13 Reasons to choose GIMP over Photoshop!


Photoshop is one of the most popular image editing proprietary software, with extensive capabilities and a rather un-affordable price! It will be interesting for you to note that most of the Photoshop copies running on thousands of computers are illegal, that seems to be obvious as even professionals cannot afford to buy such an expensive piece of software. On the other hand, GIMP, photo manipulation software is a free counterpart that is fairly popular in the Linux circle. GIMP is preinstalled on some Linux

distributions or it can be installed with great ease. In this post we will draw a comparison between the two softwares! The debate is old yet it interests many. In this post we will compare the two softwares, according to current standards.

Both GIMP and PS are aimed at raster image editing and are also capable to use vector drawn paths and shapes.

1- Basic editing is the same for both the softwares: Photoshop and GIMP, both provide basic set of tools for image editing. Equivalent quality image editing can be accomplished in both the softwares. Also, if you are to create images for the web than both softwares will do a similar job.

2- Advanced Features, do you need them? Photoshop is loaded with excessive features as compared to GIMP. But here it must be noted that an average user does not require sophisticated editing capabilities and only handful of people use these advanced features. Trivial jobs do not need such cumbersome and expensive software. On this other hand, Gimp comes with essential ones and capabilities can be extended as required. Additional features can be added via plugins and extensions and hence you can tailor the software according to your requirements of image manipulation. If you are inclined to explore with GIMP, then it will let you accomplish any job that you can do with PS. You can experiment with advanced filters and the Python-scripted filter stacks that are surely great.

Additionally, you may have to pay for extra set of filters and plugins when working with PS while they are completely freely available on GIMP. GIMP is far more freinldy to plugins. On the contrary, Ps is likely to crash if you load many fonts, burshes or plugins.

The bit-depth issue:

Photoshop supports 16 and 32 bit images while GIMP only supports 8 bit. However the functionality of GIMP can be extended via GEGL (The Generic Graphics Library or GEGL is a programming library under development for image processing applications). With GEGL, GIMP can be supports 16-bit image depth at most. However, most users have reported that they rarely feel the absence of this feature.

Most of digital camera images use a maximum of 16.7 million colors. According to an estimate there are only 3% of advanced users that use high bit-depth images of 16 or more bits per channel. Hence, we can say that only 3% of the crowd actually needs Photoshop.


CMYK is a subtractive color (four color) model used in color printing. You particularly need this color model to be supported in image editing software if you require your graphics to be printed, when color is critical for the images you produce. Photoshop has an advance support for CMYK. Earlier, many literatures have said that GIMP lacks this feature. However this is not the case. GIMP has some CMYK support that can be downloaded separately.  But, yes we can say that the support is not as advance as in Photoshop, yet GIMP seems to accomplish the job. GIMP also does just with graphics produced for printing on your inkjet at home or at a kiosk (or any printers that use RGB drivers)

3- PS is Large in size to download, as compared to GIMP: GIMP set-up is just about 20 MB, while Photoshop is large, extra large disk-space. As recommended, you must have 1GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation (cannot install on removable flash storage devices) for Photoshop!

4- System Requirements, GIMP wins again: Photoshop is heavy software that might make it slow on your system. GIMP, in contrast is very fast and does not require much of system resources.

5- Size on disk, minimal with GIMP: You will require just some free space (usually as low as 20 MB) on your disk to download and install GIMP. While to download and install Photoshop you need space in Gbs.

6-System Resources, GIMP is lighter: Photoshop is very heavy on system resources.  The minimum recommended RAM to run GIMP is only 128 Mb. While Photoshop CS 5 requires 1 GB of RAM!!

7- Platform support, GIMP wins again: GIMP is integrated in most Linux distros. It can be downloaded on Windows or Mac while Photoshop is available only for Mac and Windows. However you download and run the application on Linux as well.

8- Portability: GIMP being perfectly compact software and small in size and therefore it is portable. You can run it from USB stick or devices such as MS Xbox with ease. This is not possible with giant software like Photoshop.

9- With GIMP you can read and edit the PSD files of Photoshop. But Photoshop does not support GIMP’s native file format i.e. XCF files.

10- Customization: As stated earlier, the software can be tailored according to the requirements of user. The GUI is completely customizable and can be minimal. If you like the Photoshop UI then you can make your GIMp look like that too!

11- Support: Like all open source softwares, GIMP has a tremendous support. That you won’t find with Photoshop. General techniques for image editing, applies to both the softwares. And therefore most Ps tutorials can be used as reference for GIMP.

