# Anyone use GIMP?



## farmraised (Dec 18, 2015)

I have been looking around for a while trying to decide which editing software would best meet my needs as well as my budget. I came across GIMP a couple weeks ago and started messing around with it, however it doesn't seem like it has a very user friendly interface. Does anyone have more experience with GIMP who could attest to whether or not its worth the trouble? Or anyone who may have some tips as to make it easier to use? Thanks!


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 18, 2015)

It's worth every penny I paid for it. Not once have I ever wished I had PS, LR etc. GIMP does what I need done.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Dec 18, 2015)

I tried really hard to like GIMP. I watched/read a bunch of tutorials, practiced a lot, but I just couldn't get into it. Like you, it just didn't feel user friendly. I finally gave in and started paying $9.99/month for Lightroom and Photoshop, and I'm so glad I did. Photoshop also still doesn't feel very intuitive, but there are much better tutorials for it. I adore Lightroom, I use it almost every single day and on every photo I process. 

If GIMP is the only thing in your budget, I do think it's probably the best "Photoshop replacement" out there, but just be ready for a lot of hair-pulling until you get the hang of it.


----------



## pjaye (Dec 18, 2015)

Hated gimp. Tried to use it many times. Gave up


----------



## jcdeboever (Dec 18, 2015)

farmraised said:


> I have been looking around for a while trying to decide which editing software would best meet my needs as well as my budget. I came across GIMP a couple weeks ago and started messing around with it, however it doesn't seem like it has a very user friendly interface. Does anyone have more experience with GIMP who could attest to whether or not its worth the trouble? Or anyone who may have some tips as to make it easier to use? Thanks!


I use it all the time. It's like anything, got to dive into it and get used to it. Tons of videos and books on it. Very powerful software and tons of free plug-ins as well. People that use Linux, this and Darktable are the go to. Gimp is similar to Photoshop more so than lightroom. I tried the online suite (10 bucks a month) and I am sticking with Gimp. I am just used to it I suppose. I can afford Adobe but not switching to Windows.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## rlemert (Dec 18, 2015)

I tend to use Raw Therapee for my initial processing and Gimp for my later processing. This is in large part because I don't take a lot of pictures (I should take more), so I've never really tried to dig deep into either program. I don't know off the top of my head, for example, whether or not Gimp can process Cannon raw images (that's why I start with Raw Therapee), but I haven't figured out how to adjust levels in Raw Therapee.

I'm sure if I used my camera more I'd take the time to learn at least one of these programs, at which point I'd be able to give you an intelligent response.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 18, 2015)

GIMP can only do 8-bit images. It will not work on any format of raw files.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 18, 2015)

480sparky said:


> GIMP can only do 8-bit images. It will not work on any format of raw files.



Hey Sparky -- it's still unreleased and unstable but you can get GIMP 2.9 for Windows now and it does support 16 bit files: Partha's Place

You probably know that but what the hey. I haven't tried it for Windows but I have it running on my Linux system and I've had no trouble with it.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 18, 2015)

I tried 2.8, and immediately went back to 2.6.


----------



## tecboy (Dec 18, 2015)

Gimp doesn't have none destructive editing tools.  You have to purchase a plug-in for that.


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 21, 2015)

I used GIMP many years ago - but it's been ages.  At that time it's filetypes were extremely limited and restricted to 8-bit only (I was surprised to read Sparky's comment because I thought they supported 16-bit images and frankly I thought they could import RAW by now.)

Anyway, I quickly realized that to speed along the adjustment process/workflow and also to manage the images that I'd be shooting for years, that I'd want software built for such a purpose and switched to Aperture on the Mac, which fulfilled about 98% of my needs and Photoshop covered the other 2%.  Ultimately Apple decided to discontinue Aperture development so I realized that if I wanted ongoing support I'd probably have to switch to Lightroom (which I've done now.)

I really prefer Lightroom for adjustment of most images and it's purpose built for this more so than Photoshop.

On a budget, however, you really should look at Photoshop Elements and there are several reasons for this:

#1 - you can actually "buy" Photoshop elements and it's currently $70 (normally $100).  You don't have to "rent" it (the only way to get Photoshop CC is to "rent" it via the Adobe monthly subscription model, but while they call it a "monthly" subscription it's really an "annual" subscription because you cannot rent it for less than a year (they'll let you pay for it by the month.)

#2 - depending on how much Photography you do, you may eventually want to get the full-blown version of Photoshop.  The user interface for Elements is basically the same (Photoshop does more... but it looks the same).  Both have a learning curve, but once you learn to use Elements, you'll feel "at home" when you start using the full-blown version.

