't find anything that UFRaw does better.


    I'm sure one could find quite a few more cases where GIMP does something better than Photoshop or has some feature Photoshop lacks, especially if plugins are included. (There are a lot of plugins for both GIMP and Photoshop, and not all of them have equivalents either way.) If you have both, you'll probably find that Photoshop offers more features and/or a better user interface for most common editing tasks. But every once in a while, there are some places where GIMP manages to shine.



    And of course, there are two more advantages of GIMP worth noting:



    • Photoshop is proprietary software, and costs money to install (and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more). GIMP is free software (both "free as in beer" and "free as in speech"), meaning that you don't have to pay anything for it, can freely make as many copies as you want and even share them with others, and always get all the features.


    • Since anybody is free to download the source code to GIMP and compile it, GIMP runs on a lot of systems that Photoshop doesn't support. Sure, if you're using Windows or MacOS then you're probably fine, but even on x86-based Linux systems, you can only run Photoshop using an API emulation layer like WINE. And just try running Photoshop on a Raspberry Pi...






    share|improve this answer

























    • Wow! Amazing feedback. Truly helpful. Thank you so much :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 14:38






    • 7





      "and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more" - that isn't true any more with the latest CC versions. There is now only one version of Photoshop, no matter which CC subscription plan you have.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 27 '18 at 10:17






    • 8





      Please note that UFRaw is not really considered the currently supported Camera Raw plug-in - Rawtherapee and Darktable are preferred in GIMP 2.10.

      – Michael Schumacher
      Aug 27 '18 at 13:27















    51














    To answer your literal question, there are a few areas where GIMP can be better than Photoshop. It's not particularly common (usually, at best you can expect them to do the job equally well), but it does happen. Off the top of my head (and keeping in mind that it's been many years since I last used Photoshop), here are a few examples:



    • As a historical example, GIMP had content-aware fill (via a free plugin) for several years before Adobe added an equivalent feature to Photoshop.


    • As far as I know, Photoshop still doesn't have anything quite equivalent to GIMP's Color to Alpha tool, even though it's very useful for things like replacing the background of an image while preserving soft edges. (Apparently there is an old plugin for it, but it's 32-bit only and no longer maintained.)


    • GIMP has built-in support for loading and saving multiresolution icons in the .ico format, e.g. for use as favicons on the web. For Photoshop, you need to find and install a plugin or use an external converter tool.


    • I haven't actually used the Adobe Camera Raw plugin in Photoshop, so I can't really compare it in detail with GIMP's UFRaw plugin. From what I've seen, Adobe's plugin certainly has a much smoother user interface and includes a bunch of editing options that UFRaw lacks, but on the other hand, UFRaw does have a pretty advanced technical back-end and supports lots of obscure camera formats. While Camera Raw is probably nicer to use for most people, I'd be surprised if one couldn't find anything that UFRaw does better.


    I'm sure one could find quite a few more cases where GIMP does something better than Photoshop or has some feature Photoshop lacks, especially if plugins are included. (There are a lot of plugins for both GIMP and Photoshop, and not all of them have equivalents either way.) If you have both, you'll probably find that Photoshop offers more features and/or a better user interface for most common editing tasks. But every once in a while, there are some places where GIMP manages to shine.



    And of course, there are two more advantages of GIMP worth noting:



    • Photoshop is proprietary software, and costs money to install (and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more). GIMP is free software (both "free as in beer" and "free as in speech"), meaning that you don't have to pay anything for it, can freely make as many copies as you want and even share them with others, and always get all the features.


    • Since anybody is free to download the source code to GIMP and compile it, GIMP runs on a lot of systems that Photoshop doesn't support. Sure, if you're using Windows or MacOS then you're probably fine, but even on x86-based Linux systems, you can only run Photoshop using an API emulation layer like WINE. And just try running Photoshop on a Raspberry Pi...






    share|improve this answer

























    • Wow! Amazing feedback. Truly helpful. Thank you so much :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 14:38






    • 7





      "and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more" - that isn't true any more with the latest CC versions. There is now only one version of Photoshop, no matter which CC subscription plan you have.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 27 '18 at 10:17






    • 8





      Please note that UFRaw is not really considered the currently supported Camera Raw plug-in - Rawtherapee and Darktable are preferred in GIMP 2.10.

      – Michael Schumacher
      Aug 27 '18 at 13:27













    51












    51








    51







    To answer your literal question, there are a few areas where GIMP can be better than Photoshop. It's not particularly common (usually, at best you can expect them to do the job equally well), but it does happen. Off the top of my head (and keeping in mind that it's been many years since I last used Photoshop), here are a few examples:



    • As a historical example, GIMP had content-aware fill (via a free plugin) for several years before Adobe added an equivalent feature to Photoshop.


    • As far as I know, Photoshop still doesn't have anything quite equivalent to GIMP's Color to Alpha tool, even though it's very useful for things like replacing the background of an image while preserving soft edges. (Apparently there is an old plugin for it, but it's 32-bit only and no longer maintained.)


    • GIMP has built-in support for loading and saving multiresolution icons in the .ico format, e.g. for use as favicons on the web. For Photoshop, you need to find and install a plugin or use an external converter tool.


    • I haven't actually used the Adobe Camera Raw plugin in Photoshop, so I can't really compare it in detail with GIMP's UFRaw plugin. From what I've seen, Adobe's plugin certainly has a much smoother user interface and includes a bunch of editing options that UFRaw lacks, but on the other hand, UFRaw does have a pretty advanced technical back-end and supports lots of obscure camera formats. While Camera Raw is probably nicer to use for most people, I'd be surprised if one couldn't find anything that UFRaw does better.


    I'm sure one could find quite a few more cases where GIMP does something better than Photoshop or has some feature Photoshop lacks, especially if plugins are included. (There are a lot of plugins for both GIMP and Photoshop, and not all of them have equivalents either way.) If you have both, you'll probably find that Photoshop offers more features and/or a better user interface for most common editing tasks. But every once in a while, there are some places where GIMP manages to shine.



    And of course, there are two more advantages of GIMP worth noting:



    • Photoshop is proprietary software, and costs money to install (and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more). GIMP is free software (both "free as in beer" and "free as in speech"), meaning that you don't have to pay anything for it, can freely make as many copies as you want and even share them with others, and always get all the features.


    • Since anybody is free to download the source code to GIMP and compile it, GIMP runs on a lot of systems that Photoshop doesn't support. Sure, if you're using Windows or MacOS then you're probably fine, but even on x86-based Linux systems, you can only run Photoshop using an API emulation layer like WINE. And just try running Photoshop on a Raspberry Pi...






    share|improve this answer















    To answer your literal question, there are a few areas where GIMP can be better than Photoshop. It's not particularly common (usually, at best you can expect them to do the job equally well), but it does happen. Off the top of my head (and keeping in mind that it's been many years since I last used Photoshop), here are a few examples:



    • As a historical example, GIMP had content-aware fill (via a free plugin) for several years before Adobe added an equivalent feature to Photoshop.


    • As far as I know, Photoshop still doesn't have anything quite equivalent to GIMP's Color to Alpha tool, even though it's very useful for things like replacing the background of an image while preserving soft edges. (Apparently there is an old plugin for it, but it's 32-bit only and no longer maintained.)


    • GIMP has built-in support for loading and saving multiresolution icons in the .ico format, e.g. for use as favicons on the web. For Photoshop, you need to find and install a plugin or use an external converter tool.


    • I haven't actually used the Adobe Camera Raw plugin in Photoshop, so I can't really compare it in detail with GIMP's UFRaw plugin. From what I've seen, Adobe's plugin certainly has a much smoother user interface and includes a bunch of editing options that UFRaw lacks, but on the other hand, UFRaw does have a pretty advanced technical back-end and supports lots of obscure camera formats. While Camera Raw is probably nicer to use for most people, I'd be surprised if one couldn't find anything that UFRaw does better.


    I'm sure one could find quite a few more cases where GIMP does something better than Photoshop or has some feature Photoshop lacks, especially if plugins are included. (There are a lot of plugins for both GIMP and Photoshop, and not all of them have equivalents either way.) If you have both, you'll probably find that Photoshop offers more features and/or a better user interface for most common editing tasks. But every once in a while, there are some places where GIMP manages to shine.



    And of course, there are two more advantages of GIMP worth noting:



    • Photoshop is proprietary software, and costs money to install (and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more). GIMP is free software (both "free as in beer" and "free as in speech"), meaning that you don't have to pay anything for it, can freely make as many copies as you want and even share them with others, and always get all the features.


    • Since anybody is free to download the source code to GIMP and compile it, GIMP runs on a lot of systems that Photoshop doesn't support. Sure, if you're using Windows or MacOS then you're probably fine, but even on x86-based Linux systems, you can only run Photoshop using an API emulation layer like WINE. And just try running Photoshop on a Raspberry Pi...