12- Continually evolving: Like another OS, GIMP is continuously evolving i.e. even if you find a feature that is not in GIMP and present in Photoshop it is very much possible that it will be there in the upcoming releases as the software is continuously developing and adding features to it.

13- Finally the Price! Price plays a decisive role in evaluating the capabilities of the two softwares. GIMP is completely free while Ps is as expensive as 700 USD. The point being, why pay so much for excessive features that you don’t actually need! And when the functionalities can be downloaded freely when ever required! Specially for the people who are amateur and are embarking their journey on image editing Ps is highly priced. Moreover, if you are starting a small advertising business you might not want to invest as much only for the software in the business.

To conclude, instead of pirating Photoshop, its better to use open-source software i.e. GIMP, for image editing yielding comparable results. Photoshop has some tremendous capabilities, this fact cannot be denied however these capabilities are hardly needed for average to advance users. Photoshop, is only aimed at a very specific bunch of people who really are experts. Nevertheless, GIMP too can be used by experts the difference being that Photoshop might be able to accomplish some tasks easily while with GIMP you will have to take a long route!

{module user9-footer}

  • Someone

    2 Reasons why GIMP *****: It’s not a proper Windows application. It is not 64 bit. Use PaintDotNet.

  • http://enteryoursiteURL... Greg

    Why use photoshop more than GIMP? Because photoshop has been designed for graphists, not for developers with python, C+++++++, javagaddamit abilities.

    [size=small][color=fuchsia]And the UI is so much sexier.[/color][/size]

  • Taurnil

    enter your message here…[quote=Someone]2 Reasons why GIMP *****: It’s not a proper Windows application. It is not 64 bit. Use PaintDotNet.[/quote]

    Baloney, Gimp compiles fine in a pure x86_64 environment (Linux, non-multilib). I won’t pain you with a complete compile log of the process but here is a snippet;

    ./configure –build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

    Perhaps it is a deficiency of Windows.

  • rich

    There’s no Linux app called "javagaddamit".

  • k

    This is just silly. All the reasons have to do with stuff like price or system requirements. The real reasons, the ones which matter to artists, are a lot more fun :)

    See e.g.

    http://www.ramonmiranda.com/2011/05/10-cosas-que-me-gustan-de-gimp.html (use your favorite machine translation engine if you don’t speak Spanish)

  • Gwenn

    Now just do the math: how much does it cost to pay your graphist for, say, a week?

    Oh wait, it costs twice more than your 5-year Photoshop licence.

  • No_One_Of_Consequence

    It’s all based on preference at this point… unless you have a _very_ specific reason to use photoshop. I’ve been in graphic design and 3D/2D animation for about 9 years now and I recently made the switch to GIMP completely. It took a little effort, but at the end of the day, I’m an artist and I will support fellow artists any way I can… and yes software writing is an art form. Not to mention the fact that anything photoshop can do, I can do with GIMP… and in those extremely rare cases where I need something additional that GIMP cannot do, well there’s plenty of other free software that can handle those one-off tasks.

  • Rambo Tribble

    Photoshop evolved from the world of print. GIMP was developed to produce images for the web. Most of their comparative strengths or weaknesses have derived from this simple fact. Ask yourself where your art is going to be seen, then choose the appropriate tool.

  • Chris

    I’m a linux user and also an occasional user of gimp, I never needed any advanced graphics features. Though your reasoning is correct, there are things that gimp lacks, the single ui u mention will be implemented in gimp 2.8 unless you meant the use of gimpshop, if I’m mistaken correct me. Also it was estimated that version 2.8 would have been released in december 2010 whereas that date passed and developer Martin Nordholts said [url=http://www.chromecode.com/2011/02/why-gimp-28-is-not-released-yet.html]here[/url],in february that it was pushed to October 2011 . Don’t get me wrong, I love open source and support it all the way, but perhaps they should try getting more support and improve their project management. Compared to Blender which is doing great and is also open source Gimp lacks a lot. The features you say are missing but are irrelevant have been mentioned since probably the beginning of this photoshop vs gimp war, is it that hard to implement without the use of a plugin? it’s inexcusable to say they are irrelevant when it hurts the Gimp so much every time some professional chooses to write a comparative article like yours, because that’s who the majority of people who dont know much about graphics will listen to.

  • http://enteryoursiteURL... Mike

    I’m a Linux user and a GIMP user. I don’t own Photoshop, nor will it run on my platform of choice. So, I should just come out heavily in favour of GIMP.