#3 - there are TONS of books and online tutorials... TONS... there is no other photo editor for which you can find nearly so much help online.

#4 - you probably don't need the full-blown version unless your hard core.  Most of the editing features that a photographer would need or use are found in Elements.  There are features of the full-blown version of Photoshop... such as CMYK color separations that a publishing company relying on offset 4-color printers (something no photographer would own or use).  The vast majority of what you'd need is found in Elements.  But again...if you ever needed to take something to Photoshop, it would recognize your Elements files.

With all of this aside... again, I use Lightroom for 98% of what I do.  It's much much easier.  You mentioned GIMP was not very user-friendly (it has a learning curve) but frankly Photoshop isn't very user-friendly either.  Lightroom is vastly more user-friendly.  It's technically still possible to "buy" Lightroom 6 (Adobe makes it very difficult to find the link, but if you want it, we can provide you with a direct link).  It's about $150.  The other way to get it is to subscribe to the Adobe Creative Cloud bundle for photography $10/month with a minimum 1 year subscription commitment and it includes both Lightroom CC and Photoshop CC (it also includes Lightroom Mobile if you have an iPad and a couple other mobile apps for Creative Cloud.)


----------



## wfooshee (Dec 21, 2015)

There used to be a Photoshop "shell" for GIMP, called GIMPSHOP, which made it act like and appear on the screen much the same way Photoshop did, with nearly the same menus. That wouldn't overcome its shortcomings as to file types and bit depth, but it makes it easier to ask folks, "Hey, how do I do this?"

I don't know if GIMPSHOP still exists, or what version of GIMP it's based on, or what you have to do when GIMP updates to keep GIMPSHOP up to date. I see the potential for frustration somewhere in there...

But really, 10 bucks a month puts the Real Deal very much in reach of just about anybody anywhere.


----------



## marcg (Dec 22, 2015)

Gimp is a bit difficult to get to know, but with all the tutorials and plugins available, it usually gets the job done.
I process raw files with darktable and use GIMP for touch-ups/fixes.


----------



## Dikkie (Jan 10, 2016)

farmraised said:


> however it doesn't seem like it has a very user friendly interface.


It's true that it looks a bit archaic in the beginning.

However, you can do nearly everything with it.

Maybe the learning curve is a little bit higher due to the slight different layout in comparison with PS.
I used to work with PS for years, with an old version... until my pc crashed and needed new software... came up with GIMP, now work with GIMP already for a few years.
I bought a book with some nice tutorials, and now I can work even better with it even for other graphic stuff. I learned more about masks etc... .

Maybe one of the disadvantages is that you cannot record macros. However, you can program them in Scheme language and let it do whatever you want. But that's maybe for more experienced people.
My macros now let me resize images and add borders, watermarks... saves me lots of work. 
I can let it batch aswel.

Certainly add add-ons like Bimp and GMic.


----------



## Dikkie (Jan 10, 2016)

wfooshee said:


> But really, 10 bucks a month puts the Real Deal very much in reach of just about anybody anywhere.


Gimp = 0 bucks.

Works on Windoze, Linux, Mac,...  doesn't even need a computer if you install it portable on a USB device 
In reach for just about everybody, everywhere


----------



## Dikkie (Jan 10, 2016)

tecboy said:


> Gimp doesn't have none destructive editing tools.


Your workflow needs to be non-destructive.

If you work in new layers, with layer masks... you can do anything without destructing your image.

I can easily destruct an image in PS if I work the wrong way


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 10, 2016)

Since I have never, no, not once, ever used PS, I'd bet a dollar that if i sat down with it, I'd say, "Damn! This is impossible!"


----------



## AdrianBeaky (Jan 10, 2016)

I tried Gimp years ago when I was poor and wanted a feature packed editing software for free. I couldn't get used to it. My problem was that I was way too used to Photoshop. I used Photoshop for years and liked that interface better. I had a lot of issues trying to figure out what the Gimp equivalent of certain tools was from Photoshop and found it very frustrating to have a tutorial open in one window and Gimp in another trying to figure it out. I ended up scraping money together and bought CS6 and was very happy I did. It really all comes down to preference. Feel comfortable using Gimp? Use Gimp. Feel comfortable using Photoshop? Use Photoshop. Both are great programs and take time to learn.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 13, 2016)

I downloaded Gimp for my desktop. I have always used photoshop and have it on my laptop, which is where I do all my editing. On the desktop I only "tried" using it for minor changes before I made any prints.  It's not a program that I plan on learning but can see why people may get frustrated with it. I know I did, which is why it isn't on the desktop anymore.  I can see that if someone puts in the time to learn it, as a free editing tool it should work fine.