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 27 '18 at 11:02









    Jarvis

    31




    31










    answered Aug 26 '18 at 14:35









    Ilmari KaronenIlmari Karonen

    13.2k23451




    13.2k23451












    • Wow! Amazing feedback. Truly helpful. Thank you so much :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 14:38






    • 7





      "and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more" - that isn't true any more with the latest CC versions. There is now only one version of Photoshop, no matter which CC subscription plan you have.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 27 '18 at 10:17






    • 8





      Please note that UFRaw is not really considered the currently supported Camera Raw plug-in - Rawtherapee and Darktable are preferred in GIMP 2.10.

      – Michael Schumacher
      Aug 27 '18 at 13:27

















    • Wow! Amazing feedback. Truly helpful. Thank you so much :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 14:38






    • 7





      "and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more" - that isn't true any more with the latest CC versions. There is now only one version of Photoshop, no matter which CC subscription plan you have.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 27 '18 at 10:17






    • 8





      Please note that UFRaw is not really considered the currently supported Camera Raw plug-in - Rawtherapee and Darktable are preferred in GIMP 2.10.

      – Michael Schumacher
      Aug 27 '18 at 13:27
















    Wow! Amazing feedback. Truly helpful. Thank you so much :)

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 26 '18 at 14:38





    Wow! Amazing feedback. Truly helpful. Thank you so much :)

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 26 '18 at 14:38




    7




    7





    "and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more" - that isn't true any more with the latest CC versions. There is now only one version of Photoshop, no matter which CC subscription plan you have.

    – Billy Kerr
    Aug 27 '18 at 10:17





    "and the pricing is effectively graduated so that if you want more advanced features, you need to pay more" - that isn't true any more with the latest CC versions. There is now only one version of Photoshop, no matter which CC subscription plan you have.

    – Billy Kerr
    Aug 27 '18 at 10:17




    8




    8





    Please note that UFRaw is not really considered the currently supported Camera Raw plug-in - Rawtherapee and Darktable are preferred in GIMP 2.10.

    – Michael Schumacher
    Aug 27 '18 at 13:27





    Please note that UFRaw is not really considered the currently supported Camera Raw plug-in - Rawtherapee and Darktable are preferred in GIMP 2.10.

    – Michael Schumacher
    Aug 27 '18 at 13:27











    47














    Before I start, just to let you know I'm a happy and frequent user of GIMP, but I also have an Adobe CC account, and use the latest version of Photoshop, which I also enjoy using. I'm not a fanboy of anything.



    GIMP is not Photoshop, and it doesn't really try to compete with Photoshop. It's not commercially developed, and so it's not a commercial competitor, and likely never will be. Also, it's not only free (as in no money), but it's also Open Source, which is something Photoshop will never be. If Adobe abandons development of software, it dies forever, and Adobe has a bad habit of doing things like that.



    As for the user interface, it's different from Photsohop's, but similar enough to make people think it should be the same (but it's not). Single Window mode is the most similar experience to Photoshop. As a user of both Photoshop and GIMP, I find neither user interface to be particularly user friendly. Neither is really designed for a raw "beginner". However, once you get used to GIMP, the problem that it's not exactly the same as Photoshop goes away. And by the the way, Adobe has a habit of suing companies who try to copy their user interface, so GIMP's is probably different for a very good reason.



    And for that reason, I'm not going to list GIMP's user interface as either a Pro, or a Con.



    Pros



    • GIMP has lots of free plugins. In fact they are probably all free since I've never yet found any that you have to pay for.

    • Updates/upgrades are free

    • The software works well on just about any old computer, it's smaller,
      and less resource hungry

    • It works on Linux natively (and also works on Mac and Windows)

    • You can legally install it on as many computers as you want

    Cons



    • No CMYK mode, however there is a free plugin for CMYK output

    • No live layer effects, however there is a free layer effects plugin

    • Doesn't fully support the PSD format, although it will import basic PSDs, and can export to PSD. GIMP has its own native format - XCF.

    • Development is slower than commercial software such as Photoshop

    Neither Con, nor Pro



    • GIMP has a steep learning curve, but then so too does Photoshop

    • Sometimes GIMP is quite bit slower than Photoshop, but that's probably a
      fair price to pay for a less resource hungry application anyway.

    • User interface is complex, but then so too is Photoshop's.





    share|improve this answer


















    • 11





      Non-destructive editing is a huge strength of photoshop in comparison to GIMP. It's planned for 3.2, who knows when it will come out. wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap

      – Eric Duminil
      Aug 26 '18 at 11:35






    • 3





      @EricDuminil - yes you are right, it is a strength of Photoshop.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 26 '18 at 11:43






    • 4





      Not 100% related, but one can get CMYK and layer effects by using Krita.

      – Andrea Lazzarotto
      Aug 26 '18 at 22:48






    • 4





      @AndreaLazzarotto - yes I use Krita too, however Krita is a bit different from GIMP and Photoshop - it's really a painting and drawing application first and foremost, and wasn't really intended as a photo editor.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 27 '18 at 9:41






    • 4





      Its hard to understate just how broad the range of plugins is for GIMP. The fact that people can use python to programattically do things to images means there's tons of crazy stuff out there: content-aware fill plugins years before photoshop's version (though less easy to use), special image filtering techniques or compositing based on cutting edge research papers, and more...

      – mbrig
      Aug 29 '18 at 20:45















    47














    Before I start, just to let you know I'm a happy and frequent user of GIMP, but I also have an Adobe CC account, and use the latest version of Photoshop, which I also enjoy using. I'm not a fanboy of anything.



    GIMP is not Photoshop, and it doesn't really try to compete with Photoshop. It's not commercially developed, and so it's not a commercial competitor, and likely never will be. Also, it's not only free (as in no money), but it's also Open Source, which is something Photoshop will never be. If Adobe abandons development of software, it dies forever, and Adobe has a bad habit of doing things like that.



    As for the user interface, it's different from Photsohop's, but similar enough to make people think it should be the same (but it's not). Single Window mode is the most similar experience to Photoshop. As a user of both Photoshop and GIMP, I find neither user interface to be particularly user friendly. Neither is really designed for a raw "beginner". However, once you get used to GIMP, the problem that it's not exactly the same as Photoshop goes away. And by the the way, Adobe has a habit of suing companies who try to copy their user interface, so GIMP's is probably different for a very good reason.



    And for that reason, I'm not going to list GIMP's user interface as either a Pro, or a Con.



    Pros



    • GIMP has lots of free plugins. In fact they are probably all free since I've never yet found any that you have to pay for.

    • Updates/upgrades are free

    • The software works well on just about any old computer, it's smaller,
      and less resource hungry

    • It works on Linux natively (and also works on Mac and Windows)

    • You can legally install it on as many computers as you want

    Cons



    • No CMYK mode, however there is a free plugin for CMYK output

    • No live layer effects, however there is a free layer effects plugin

    • Doesn't fully support the PSD format, although it will import basic PSDs, and can export to PSD. GIMP has its own native format - XCF.

    • Development is slower than commercial software such as Photoshop

    Neither Con, nor Pro



    • GIMP has a steep learning curve, but then so too does Photoshop

    • Sometimes GIMP is quite bit slower than Photoshop, but that's probably a
      fair price to pay for a less resource hungry application anyway.

    • User interface is complex, but then so too is Photoshop's.





    share|improve this answer


















    • 11





      Non-destructive editing is a huge strength of photoshop in comparison to GIMP. It's planned for 3.2, who knows when it will come out. wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap

      – Eric Duminil
      Aug 26 '18 at 11:35






    • 3





      @EricDuminil - yes you are right, it is a strength of Photoshop.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 26 '18 at 11:43






    • 4





      Not 100% related, but one can get CMYK and layer effects by using Krita.

      – Andrea Lazzarotto
      Aug 26 '18 at 22:48






    • 4





      @AndreaLazzarotto - yes I use Krita too, however Krita is a bit different from GIMP and Photoshop - it's really a painting and drawing application first and foremost, and wasn't really intended as a photo editor.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 27 '18 at 9:41






    • 4





      Its hard to understate just how broad the range of plugins is for GIMP. The fact that people can use python to programattically do things to images means there's tons of crazy stuff out there: content-aware fill plugins years before photoshop's version (though less easy to use), special image filtering techniques or compositing based on cutting edge research papers, and more...

      – mbrig
      Aug 29 '18 at 20:45













    47












    47








    47







    Before I start, just to let you know I'm a happy and frequent user of GIMP, but I also have an Adobe CC account, and use the latest version of Photoshop, which I also enjoy using. I'm not a fanboy of anything.



    GIMP is not Photoshop, and it doesn't really try to compete with Photoshop. It's not commercially developed, and so it's not a commercial competitor, and likely never will be. Also, it's not only free (as in no money), but it's also Open Source, which is something Photoshop will never be. If Adobe abandons development of software, it dies forever, and Adobe has a bad habit of doing things like that.