    However, it’s not that simple. GIMP has very significant shortcomings, and if you’re in the category of user for which they matter, they’re crippling. I’m a keen amateur photographer, and I shoot in RAW. My camera does 12 bits/channel, newer ones do 14. Just importing into GIMP means I’m throwing image quality away.

    Most of the purported advantages in this article focus on system resources, which is a complete red herring. I don’t believe anyone who actually wants to achieve anything with GIMP is running of a USB stick on a machine with 128Mb RAM.

    I’m really not a fan of articles like this. Here and now, today, GIMP is not an effective competitor to Photoshop. For some people, it may well be "good enough", but that’s not the same. Setting up straw man arguments does not help the FOSS cause. A much more productive use of the time and readership would be to do a fair comparison, and highlight the areas GIMP needs to improve in order to compete. Right now, the GIMP roadmap doesn’t get to even supporting the basics until 3.0 comes out, which is at least 18 months away.

    Claiming that GIMP is up there today just sets people up for disappointment. It has 2 real advantages over Photoshop – it’s available as a native Linux app, and it’s free software. It’s a useful tool, but it’s not yet a Photoshop competitor. Admitting this up front may help to hasten the day where it will be.

  • Ivan

    Because who doesn’t want to have dithered, aliased photographs to show the world? That is why I use gimp!

  • James

    I have to agree with [i]Mike 2011-05-26 18:34:33[/i] Most of the people who have commented here seem to fall into 2 types of users graphics artists, and tech-heads who never leave the world of internet images set at 72dpi. If you are creating artwork from scratch or are converting imagery for the web only than there are a lot of applications that could compete even with Gimp. Let me correct a few more of the concepts. As a professional photographer I have over $100k in equipment to maximize my ability to handle all types of photography for my clients. From a business standpoint it is by far the fastest and most reliable digital post processing tool available. RAW is important to a photographer it is our bets way to access and control all aspects of our artwork.

    The amount of Open Source developers on Gimp cannot even come close to the number of developers free, open, and/or proprietary plug-in dev for PS. Also PS while still a stand alone app really leverages its power when used in Creative Suite. Gimp is a stand alone quirky mass of plug-ins that need a lot of maturity. Photoshop in CS is a enterprise level powerhouse that the largets AD agencies use every day to leverage their cost per product ratio to clients. Nothing and I mean nothing exists that can complete with Photoshop for photography or when it is paired with Creative Suite for use in multiple media production graphics.

  • No_One_Of_Consequence

    I agree mostly with Mike as well. System resources in my case are a big deal as an animator working on a laptop/tablet hybrid thingy (I know, I know I need to spring and get a cintiq already but that’s a topic for another discussion). I will not disagree with you about PS’s ability to work with RAW image data. Also, I’m glad that you have your $100k setup and it’s working for you, but most people do not have this, nor do most people need to access RAW image data.

    I mostly take issue on the what you feel is wrong with GIMP and it’s lack of companion software. If you’re trying to warn people against it… well it’s free. Why not encourage people to try it and if they don’t like it then they didn’t lose anything. Plus, GIMP works for me in a professional capacity and has for 2 years now. I’m not doing much photography work, and I would not recommend it for that. But just about anything else, I say give it a try already! Stop assuming you know what’s best for everyone and let people make up their own minds. That’s one of GIMP’s strongest point IMO.

  • sicofante

    What a very unfortunate article.

    Every digital camera capable of shooting RAW will support more then 8 bits/pixel.

    Most of the points mean: if you don’t have the right hardware, choose GIMP.

    As somebody else suggested if you want to read about REAL reasons to use GIMP go here: http://www.ramonmiranda.com/2011/05/10-cosas-que-me-gustan-de-gimp.html#more

  • James

    First I do not assume to know what others do or need. I am an avid Linux user. As I am heavily involved in Web Development as well as Print photography I work with PC, Mac, and Linux every day. I have Gimp installed on all of my systems both at home and at my company. I have reviewed it heavily for implementation in my work flow. And while it can take the place of maybe 60% of what I could use it for, it is not efficient in a photo centric and multi-media shop.

    If you are a niche photographer limiting your services with a small clientele or are just starting out by all means use Gimp. But be prepared to spend more time post processing your work. Every hour you spend fixing your work is lost revenue. About the $100k, professional equipment is NOT cheap and that is not a lot of equipment. But that’s what it takes to to be a diversified professional. I consider photoshop to be part of that equipment. In fact Nikon, Canon, and others are development partners with Adobe. So you have to ask yourself am I leverage all the other money I had to spend to get into this business are not.