----------



## nathan cox (Jan 13, 2016)

I have been using Photoshop and lightroom for over 2 years now and about 2 months ago I came across gimp and have it a go and hated it I instantly uninstalled it and will never go back it is worth the $10 a month 110% I will never try  anything else in the near future


----------



## mcap1972 (Jan 28, 2016)

Stick with Photoshop and Lightroom.


----------



## katsrevenge (Jan 28, 2016)

Yup, I have used it for years. It's complicated to learn.. but does everything.


----------



## PhotosInParadise (Jan 29, 2016)

I have been using Affinity Photo on my Mac. It has a learning curve too but is non destructive. It is new to the market, only available for OSX. I love it


----------



## Dao (Jan 29, 2016)

My main photo edit software was GIMP long time ago.  But now it is Lightroom (LR).  I bought the LR3 and then upgrade to 4 (still using 4).  And I really like it.  Over 9x% of the post processing work flow stop at LR since I do not need to launch PS from within LR.

As for GIMP, it has draw backs.  However, it works and it is free.  LR just make thing easier.


----------



## kkendall (Feb 5, 2016)

i use gimp off and on for bigger projects and works great for what i do now but at the same time it is very difficult to use. usually i have gimp on one monitor and youtube on the other to help me walk through what im trying to accomplish.  i have never used lightroom or photoshop but plan to one day and hopefully they are easier.


----------



## katsrevenge (Feb 5, 2016)

kkendall said:


> i use gimp off and on for bigger projects and works great for what i do now but at the same time it is very difficult to use. usually i have gimp on one monitor and youtube on the other to help me walk through what im trying to accomplish.  i have never used lightroom or photoshop but plan to one day and hopefully they are easier.



I've never used lightroom but we did have Photoshop in school. We had to use it so they gave us copies.

It's sort of like GIMP in that it has a very steep learning curve. GIMP is supposed to be somewhat similar to Photoshop. It was, years ago, when I used it. But no idea these days.


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 6, 2016)

I don't know why people keep saying Gimp is difficult to use. It is every bit as easy to use as Photoshop (I have both), even if different.

www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 15, 2016)

john.margetts said:


> I don't know why people keep saying Gimp is difficult to use. It is every bit as easy to use as Photoshop (I have both), even if different.



Same here. Only that I don't have PS anymore on my computer.

The learning curve actually isn't more difficult in GIMP, it's just that Gimp looks a little different.
There's a larger margin between the icons. Slightly different menus with more options.
But it actually does 100% the same.
You can even make macros and program them with scheme or other languages.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 15, 2016)

john.margetts said:


> I don't know why people keep saying Gimp is difficult to use. It is every bit as easy to use as Photoshop (I have both), even if different.
> 
> www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk



Because they're PS snobs.  They look down their noses at GIMP users because they spent a lot of money on PS.

Just like there's gear snobs that will snub a K1000 shooter because it's not a Leica.  Or a Mamiya shooter because it's not a Hasselblad.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 15, 2016)

Bring out the Gimp 

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 15, 2016)

Dikkie said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why people keep saying Gimp is difficult to use. It is every bit as easy to use as Photoshop (I have both), even if different.
> ...



100% is a little optimistic there. Gimp has a place and the price is certainly right, but there are differences of consequence between GIMP's abilities and Photoshop. It's also true that GIMP can do things Photoshop can't, but here's the thing: there's nothing unique to GIMP that I miss while using Photoshop, but the inverse is not true. GIMP lacks critical features that I use regularly in Photoshop.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 15, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> ..........but the inverse is not true. GIMP lacks critical features that I use regularly in Photoshop.
> 
> Joe



The inverse _can_ be true. I have yet to use GIMP and think, "Gee, I wish I had PS so I could ......".  In other words, PS won't do anything for me that GIMP can't.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 15, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > ..........but the inverse is not true. GIMP lacks critical features that I use regularly in Photoshop.
> ...



The industry standard for *professional* editing of RGB photos is to work with 16 bit files. The GIMP team knows that which is why they've been working and trying and telling us repeatedly that finally it really will happen and GIMP will be able to edit 16 bit files. They wouldn't have kept telling us for the last 5+ years that it was coming if it didn't matter. A recent news release: "We are excited to announce the first development release of GIMP in the 2.9.x series. It is another major milestone towards making GIMP a state-of-the art image editing application for graphic designers, photographers, illustrators, and scientists." That was November 2015, more than a year ago. You can get 2.9 but it's still a beta and unstable. The stable release remains 2.8 and it can not open and edit a 16 bit photograph.