    As for the user interface, it's different from Photsohop's, but similar enough to make people think it should be the same (but it's not). Single Window mode is the most similar experience to Photoshop. As a user of both Photoshop and GIMP, I find neither user interface to be particularly user friendly. Neither is really designed for a raw "beginner". However, once you get used to GIMP, the problem that it's not exactly the same as Photoshop goes away. And by the the way, Adobe has a habit of suing companies who try to copy their user interface, so GIMP's is probably different for a very good reason.



    And for that reason, I'm not going to list GIMP's user interface as either a Pro, or a Con.



    Pros



    • GIMP has lots of free plugins. In fact they are probably all free since I've never yet found any that you have to pay for.

    • Updates/upgrades are free

    • The software works well on just about any old computer, it's smaller,
      and less resource hungry

    • It works on Linux natively (and also works on Mac and Windows)

    • You can legally install it on as many computers as you want

    Cons



    • No CMYK mode, however there is a free plugin for CMYK output

    • No live layer effects, however there is a free layer effects plugin

    • Doesn't fully support the PSD format, although it will import basic PSDs, and can export to PSD. GIMP has its own native format - XCF.

    • Development is slower than commercial software such as Photoshop

    Neither Con, nor Pro



    • GIMP has a steep learning curve, but then so too does Photoshop

    • Sometimes GIMP is quite bit slower than Photoshop, but that's probably a
      fair price to pay for a less resource hungry application anyway.

    • User interface is complex, but then so too is Photoshop's.





    share|improve this answer













    Before I start, just to let you know I'm a happy and frequent user of GIMP, but I also have an Adobe CC account, and use the latest version of Photoshop, which I also enjoy using. I'm not a fanboy of anything.



    GIMP is not Photoshop, and it doesn't really try to compete with Photoshop. It's not commercially developed, and so it's not a commercial competitor, and likely never will be. Also, it's not only free (as in no money), but it's also Open Source, which is something Photoshop will never be. If Adobe abandons development of software, it dies forever, and Adobe has a bad habit of doing things like that.



    As for the user interface, it's different from Photsohop's, but similar enough to make people think it should be the same (but it's not). Single Window mode is the most similar experience to Photoshop. As a user of both Photoshop and GIMP, I find neither user interface to be particularly user friendly. Neither is really designed for a raw "beginner". However, once you get used to GIMP, the problem that it's not exactly the same as Photoshop goes away. And by the the way, Adobe has a habit of suing companies who try to copy their user interface, so GIMP's is probably different for a very good reason.



    And for that reason, I'm not going to list GIMP's user interface as either a Pro, or a Con.



    Pros



    • GIMP has lots of free plugins. In fact they are probably all free since I've never yet found any that you have to pay for.

    • Updates/upgrades are free

    • The software works well on just about any old computer, it's smaller,
      and less resource hungry

    • It works on Linux natively (and also works on Mac and Windows)

    • You can legally install it on as many computers as you want

    Cons



    • No CMYK mode, however there is a free plugin for CMYK output

    • No live layer effects, however there is a free layer effects plugin

    • Doesn't fully support the PSD format, although it will import basic PSDs, and can export to PSD. GIMP has its own native format - XCF.

    • Development is slower than commercial software such as Photoshop

    Neither Con, nor Pro



    • GIMP has a steep learning curve, but then so too does Photoshop

    • Sometimes GIMP is quite bit slower than Photoshop, but that's probably a
      fair price to pay for a less resource hungry application anyway.

    • User interface is complex, but then so too is Photoshop's.






    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Aug 26 '18 at 10:45









    Billy KerrBilly Kerr

    26.3k22057




    26.3k22057







    • 11





      Non-destructive editing is a huge strength of photoshop in comparison to GIMP. It's planned for 3.2, who knows when it will come out. wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap

      – Eric Duminil
      Aug 26 '18 at 11:35






    • 3





      @EricDuminil - yes you are right, it is a strength of Photoshop.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 26 '18 at 11:43






    • 4





      Not 100% related, but one can get CMYK and layer effects by using Krita.

      – Andrea Lazzarotto
      Aug 26 '18 at 22:48






    • 4





      @AndreaLazzarotto - yes I use Krita too, however Krita is a bit different from GIMP and Photoshop - it's really a painting and drawing application first and foremost, and wasn't really intended as a photo editor.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 27 '18 at 9:41






    • 4





      Its hard to understate just how broad the range of plugins is for GIMP. The fact that people can use python to programattically do things to images means there's tons of crazy stuff out there: content-aware fill plugins years before photoshop's version (though less easy to use), special image filtering techniques or compositing based on cutting edge research papers, and more...

      – mbrig
      Aug 29 '18 at 20:45












    • 11





      Non-destructive editing is a huge strength of photoshop in comparison to GIMP. It's planned for 3.2, who knows when it will come out. wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap

      – Eric Duminil
      Aug 26 '18 at 11:35






    • 3





      @EricDuminil - yes you are right, it is a strength of Photoshop.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 26 '18 at 11:43






    • 4





      Not 100% related, but one can get CMYK and layer effects by using Krita.

      – Andrea Lazzarotto
      Aug 26 '18 at 22:48






    • 4





      @AndreaLazzarotto - yes I use Krita too, however Krita is a bit different from GIMP and Photoshop - it's really a painting and drawing application first and foremost, and wasn't really intended as a photo editor.

      – Billy Kerr
      Aug 27 '18 at 9:41






    • 4





      Its hard to understate just how broad the range of plugins is for GIMP. The fact that people can use python to programattically do things to images means there's tons of crazy stuff out there: content-aware fill plugins years before photoshop's version (though less easy to use), special image filtering techniques or compositing based on cutting edge research papers, and more...

      – mbrig
      Aug 29 '18 at 20:45







    11




    11





    Non-destructive editing is a huge strength of photoshop in comparison to GIMP. It's planned for 3.2, who knows when it will come out. wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap

    – Eric Duminil
    Aug 26 '18 at 11:35





    Non-destructive editing is a huge strength of photoshop in comparison to GIMP. It's planned for 3.2, who knows when it will come out. wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap

    – Eric Duminil
    Aug 26 '18 at 11:35




    3




    3





    @EricDuminil - yes you are right, it is a strength of Photoshop.

    – Billy Kerr
    Aug 26 '18 at 11:43





    @EricDuminil - yes you are right, it is a strength of Photoshop.

    – Billy Kerr
    Aug 26 '18 at 11:43




    4




    4





    Not 100% related, but one can get CMYK and layer effects by using Krita.

    – Andrea Lazzarotto
    Aug 26 '18 at 22:48





    Not 100% related, but one can get CMYK and layer effects by using Krita.

    – Andrea Lazzarotto
    Aug 26 '18 at 22:48




    4




    4





    @AndreaLazzarotto - yes I use Krita too, however Krita is a bit different from GIMP and Photoshop - it's really a painting and drawing application first and foremost, and wasn't really intended as a photo editor.

    – Billy Kerr
    Aug 27 '18 at 9:41





    @AndreaLazzarotto - yes I use Krita too, however Krita is a bit different from GIMP and Photoshop - it's really a painting and drawing application first and foremost, and wasn't really intended as a photo editor.

    – Billy Kerr
    Aug 27 '18 at 9:41




    4




    4





    Its hard to understate just how broad the range of plugins is for GIMP. The fact that people can use python to programattically do things to images means there's tons of crazy stuff out there: content-aware fill plugins years before photoshop's version (though less easy to use), special image filtering techniques or compositing based on cutting edge research papers, and more...

    – mbrig
    Aug 29 '18 at 20:45





    Its hard to understate just how broad the range of plugins is for GIMP. The fact that people can use python to programattically do things to images means there's tons of crazy stuff out there: content-aware fill plugins years before photoshop's version (though less easy to use), special image filtering techniques or compositing based on cutting edge research papers, and more...

    – mbrig
    Aug 29 '18 at 20:45











    13














    Since many have said most of what I was going to, there is one situation, somewhat specialized, that GIMP can handle that Photoshop could not.



    I do astrophotograpy, and if I want to process the RAW images from the telescope's camera (not a SLR/DSLR attached), GIMP can process these files while Photoshop can not without a special plugin designed jointly by the ESO and NASA.



    The FITS file format (Flexible Image Transport System) can be processed by GIMP, and quite well if you want to go to, say, the Hubble Space Telescope image archives. All images are stored in FIT or FITS format.



    ESO/NASA and the Hubble Space Telescope group, by popular demand, created a plugin for Photoshop CS (and they claim it will work with some non-CS versions and other editors, but did not list them) called the "Photoshop FITS Liberator" toolbox.



    I have not used this toolbox yet, so I cannot comment on how it compares with using GIMP. Since I need to be able to process FITS with my normal photography files, GIMP is part of my image workflow process.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thanks, George. A great use case for GIMP - GIMP is better for finding UFOs on the moon. This could be a very good marketing strategy! :) #ViralMarketing

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:02






    • 5





      I don't use it for finding UFO's, but if one does gets caught in front of my telescope, then cool 😉.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:15











    • A bit unfair to count a function as lacking when ther is a generally available plugin for it.

      – Laurence Payne
      Aug 29 '18 at 19:14















    13














    Since many have said most of what I was going to, there is one situation, somewhat specialized, that GIMP can handle that Photoshop could not.



    I do astrophotograpy, and if I want to process the RAW images from the telescope's camera (not a SLR/DSLR attached), GIMP can process these files while Photoshop can not without a special plugin designed jointly by the ESO and NASA.



    The FITS file format (Flexible Image Transport System) can be processed by GIMP, and quite well if you want to go to, say, the Hubble Space Telescope image archives. All images are stored in FIT or FITS format.



    ESO/NASA and the Hubble Space Telescope group, by popular demand, created a plugin for Photoshop CS (and they claim it will work with some non-CS versions and other editors, but did not list them) called the "Photoshop FITS Liberator" toolbox.



    I have not used this toolbox yet, so I cannot comment on how it compares with using GIMP. Since I need to be able to process FITS with my normal photography files, GIMP is part of my image workflow process.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thanks, George. A great use case for GIMP - GIMP is better for finding UFOs on the moon. This could be a very good marketing strategy! :) #ViralMarketing

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:02






    • 5





      I don't use it for finding UFO's, but if one does gets caught in front of my telescope, then cool 😉.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:15











    • A bit unfair to count a function as lacking when ther is a generally available plugin for it.

      – Laurence Payne
      Aug 29 '18 at 19:14













    13












    13








    13







    Since many have said most of what I was going to, there is one situation, somewhat specialized, that GIMP can handle that Photoshop could not.



    I do astrophotograpy, and if I want to process the RAW images from the telescope's camera (not a SLR/DSLR attached), GIMP can process these files while Photoshop can not without a special plugin designed jointly by the ESO and NASA.



    The FITS file format (Flexible Image Transport System) can be processed by GIMP, and quite well if you want to go to, say, the Hubble Space Telescope image archives. All images are stored in FIT or FITS format.



    ESO/NASA and the Hubble Space Telescope group, by popular demand, created a plugin for Photoshop CS (and they claim it will work with some non-CS versions and other editors, but did not list them) called the "Photoshop FITS Liberator" toolbox.



    I have not used this toolbox yet, so I cannot comment on how it compares with using GIMP. Since I need to be able to process FITS with my normal photography files, GIMP is part of my image workflow process.






    share|improve this answer















    Since many have said most of what I was going to, there is one situation, somewhat specialized, that GIMP can handle that Photoshop could not.



    I do astrophotograpy, and if I want to process the RAW images from the telescope's camera (not a SLR/DSLR attached), GIMP can process these files while Photoshop can not without a special plugin designed jointly by the ESO and NASA.



    The FITS file format (Flexible Image Transport System) can be processed by GIMP, and quite well if you want to go to, say, the Hubble Space Telescope image archives. All images are stored in FIT or FITS format.



    ESO/NASA and the Hubble Space Telescope group, by popular demand, created a plugin for Photoshop CS (and they claim it will work with some non-CS versions and other editors, but did not list them) called the "Photoshop FITS Liberator" toolbox.



    I have not used this toolbox yet, so I cannot comment on how it compares with using GIMP. Since I need to be able to process FITS with my normal photography files, GIMP is part of my image workflow process.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 28 '18 at 9:31

























    answered Aug 28 '18 at 9:01









    George McGinnGeorge McGinn

    2315




    2315












    • Thanks, George. A great use case for GIMP - GIMP is better for finding UFOs on the moon. This could be a very good marketing strategy! :) #ViralMarketing

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:02






    • 5





      I don't use it for finding UFO's, but if one does gets caught in front of my telescope, then cool 😉.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:15











    • A bit unfair to count a function as lacking when ther is a generally available plugin for it.

      – Laurence Payne
      Aug 29 '18 at 19:14

















    • Thanks, George. A great use case for GIMP - GIMP is better for finding UFOs on the moon. This could be a very good marketing strategy! :) #ViralMarketing

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:02






    • 5





      I don't use it for finding UFO's, but if one does gets caught in front of my telescope, then cool 😉.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:15











    • A bit unfair to count a function as lacking when ther is a generally available plugin for it.

      – Laurence Payne
      Aug 29 '18 at 19:14
















    Thanks, George. A great use case for GIMP - GIMP is better for finding UFOs on the moon. This could be a very good marketing strategy! :) #ViralMarketing

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 28 '18 at 11:02





    Thanks, George. A great use case for GIMP - GIMP is better for finding UFOs on the moon. This could be a very good marketing strategy! :) #ViralMarketing

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 28 '18 at 11:02




    5




    5





    I don't use it for finding UFO's, but if one does gets caught in front of my telescope, then cool 😉.

    – George McGinn
    Aug 28 '18 at 11:15





    I don't use it for finding UFO's, but if one does gets caught in front of my telescope, then cool 😉.

    – George McGinn
    Aug 28 '18 at 11:15













    A bit unfair to count a function as lacking when ther is a generally available plugin for it.

    – Laurence Payne
    Aug 29 '18 at 19:14





    A bit unfair to count a function as lacking when ther is a generally available plugin for it.

    – Laurence Payne
    Aug 29 '18 at 19:14











    9














    You can not compare GIMP and Photoshop because they do not represent the same category of tools.



    The world is full of pixel manipulators that have



    • faster interaction speeds,

    • more filters,

    • better brushes,

    and are



    • easier to use,

    • cheaper.

    But this misrepresents Photoshop. Photoshop is mainly about its color management engine and its print related feature, CMYK and spot colors, Adobe’s Type engine and PDF/EPS support.



    Now, are there areas where GIMP is better? Yes, GIMP has more and better filters than Photoshop. But again nearly any competent pixel manipulation software would have, because ultimately that is not what Photoshop is about.



    But would I choose GIMP? No, not really. I would choose one of the other open-source or cheap editors out there, such as Krita, for example.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thanks for your answer Joojaa. Some great points here. :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 10:50






    • 1





      I like Krita, but since it does not support FITS format (just checked current version), it never made it into my imaging workflow. But it is an editor worth considering if you do not need to use it for what some call the lesser known file formats.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 9:10






    • 2





      @GeorgeMcGinn use imagamagic for the rest ;)

      – joojaa
      Aug 28 '18 at 10:10






    • 1





      @joojaa you mean ImageMagick? I have the web version of it as I have a system called Editorial Stock Pro that managed my stock photography website including sales, and I needed ImageMagick to convert the images to the format requested by the user. I had not known they made a version to run on a PC/Mac, or from Filestack. Thanks.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:11






    • 1





      @GeorgeMcGinn Yeah i do.

      – joojaa
      Aug 28 '18 at 13:20















    9














    You can not compare GIMP and Photoshop because they do not represent the same category of tools.



    The world is full of pixel manipulators that have



    • faster interaction speeds,

    • more filters,

    • better brushes,

    and are



    • easier to use,

    • cheaper.

    But this misrepresents Photoshop. Photoshop is mainly about its color management engine and its print related feature, CMYK and spot colors, Adobe’s Type engine and PDF/EPS support.



    Now, are there areas where GIMP is better? Yes, GIMP has more and better filters than Photoshop. But again nearly any competent pixel manipulation software would have, because ultimately that is not what Photoshop is about.



    But would I choose GIMP? No, not really. I would choose one of the other open-source or cheap editors out there, such as Krita, for example.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thanks for your answer Joojaa. Some great points here. :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 10:50






    • 1





      I like Krita, but since it does not support FITS format (just checked current version), it never made it into my imaging workflow. But it is an editor worth considering if you do not need to use it for what some call the lesser known file formats.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 9:10






    • 2





      @GeorgeMcGinn use imagamagic for the rest ;)

      – joojaa
      Aug 28 '18 at 10:10






    • 1





      @joojaa you mean ImageMagick? I have the web version of it as I have a system called Editorial Stock Pro that managed my stock photography website including sales, and I needed ImageMagick to convert the images to the format requested by the user. I had not known they made a version to run on a PC/Mac, or from Filestack. Thanks.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:11






    • 1





      @GeorgeMcGinn Yeah i do.

      – joojaa
      Aug 28 '18 at 13:20













    9












    9








    9







    You can not compare GIMP and Photoshop because they do not represent the same category of tools.



    The world is full of pixel manipulators that have



    • faster interaction speeds,

    • more filters,

    • better brushes,

    and are



    • easier to use,

    • cheaper.

    But this misrepresents Photoshop. Photoshop is mainly about its color management engine and its print related feature, CMYK and spot colors, Adobe’s Type engine and PDF/EPS support.



    Now, are there areas where GIMP is better? Yes, GIMP has more and better filters than Photoshop. But again nearly any competent pixel manipulation software would have, because ultimately that is not what Photoshop is about.



    But would I choose GIMP? No, not really. I would choose one of the other open-source or cheap editors out there, such as Krita, for example.






    share|improve this answer















    You can not compare GIMP and Photoshop because they do not represent the same category of tools.



    The world is full of pixel manipulators that have



    • faster interaction speeds,

    • more filters,

    • better brushes,

    and are



    • easier to use,

    • cheaper.