Every RGB photo generated by my raw converters is 16 bit (Must be a reason why all raw converters will output 16 bit RGB photos) and GIMP can't open one of them without forcing it to 8 bit.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 15, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



I do edit in 16 bit.  I use GIMP to polish the final images off, or do editing that cannot be done with the 16-bit editors I use.


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 15, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Dikkie said:
> 
> 
> > john.margetts said:
> ...


Maybe but sometimes the operations are called something different. When someone tells me to do something in in PS or LR, I Google it and usually find the answer. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## ratssass (Feb 15, 2016)

480sparky said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why people keep saying Gimp is difficult to use. It is every bit as easy to use as Photoshop (I have both), even if different.
> ...



....thats a very broad brush,you paint with.


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 16, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> The industry standard for *professional* editing of RGB photos is to work with 16 bit files.


Being a competent photographer who needs to print on an 8-bit printer, I am making slight adjustments to brightness, contrast, slight cloning away of annoying bits and then cropping - all done excellently by Gimp. If I ever forget how to use my camera and need to make drastic changes, I would use Photoshop.


www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk


----------



## davholla (Feb 16, 2016)

marcg said:


> Gimp is a bit difficult to get to know, but with all the tutorials and plugins available, it usually gets the job done.
> I process raw files with darktable and use GIMP for touch-ups/fixes.


That is what I do as well, however saying that I am not very good with either and so can't judge.  I should probably try lightroom and photoshop although I spend too much money on camera stuff I can't justify spending more.


----------



## terry_g (Feb 16, 2016)

I have been using Gimp for years. There is a plugin called UFRaw that lets Gimp
open raw files.

Terry


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 16, 2016)

john.margetts said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The industry standard for *professional* editing of RGB photos is to work with 16 bit files.
> ...



The fact that you're printing 8 bit has no bearing at all on whether you edit 8 or 16 bit files.

You're saying GIMP is OK for light editing but not for heavier editing and that confirms my point that GIMP is not a 100% replacement for a 16 bit editor. I agree. Linking the need for heavier editing to whether or not you remember how to use your camera is your problem. You're trying to suggest that any need for heavier editing only occurs when you don't know how to use your camera and that's incorrect. The need for heavier editing can result from difficult lighting circumstances that can not be addressed at the time the photo is taken.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 16, 2016)

terry_g said:


> I have been using Gimp for years. There is a plugin called UFRaw that lets Gimp
> open raw files.
> 
> Terry



GIMP can not open raw files. UFRaw can open raw files and after UFRaw has converted the raw file to an RGB photo then GIMP can edit the photo. It's just like Photoshop can not open raw files. ACR can open raw files and once the file is converted to an RGB photo then Photoshop can edit the photo.

Joe


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 16, 2016)

I've ready some good things about Affinty Photo. I know it's OS X only, but I think I'd still like to try it.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 16, 2016)

terry_g said:


> I have been using Gimp for years. There is a plugin called UFRaw that lets Gimp
> open raw files.
> 
> Terry


Yeah, there are several other free open source RAW converters too, like DarkRoom, Rawtherapee,... work crossplatform, and stand alone apart from your desired photo editor Gimp.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 16, 2016)

Village Idiot said:


> I've ready some good things about Affinty Photo. I know it's OS X only, but I think I'd still like to try it.


Affinity Photo rocks.  It is in virtually every way photoshops equal and for processing speed of large files it blows photoshop away.  Don't know how they do it but the folks from Adobe ought to be paying them a visit to find out how.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 17, 2016)

GIMP won't open the .MOS files from my Leaf. That being said, it's a GREAT bargain. Can't beat free, with regular updates, right?


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 17, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > I've ready some good things about Affinty Photo. I know it's OS X only, but I think I'd still like to try it.
> ...



I read that it was built for the current version of OS X where as Adobe has just been update from previous versions and not optimized.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 17, 2016)

Village Idiot said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


Cool.


----------



## xenskhe (Feb 18, 2016)

farmraised said:


> whether or not its worth the trouble? Or anyone who may have some tips as to make it easier to use? Thanks!



It's worth it. I use less than i used to, and only really for dodge and burn sometimes (layers). I usually convert my raw files with Silkypix or Raw Therapee, and prep the output with Faststone Image Viewer (cropping, cloning, resizing, curve, levels, sharpening).


----------



## r4ytrace (May 17, 2016)

GIMP with G'MIC is incredible, especially with film emulations and the sharpening algos (like 'Sharpen' Gradient) - I can't wait till finally 16-bpp GIMP is properly usable - I don't think its quite there yet last time I checked.


----------