    But this misrepresents Photoshop. Photoshop is mainly about its color management engine and its print related feature, CMYK and spot colors, Adobe’s Type engine and PDF/EPS support.



    Now, are there areas where GIMP is better? Yes, GIMP has more and better filters than Photoshop. But again nearly any competent pixel manipulation software would have, because ultimately that is not what Photoshop is about.



    But would I choose GIMP? No, not really. I would choose one of the other open-source or cheap editors out there, such as Krita, for example.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 27 '18 at 12:30









    TRiG

    1447




    1447










    answered Aug 26 '18 at 10:45









    joojaajoojaa

    42k667120




    42k667120












    • Thanks for your answer Joojaa. Some great points here. :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 10:50






    • 1





      I like Krita, but since it does not support FITS format (just checked current version), it never made it into my imaging workflow. But it is an editor worth considering if you do not need to use it for what some call the lesser known file formats.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 9:10






    • 2





      @GeorgeMcGinn use imagamagic for the rest ;)

      – joojaa
      Aug 28 '18 at 10:10






    • 1





      @joojaa you mean ImageMagick? I have the web version of it as I have a system called Editorial Stock Pro that managed my stock photography website including sales, and I needed ImageMagick to convert the images to the format requested by the user. I had not known they made a version to run on a PC/Mac, or from Filestack. Thanks.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:11






    • 1





      @GeorgeMcGinn Yeah i do.

      – joojaa
      Aug 28 '18 at 13:20

















    • Thanks for your answer Joojaa. Some great points here. :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 10:50






    • 1





      I like Krita, but since it does not support FITS format (just checked current version), it never made it into my imaging workflow. But it is an editor worth considering if you do not need to use it for what some call the lesser known file formats.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 9:10






    • 2





      @GeorgeMcGinn use imagamagic for the rest ;)

      – joojaa
      Aug 28 '18 at 10:10






    • 1





      @joojaa you mean ImageMagick? I have the web version of it as I have a system called Editorial Stock Pro that managed my stock photography website including sales, and I needed ImageMagick to convert the images to the format requested by the user. I had not known they made a version to run on a PC/Mac, or from Filestack. Thanks.

      – George McGinn
      Aug 28 '18 at 11:11






    • 1





      @GeorgeMcGinn Yeah i do.

      – joojaa
      Aug 28 '18 at 13:20
















    Thanks for your answer Joojaa. Some great points here. :)

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 26 '18 at 10:50





    Thanks for your answer Joojaa. Some great points here. :)

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 26 '18 at 10:50




    1




    1





    I like Krita, but since it does not support FITS format (just checked current version), it never made it into my imaging workflow. But it is an editor worth considering if you do not need to use it for what some call the lesser known file formats.

    – George McGinn
    Aug 28 '18 at 9:10





    I like Krita, but since it does not support FITS format (just checked current version), it never made it into my imaging workflow. But it is an editor worth considering if you do not need to use it for what some call the lesser known file formats.

    – George McGinn
    Aug 28 '18 at 9:10




    2




    2





    @GeorgeMcGinn use imagamagic for the rest ;)

    – joojaa
    Aug 28 '18 at 10:10





    @GeorgeMcGinn use imagamagic for the rest ;)

    – joojaa
    Aug 28 '18 at 10:10




    1




    1





    @joojaa you mean ImageMagick? I have the web version of it as I have a system called Editorial Stock Pro that managed my stock photography website including sales, and I needed ImageMagick to convert the images to the format requested by the user. I had not known they made a version to run on a PC/Mac, or from Filestack. Thanks.

    – George McGinn
    Aug 28 '18 at 11:11





    @joojaa you mean ImageMagick? I have the web version of it as I have a system called Editorial Stock Pro that managed my stock photography website including sales, and I needed ImageMagick to convert the images to the format requested by the user. I had not known they made a version to run on a PC/Mac, or from Filestack. Thanks.

    – George McGinn
    Aug 28 '18 at 11:11




    1




    1





    @GeorgeMcGinn Yeah i do.

    – joojaa
    Aug 28 '18 at 13:20





    @GeorgeMcGinn Yeah i do.

    – joojaa
    Aug 28 '18 at 13:20











    9














    I've taken advantage of most of the things listed in other answers but there were a few which I didn't see highlighted...



    Really flexible keybindings



    Also called keyboard-shortcuts or 'accelerators' depending on where you're from, I found that – at least in CS3 – Adobe arbitrarily limited which key-bindings were allowed for certain functions.



    The specific example I remember is that CS2/CS3 considered Full-Screen Mode to be a "Tool" which could only be bound to a letter-key like F, rather than something more standard like the F11 key, which was not allowed. This was one of the things that tipped me toward GIMP.



    Subsequently, I've taken advantage of 6 hooks for "increase/decrease current foreground swatch hue/value/saturation" which are really useful for some tasks, especially painting.



    No-fuss portable settings



    A big host of settings in GIMP including tool defaults, brushes, and even scripts and extensions can simply be placed in one's ~/.gimp<version>/ directory (or %USERPROFILE%.gimp<version> in Windows), and ported between different workstations using a USB-drive or using Git. This is nice if you use GIMP both at home and at the office, since once the file-links are set, settings are picked up automatically so there's no remembering to click on Import/Export Settings when sitting down or getting ready to leave.



    Community and source-structure



    This is a general advantage of open-source softwares; if you or your company want to develop or pay to develop/improve GIMP's functionality, this can be done and the resulting code is then (per GIMP's license) given back to the community, which might maintain it for everyone in perpetuum for free (if it's useful).



    Looking forward, updates to GIMP tend to be focused on what users need, rather than what might allow a proprietary-software company to charge more, lock its users into their own software suites, or otherwise make money.



    In many cases, it's also possible to find out exactly how and why something does (or doesn't) work straight from the developers themselves. This can help to inform decisions about which fixes or improvements might be worth the cost of contributing, if you're using GIMP as a part of your hobbies or business.



    Other stuff



    Many of the answers (and a few comments) cover a lot of the advantages that GIMP has I would also talk about, including:



    • Price

    • Lenient license

    • Hackable (ease of scripting, creating extensions, etc.)





    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      Nice answer. So many contenders to accept as the answer - is there a multi accept options, hehe! Many thanks for this and your time - All very useful stuff for myself and anyone reading :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 28 '18 at 1:32






    • 6





      Just to avoid a possible "See, you are forced to publish any modifications you make to Free Software!" argument: you can both distribute a modified GPL-covered program fully internally in an organisation, and even pay someone external to develop these modifications, without having to publish them: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution and gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

      – Michael Schumacher
      Aug 29 '18 at 7:25






    • 3





      It just makes more sense from a Game Theory perspective to release your contributions, though, unless the patch gives you a competitive advantage and you care more about beating your competition than being more efficient overall. (Because, you know, it's not a zero-sum game.)

      – wizzwizz4
      Aug 29 '18 at 10:55
















    9














    I've taken advantage of most of the things listed in other answers but there were a few which I didn't see highlighted...



    Really flexible keybindings



    Also called keyboard-shortcuts or 'accelerators' depending on where you're from, I found that – at least in CS3 – Adobe arbitrarily limited which key-bindings were allowed for certain functions.



    The specific example I remember is that CS2/CS3 considered Full-Screen Mode to be a "Tool" which could only be bound to a letter-key like F, rather than something more standard like the F11 key, which was not allowed. This was one of the things that tipped me toward GIMP.



    Subsequently, I've taken advantage of 6 hooks for "increase/decrease current foreground swatch hue/value/saturation" which are really useful for some tasks, especially painting.



    No-fuss portable settings



    A big host of settings in GIMP including tool defaults, brushes, and even scripts and extensions can simply be placed in one's ~/.gimp<version>/ directory (or %USERPROFILE%.gimp<version> in Windows), and ported between different workstations using a USB-drive or using Git. This is nice if you use GIMP both at home and at the office, since once the file-links are set, settings are picked up automatically so there's no remembering to click on Import/Export Settings when sitting down or getting ready to leave.



    Community and source-structure



    This is a general advantage of open-source softwares; if you or your company want to develop or pay to develop/improve GIMP's functionality, this can be done and the resulting code is then (per GIMP's license) given back to the community, which might maintain it for everyone in perpetuum for free (if it's useful).



    Looking forward, updates to GIMP tend to be focused on what users need, rather than what might allow a proprietary-software company to charge more, lock its users into their own software suites, or otherwise make money.



    In many cases, it's also possible to find out exactly how and why something does (or doesn't) work straight from the developers themselves. This can help to inform decisions about which fixes or improvements might be worth the cost of contributing, if you're using GIMP as a part of your hobbies or business.



    Other stuff



    Many of the answers (and a few comments) cover a lot of the advantages that GIMP has I would also talk about, including:



    • Price

    • Lenient license

    • Hackable (ease of scripting, creating extensions, etc.)





    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      Nice answer. So many contenders to accept as the answer - is there a multi accept options, hehe! Many thanks for this and your time - All very useful stuff for myself and anyone reading :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 28 '18 at 1:32






    • 6





      Just to avoid a possible "See, you are forced to publish any modifications you make to Free Software!" argument: you can both distribute a modified GPL-covered program fully internally in an organisation, and even pay someone external to develop these modifications, without having to publish them: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution and gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

      – Michael Schumacher
      Aug 29 '18 at 7:25






    • 3





      It just makes more sense from a Game Theory perspective to release your contributions, though, unless the patch gives you a competitive advantage and you care more about beating your competition than being more efficient overall. (Because, you know, it's not a zero-sum game.)

      – wizzwizz4
      Aug 29 '18 at 10:55














    9












    9








    9







    I've taken advantage of most of the things listed in other answers but there were a few which I didn't see highlighted...



    Really flexible keybindings



    Also called keyboard-shortcuts or 'accelerators' depending on where you're from, I found that – at least in CS3 – Adobe arbitrarily limited which key-bindings were allowed for certain functions.



    The specific example I remember is that CS2/CS3 considered Full-Screen Mode to be a "Tool" which could only be bound to a letter-key like F, rather than something more standard like the F11 key, which was not allowed. This was one of the things that tipped me toward GIMP.



    Subsequently, I've taken advantage of 6 hooks for "increase/decrease current foreground swatch hue/value/saturation" which are really useful for some tasks, especially painting.



    No-fuss portable settings



    A big host of settings in GIMP including tool defaults, brushes, and even scripts and extensions can simply be placed in one's ~/.gimp<version>/ directory (or %USERPROFILE%.gimp<version> in Windows), and ported between different workstations using a USB-drive or using Git. This is nice if you use GIMP both at home and at the office, since once the file-links are set, settings are picked up automatically so there's no remembering to click on Import/Export Settings when sitting down or getting ready to leave.



    Community and source-structure



    This is a general advantage of open-source softwares; if you or your company want to develop or pay to develop/improve GIMP's functionality, this can be done and the resulting code is then (per GIMP's license) given back to the community, which might maintain it for everyone in perpetuum for free (if it's useful).



    Looking forward, updates to GIMP tend to be focused on what users need, rather than what might allow a proprietary-software company to charge more, lock its users into their own software suites, or otherwise make money.



    In many cases, it's also possible to find out exactly how and why something does (or doesn't) work straight from the developers themselves. This can help to inform decisions about which fixes or improvements might be worth the cost of contributing, if you're using GIMP as a part of your hobbies or business.



    Other stuff



    Many of the answers (and a few comments) cover a lot of the advantages that GIMP has I would also talk about, including:



    • Price

    • Lenient license

    • Hackable (ease of scripting, creating extensions, etc.)





    share|improve this answer















    I've taken advantage of most of the things listed in other answers but there were a few which I didn't see highlighted...



    Really flexible keybindings



    Also called keyboard-shortcuts or 'accelerators' depending on where you're from, I found that – at least in CS3 – Adobe arbitrarily limited which key-bindings were allowed for certain functions.



    The specific example I remember is that CS2/CS3 considered Full-Screen Mode to be a "Tool" which could only be bound to a letter-key like F, rather than something more standard like the F11 key, which was not allowed. This was one of the things that tipped me toward GIMP.



    Subsequently, I've taken advantage of 6 hooks for "increase/decrease current foreground swatch hue/value/saturation" which are really useful for some tasks, especially painting.



    No-fuss portable settings



    A big host of settings in GIMP including tool defaults, brushes, and even scripts and extensions can simply be placed in one's ~/.gimp<version>/ directory (or %USERPROFILE%.gimp<version> in Windows), and ported between different workstations using a USB-drive or using Git. This is nice if you use GIMP both at home and at the office, since once the file-links are set, settings are picked up automatically so there's no remembering to click on Import/Export Settings when sitting down or getting ready to leave.



    Community and source-structure



    This is a general advantage of open-source softwares; if you or your company want to develop or pay to develop/improve GIMP's functionality, this can be done and the resulting code is then (per GIMP's license) given back to the community, which might maintain it for everyone in perpetuum for free (if it's useful).



    Looking forward, updates to GIMP tend to be focused on what users need, rather than what might allow a proprietary-software company to charge more, lock its users into their own software suites, or otherwise make money.



    In many cases, it's also possible to find out exactly how and why something does (or doesn't) work straight from the developers themselves. This can help to inform decisions about which fixes or improvements might be worth the cost of contributing, if you're using GIMP as a part of your hobbies or business.



    Other stuff



    Many of the answers (and a few comments) cover a lot of the advantages that GIMP has I would also talk about, including:



    • Price

    • Lenient license

    • Hackable (ease of scripting, creating extensions, etc.)






    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 27 '18 at 21:19

























    answered Aug 27 '18 at 20:16









    koyaekoyae

    1933




    1933







    • 1





      Nice answer. So many contenders to accept as the answer - is there a multi accept options, hehe! Many thanks for this and your time - All very useful stuff for myself and anyone reading :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 28 '18 at 1:32






    • 6





      Just to avoid a possible "See, you are forced to publish any modifications you make to Free Software!" argument: you can both distribute a modified GPL-covered program fully internally in an organisation, and even pay someone external to develop these modifications, without having to publish them: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution and gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

      – Michael Schumacher
      Aug 29 '18 at 7:25






    • 3





      It just makes more sense from a Game Theory perspective to release your contributions, though, unless the patch gives you a competitive advantage and you care more about beating your competition than being more efficient overall. (Because, you know, it's not a zero-sum game.)

      – wizzwizz4
      Aug 29 '18 at 10:55













    • 1





      Nice answer. So many contenders to accept as the answer - is there a multi accept options, hehe! Many thanks for this and your time - All very useful stuff for myself and anyone reading :)

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 28 '18 at 1:32






    • 6





      Just to avoid a possible "See, you are forced to publish any modifications you make to Free Software!" argument: you can both distribute a modified GPL-covered program fully internally in an organisation, and even pay someone external to develop these modifications, without having to publish them: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution and gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

      – Michael Schumacher
      Aug 29 '18 at 7:25






    • 3





      It just makes more sense from a Game Theory perspective to release your contributions, though, unless the patch gives you a competitive advantage and you care more about beating your competition than being more efficient overall. (Because, you know, it's not a zero-sum game.)

      – wizzwizz4
      Aug 29 '18 at 10:55








    1




    1





    Nice answer. So many contenders to accept as the answer - is there a multi accept options, hehe! Many thanks for this and your time - All very useful stuff for myself and anyone reading :)

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 28 '18 at 1:32





    Nice answer. So many contenders to accept as the answer - is there a multi accept options, hehe! Many thanks for this and your time - All very useful stuff for myself and anyone reading :)

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 28 '18 at 1:32




    6




    6





    Just to avoid a possible "See, you are forced to publish any modifications you make to Free Software!" argument: you can both distribute a modified GPL-covered program fully internally in an organisation, and even pay someone external to develop these modifications, without having to publish them: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution and gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

    – Michael Schumacher
    Aug 29 '18 at 7:25





    Just to avoid a possible "See, you are forced to publish any modifications you make to Free Software!" argument: you can both distribute a modified GPL-covered program fully internally in an organisation, and even pay someone external to develop these modifications, without having to publish them: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution and gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

    – Michael Schumacher
    Aug 29 '18 at 7:25




    3




    3





    It just makes more sense from a Game Theory perspective to release your contributions, though, unless the patch gives you a competitive advantage and you care more about beating your competition than being more efficient overall. (Because, you know, it's not a zero-sum game.)

    – wizzwizz4
    Aug 29 '18 at 10:55






    It just makes more sense from a Game Theory perspective to release your contributions, though, unless the patch gives you a competitive advantage and you care more about beating your competition than being more efficient overall. (Because, you know, it's not a zero-sum game.)

    – wizzwizz4
    Aug 29 '18 at 10:55












    6














    GIMP has plenty of free add-ons, some of them can be and also have been extremely useful. Even the basic package and the G'MIC-collection have so many that I still haven't tried them all.



    I must say that fabulous available tricks in GIMP do not compensate lack of CMYK capablity, diverged user interface and missing advanced layer & object functionality.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thanks, I will look out for this. I don't use CMYK as all my work is internet based, but it's definitely, something that could be an issue later on down the line if not added.

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 8:11











    • @user287001 Photoshop-like UI. CMYK support isn't complete yet, though.

      – wizzwizz4
      Aug 29 '18 at 11:01















    6














    GIMP has plenty of free add-ons, some of them can be and also have been extremely useful. Even the basic package and the G'MIC-collection have so many that I still haven't tried them all.



    I must say that fabulous available tricks in GIMP do not compensate lack of CMYK capablity, diverged user interface and missing advanced layer & object functionality.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thanks, I will look out for this. I don't use CMYK as all my work is internet based, but it's definitely, something that could be an issue later on down the line if not added.

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 8:11











    • @user287001 Photoshop-like UI. CMYK support isn't complete yet, though.

      – wizzwizz4
      Aug 29 '18 at 11:01













    6












    6








    6







    GIMP has plenty of free add-ons, some of them can be and also have been extremely useful. Even the basic package and the G'MIC-collection have so many that I still haven't tried them all.



    I must say that fabulous available tricks in GIMP do not compensate lack of CMYK capablity, diverged user interface and missing advanced layer & object functionality.






    share|improve this answer















    GIMP has plenty of free add-ons, some of them can be and also have been extremely useful. Even the basic package and the G'MIC-collection have so many that I still haven't tried them all.



    I must say that fabulous available tricks in GIMP do not compensate lack of CMYK capablity, diverged user interface and missing advanced layer & object functionality.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 27 '18 at 15:02

























    answered Aug 26 '18 at 8:02









    user287001user287001

    21k21236




    21k21236












    • Thanks, I will look out for this. I don't use CMYK as all my work is internet based, but it's definitely, something that could be an issue later on down the line if not added.

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 8:11











    • @user287001 Photoshop-like UI. CMYK support isn't complete yet, though.

      – wizzwizz4
      Aug 29 '18 at 11:01

















    • Thanks, I will look out for this. I don't use CMYK as all my work is internet based, but it's definitely, something that could be an issue later on down the line if not added.

      – Invariant Change
      Aug 26 '18 at 8:11











    • @user287001 Photoshop-like UI. CMYK support isn't complete yet, though.

      – wizzwizz4
      Aug 29 '18 at 11:01
















    Thanks, I will look out for this. I don't use CMYK as all my work is internet based, but it's definitely, something that could be an issue later on down the line if not added.

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 26 '18 at 8:11





    Thanks, I will look out for this. I don't use CMYK as all my work is internet based, but it's definitely, something that could be an issue later on down the line if not added.

    – Invariant Change
    Aug 26 '18 at 8:11













    @user287001 Photoshop-like UI. CMYK support isn't complete yet, though.

    – wizzwizz4
    Aug 29 '18 at 11:01





    @user287001 Photoshop-like UI. CMYK support isn't complete yet, though.

    – wizzwizz4
    Aug 29 '18 at 11:01











    5














    I have used both. Like you I had several years of Photoshop use before using GIMP. The thing is that we tend to forget how much of a learning curve there is with Photoshop. GIMP is very powerful but also has quite a learning curve. The way you do things on GIMP is different than the way you would do them on Photoshop.



    The only thing which I think may actually be better in GIMP than Photoshop would be the way you can do masking in GIMP. I have heard that batch automations are better in GIMP but in my current job I am neither a photographer nor a designer, so most automation I do with image manipulation is done on the server with PIL.



    Everything else is at either comparable or not quite as a good as Photoshop. Also there's the knowledge that that Adobe can't one day stop supporting your software - or shake you down for an upgrade - that's pretty nice.






    share|improve this answer



























      5














      I have used both. Like you I had several years of Photoshop use before using GIMP. The thing is that we tend to forget how much of a learning curve there is with Photoshop. GIMP is very powerful but also has quite a learning curve. The way you do things on GIMP is different than the way you would do them on Photoshop.



      The only thing which I think may actually be better in GIMP than Photoshop would be the way you can do masking in GIMP. I have heard that batch automations are better in GIMP but in my current job I am neither a photographer nor a designer, so most automation I do with image manipulation is done on the server with PIL.



      Everything else is at either comparable or not quite as a good as Photoshop. Also there's the knowledge that that Adobe can't one day stop supporting your software - or shake you down for an upgrade - that's pretty nice.






      share|improve this answer

























        5












        5








        5







        I have used both. Like you I had several years of Photoshop use before using GIMP. The thing is that we tend to forget how much of a learning curve there is with Photoshop. GIMP is very powerful but also has quite a learning curve. The way you do things on GIMP is different than the way you would do them on Photoshop.



        The only thing which I think may actually be better in GIMP than Photoshop would be the way you can do masking in GIMP. I have heard that batch automations are better in GIMP but in my current job I am neither a photographer nor a designer, so most automation I do with image manipulation is done on the server with PIL.



        Everything else is at either comparable or not quite as a good as Photoshop. Also there's the knowledge that that Adobe can't one day stop supporting your software - or shake you down for an upgrade - that's pretty nice.






        share|improve this answer













        I have used both. Like you I had several years of Photoshop use before using GIMP. The thing is that we tend to forget how much of a learning curve there is with Photoshop. GIMP is very powerful but also has quite a learning curve. The way you do things on GIMP is different than the way you would do them on Photoshop.



        The only thing which I think may actually be better in GIMP than Photoshop would be the way you can do masking in GIMP. I have heard that batch automations are better in GIMP but in my current job I am neither a photographer nor a designer, so most automation I do with image manipulation is done on the server with PIL.



        Everything else is at either comparable or not quite as a good as Photoshop. Also there's the knowledge that that Adobe can't one day stop supporting your software - or shake you down for an upgrade - that's pretty nice.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Aug 26 '18 at 14:10









        Jacob ShoreJacob Shore

        512




        512





















            0














            Amazing But Not a Photoshop Replacement - Yet



            After playing around with it for a while, I have found it to be an amazing application for anyone on a who doesn't want to pay out a lot of money for priority software. However, for professional use, there are a few limitations which might prevent it from being a replacement for Photoshop at the moment, most noticeably in the UI, I found it uneasy to work with, but maybe after more use, this won't bother me so much? I think the basic UI is because GIMP has an amazing community of devs developing, but not so many UX/UI designers.



            The Future is Bright



            You have to take your hats off to this open source and free product for doing a fine job. Not now, but in the future, it could start to challenge the big players and priority software such as Photoshop. As bad as it looks, I am impressed.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 6





              "I could not find any area that excelled over Photoshop". Gimp's price is far better than Photoshop's one.

              – aloisdg
              Aug 26 '18 at 13:34











            • Haha! The most obvious one staring me right in the face. Thanks :)

              – Invariant Change
              Aug 26 '18 at 13:35






            • 5





              How did you manage to answer your own question in just one day?

              – nicoguaro
              Aug 28 '18 at 3:36






            • 2





              Good point. Even though I'm a season Photoshop user, I probably should of held off a bit longer before answering. I've used it a lot more since though and the above statements still holds true. However, there are features that I am enjoying a lot and as such, I should really update my answer soon with fairer feedback.

              – Invariant Change
              Aug 28 '18 at 7:51















            0














            Amazing But Not a Photoshop Replacement - Yet



            After playing around with it for a while, I have found it to be an amazing application for anyone on a who doesn't want to pay out a lot of money for priority software. However, for professional use, there are a few limitations which might prevent it from being a replacement for Photoshop at the moment, most noticeably in the UI, I found it uneasy to work with, but maybe after more use, this won't bother me so much? I think the basic UI is because GIMP has an amazing community of devs developing, but not so many UX/UI designers.



            The Future is Bright



            You have to take your hats off to this open source and free product for doing a fine job. Not now, but in the future, it could start to challenge the big players and priority software such as Photoshop. As bad as it looks, I am impressed.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 6





              "I could not find any area that excelled over Photoshop". Gimp's price is far better than Photoshop's one.

              – aloisdg
              Aug 26 '18 at 13:34











            • Haha! The most obvious one staring me right in the face. Thanks :)

              – Invariant Change
              Aug 26 '18 at 13:35






            • 5





              How did you manage to answer your own question in just one day?

              – nicoguaro
              Aug 28 '18 at 3:36






            • 2





              Good point. Even though I'm a season Photoshop user, I probably should of held off a bit longer before answering. I've used it a lot more since though and the above statements still holds true. However, there are features that I am enjoying a lot and as such, I should really update my answer soon with fairer feedback.

              – Invariant Change
              Aug 28 '18 at 7:51













            0












            0








            0







            Amazing But Not a Photoshop Replacement - Yet



            After playing around with it for a while, I have found it to be an amazing application for anyone on a who doesn't want to pay out a lot of money for priority software. However, for professional use, there are a few limitations which might prevent it from being a replacement for Photoshop at the moment, most noticeably in the UI, I found it uneasy to work with, but maybe after more use, this won't bother me so much? I think the basic UI is because GIMP has an amazing community of devs developing, but not so many UX/UI designers.



            The Future is Bright



            You have to take your hats off to this open source and free product for doing a fine job. Not now, but in the future, it could start to challenge the big players and priority software such as Photoshop. As bad as it looks, I am impressed.






            share|improve this answer















            Amazing But Not a Photoshop Replacement - Yet



            After playing around with it for a while, I have found it to be an amazing application for anyone on a who doesn't want to pay out a lot of money for priority software. However, for professional use, there are a few limitations which might prevent it from being a replacement for Photoshop at the moment, most noticeably in the UI, I found it uneasy to work with, but maybe after more use, this won't bother me so much? I think the basic UI is because GIMP has an amazing community of devs developing, but not so many UX/UI designers.



            The Future is Bright



            You have to take your hats off to this open source and free product for doing a fine job. Not now, but in the future, it could start to challenge the big players and priority software such as Photoshop. As bad as it looks, I am impressed.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Aug 29 '18 at 3:57

























            answered Aug 26 '18 at 8:44









            Invariant ChangeInvariant Change

            1,2721624




            1,2721624







            • 6





              "I could not find any area that excelled over Photoshop". Gimp's price is far better than Photoshop's one.

              – aloisdg
              Aug 26 '18 at 13:34











            • Haha! The most obvious one staring me right in the face. Thanks :)

              – Invariant Change
              Aug 26 '18 at 13:35






            • 5





              How did you manage to answer your own question in just one day?

              – nicoguaro
              Aug 28 '18 at 3:36






            • 2





              Good point. Even though I'm a season Photoshop user, I probably should of held off a bit longer before answering. I've used it a lot more since though and the above statements still holds true. However, there are features that I am enjoying a lot and as such, I should really update my answer soon with fairer feedback.

              – Invariant Change
              Aug 28 '18 at 7:51












            • 6





              "I could not find any area that excelled over Photoshop". Gimp's price is far better than Photoshop's one.

              – aloisdg
              Aug 26 '18 at 13:34











            • Haha! The most obvious one staring me right in the face. Thanks :)

              – Invariant Change
              Aug 26 '18 at 13:35






            • 5





              How did you manage to answer your own question in just one day?

              – nicoguaro
              Aug 28 '18 at 3:36






            • 2





              Good point. Even though I'm a season Photoshop user, I probably should of held off a bit longer before answering. I've used it a lot more since though and the above statements still holds true. However, there are features that I am enjoying a lot and as such, I should really update my answer soon with fairer feedback.

              – Invariant Change
              Aug 28 '18 at 7:51







            6




            6





            "I could not find any area that excelled over Photoshop". Gimp's price is far better than Photoshop's one.

            – aloisdg
            Aug 26 '18 at 13:34





            "I could not find any area that excelled over Photoshop". Gimp's price is far better than Photoshop's one.

            – aloisdg
            Aug 26 '18 at 13:34













            Haha! The most obvious one staring me right in the face. Thanks :)

            – Invariant Change
            Aug 26 '18 at 13:35





            Haha! The most obvious one staring me right in the face. Thanks :)

            – Invariant Change
            Aug 26 '18 at 13:35




            5




            5





            How did you manage to answer your own question in just one day?

            – nicoguaro
            Aug 28 '18 at 3:36





            How did you manage to answer your own question in just one day?

            – nicoguaro
            Aug 28 '18 at 3:36




            2




            2





            Good point. Even though I'm a season Photoshop user, I probably should of held off a bit longer before answering. I've used it a lot more since though and the above statements still holds true. However, there are features that I am enjoying a lot and as such, I should really update my answer soon with fairer feedback.

            – Invariant Change
            Aug 28 '18 at 7:51





            Good point. Even though I'm a season Photoshop user, I probably should of held off a bit longer before answering. I've used it a lot more since though and the above statements still holds true. However, there are features that I am enjoying a lot and as such, I should really update my answer soon with fairer feedback.

            – Invariant Change
            Aug 28 '18 at 7:51

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Graphic Design Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgraphicdesign.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f114222%2fq-gimp-vs-photoshop%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

            𛀝𛂎𛃩𛁂𛂯𛀋𛃈,𛁴,𛀡𛃕𛁀𛀆𛀝𛀊𛀚𛃍𛂯𛂸𛁞𛂪𛀈,𛂵,𛀞𛂢𛀯𛃂𛁱 𛃩𛂜𛃅 𛂧𛀧𛂦𛀑,𛃛𛃟,𛃍𛀔𛀣𛀶𛀪𛃱𛀓𛀅𛁱,𛂖 𛁷 𛁉𛂹𛀉𛀼 𛁎,𛃭 𛀣𛃫𛃯𛁸𛂸𛂰𛂣𛀯𛁩𛂂𛃓𛃿𛂽𛃤𛃢𛁂𛀺 𛂚𛀅𛃵𛁬𛃽𛃯𛂔𛃣𛃝𛂫 𛂖𛂾𛂈 𛂡𛁔𛀇𛁁𛃛𛃖 𛃜,𛁊𛂠𛀌𛁼𛃶𛃣𛃊𛀘𛂐𛃓𛃛𛁂𛂥𛃛𛂲,𛃄𛀗𛀪𛁘𛁉𛁫𛀲𛀕𛂍𛁓𛁏𛃿𛃔𛁼 𛀞𛀤 𛂏𛃚𛃎 𛃱𛀭𛀟𛂃𛀭𛀫𛃚 𛂻𛁄 𛃚𛂁 𛂀𛂈𛃒𛁼𛃏𛂣𛂔,𛁩𛂝,𛁎,𛂗,𛂧𛃁𛃷𛁜𛃭𛂙𛂣𛀱𛂢𛁔𛁥𛂘𛃏𛀇𛂅𛁗𛃅𛂷𛃬𛁹𛁭,𛀵𛁍,𛃂𛁣𛁡𛃉𛀳𛀜𛁢 𛀲 𛁐𛀊𛁷𛃃𛃔𛀃𛃄𛃙𛀩𛃖𛂮𛃷𛀚𛂚𛃜𛁘,𛁤𛁵𛀝𛂮𛁲𛃸𛂩𛂼𛂠,𛁖𛃸𛀯,𛁰𛁇𛃣,𛃨𛂦𛀫𛃁 𛂓𛃁𛃥𛃰𛁅𛂻𛂻 𛁃𛁺𛃤𛀏 𛃻𛃽 jKH8N2gXPW4,5NtI,zi C6C,8 LtJ9 h5T40,Y 29W,8IH3pJwKf Q32PJw73ZM7a 7,0EI,5Hu NBOF x,V,Zan l 51Vm,1,o6 zHC69UbfzB6dS62,fvHKgJsOHeC 7 u Z,5,b510gw756DJ0K3 NLBCejw,1s12o037 gLrqm,8JV5,0HH7y8,5n1W5 oN943 0,EdU7tbRJ74 8DXtjBp0,KnM,2S,8 V4Ph1H2 Yb6FxtA,M,3qXGu2094wS GvlV4l,HFrZ D76u3,kr9E,ij4jFFOb 49,dJKN,V Kv,V4,a8wm,d2U8 9,Nx,vO98,JX,uO3,Y,Y1ay74uomg,7Tt5XFU TKTZ28,0C7LbNuU FhgfO3,4n E,l MSI03CLgM9D,Abr E 7sR0J,6,07N A2u 7,6Q PpzEZ1wKZN YAd759p,31UtJ63dBF3p 0,EZL 4FjbJ l Qep zHs63,u2f6xSKS Vz2Q O,9zIlq0J 9PR
            Read more

            Edmonton

            Image
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP This article is about the city in Canada. For other uses, see Edmonton (disambiguation). City in Alberta, Canada Edmonton City City of Edmonton From top left: Downtown Edmonton, Fort Edmonton Park, Legislature Building, Law Courts, Rogers Place, High Level Bridge, Muttart Conservatory Flag Coat of arms Logo Nickname(s):  Canada's Festival City, City of Champions, The Oil Capital of Canada more... [1] Motto(s):  Industry, Integrity, Progress Edmonton Location of Edmonton in Canada Show map of Canada Edmonton Edmonton (Alberta) Show map of Alberta Coordinates: 53°32′N 113°30′W  /  53.533°N 113.500°W  / 53.533; -113.500 Coordinates: 53°32′N 113°30′W  /  53.533°N 113.500°W  / 53.533; -113.500 Country Canada Province Alberta Region Edmonton Metropolitan Region Census division 11 Founded 1795 Incorporated [2] [3]    • Town January 9, 1892  • City October 8, 1904 Amalgamated [2] February 12, 1912 Named for Edmonton, London Government  • Mayor Don I
            Read more

            Crossroads (UK TV series)

            Image
            [dummy-text] Crossroads (UK TV series) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search For other uses, see Crossroads (disambiguation). "Crossroads Motel" redirects here. For the album by the Sonny Moorman Group, see Crossroads Motel (album). Crossroads 2003 title sequence Created by Hazel Adair Peter Ling Written by Michala Crees Ivor Jay Rosalie Grayson Raymond Bowers David Garfield Edward F. Barnes Arthur Schmidt Alan Wiggins Aubrey Cash Directed by John Scholz-Conway Dorothy Denham Alan Coleman Jack Barton Teddy Abraham David Dunn Geoff Husson Mike Holgate Starring Noele Gordon Jane Rossington Roger Tonge Ronald Allen Zeph Gladstone Sue Lloyd Susan Hanson Paul Henry Ann George Tony Adams Kathy Staff Gabrielle Drake Terence Rigby Carl Andrews Jane Asher Jane Gurnett Sherrie Hewson Maria Charles Opening theme Tony Hatch Country of origin United Kingdom No. of episodes Original Series: 4510
            Read more