    Can Gimp dynamically link to other applications so that the photographer can be working in the base photograph while the graphics designer is using in his illustrations and while the web designer is manipulating a web version of it for the website? In CS Photoshop, Indesign, illustrator, Flash, Dreamweaver, Acrobat are all tied together and can reference each others file types in the work of each professional. That is what I am talking about. And it will be years if ever that GImp, Inkscape, PDFviewer, bluefish (or pick your own personal favorite group of components) can imitate or even match that capability.

    A good business owner does not focus on a single application and its cost. He/she must leverage the BEST set of tools to met the task and keep his doors open and himself and his employees paid. Free does not always equate to profits. You can compile all of the greatest free software in the world but in the end if you are not competitive and you don’t know why you will be out on the street. And that is the opportunity cost you take away from people by selling them a list of 13 reasons to do something especially if they may not relevant to the success of their business.

  • sicofante

    Oh and by the way: GEGL supports ANY bitdepth, including 32bit floating point components. It’s the first feature you can read about on their front page…

  • jason

    GIMP is free that would be the only reason who would want to use it. Taking so much space? thats not a big deal current hard disk have more that enough space on it. Basic features on both might be the same, but me being none graphic person I always feel I can do something on PS faster even when i don’t know how to do it and GIMP I need to go on searching for things which takes me way too long

  • ken

    GIMP 2.8 is delayed because there are only 2-3 people working on it (one main architect) IIRC. It’s a lot smaller team than you think. And people could help by donating to the project so they can get more people to help who won’t volunteer their free time :-P

    Only thing I really miss from photoshop is their adjustment layers (you can do curves on a layer but it’s not done at a pixel level so it doesn’t have to save an entire copy of the bitmap).

  • Vison

    This is like comparing Mercedes R-class with let’s say Nissan Micra. Micra is much smaller, cheaper, consumes less fuel, it’s cheap and easy to maintain, doesn’t take much space in your garage, it’s very easy to park anywhere! But what you can do with it is completely different matter :)

  • http://www.designartcraft.com David Smith

    I use GIMP a great deal, I still use Photoshop a great deal whereas before I used it exclusively for image processing. GIMP does about 70-80% of what I need an image processor to do (and I’m a Photoshop expert). For example, I still mainly use Photoshop 6 even though I have CS4 on tap. Most of the newer features feel like bloaty bits bolted on to justify too-frequent ‘upgrades’. Photoshop is very slow to load and quit. I like that GIMP is much lighter on system resources. Photoshop is still better and more polished in many ways. And why wouldn’t it be? It is a lot more mature, and has a much bigger team working on it. It is indispensable in the professional space, and likely will continue to be for many more years. But I’m glad it has competition from FOSS. Maybe both will improve as needed. Photoshop would really benefit from a more focussed, modular approach to different market sectors, rather than their present, one huge size fits all (with matching price). ‘Essentials’ just doesn’t cut it, either on features or price.

  • http://www.youtube.com/GIMPtricks Jolie

    I’m a GIMP user and love it too, but I’m sorry, this is a poor article. I don’t even think I need to explain why. Okay I’ll say one thing. #12 You can’t work with a promised feature!

    Why not write an article on what GIMP [i]can[/i] do? What you can use it for, what works well. Then compare it with what Photoshop can do. What is the same and what is different. Point out when you need Photoshop and when you don’t.

    For instance: Making a nice banner for your website or blog, no problem with GIMP. Making your own desktop wallpaper art, can be done with GIMP. Signature images, fine in GIMP. Color or other corrections of photos that aren’t shot in RAW, also fine in GIMP. Line art for manga drawings, GIMP can do it. And apart from that, digital artist can come a long way with GIMP for all sorts of art including painting.

    Photoshop if you need to work with CMYK for printing. If you are a pro who needs to work with .psd files. Photographers who need 16 bit editing. Advanced graphic designers who really benefit from the layer groups and adjustment layers.

    Even comments saying, "I’m a pro and I work with GIMP" or "I’m a pro and GIMP ***** in a professional environment" aren’t very helpful to the reader. Both programs are very diverse. You can’t know what pro 1 and pro 2 actually do with it.

  • http://www.youtube.com/GIMPtricks Jolie

    Sorry, it wasn’t my intention to use a rude word. I’m not natively English speaking and had no idea that a word that babies do on their pacifiers was a rude.

  • Taurnil

    enter your message here…[quote=Jolie]

    Why not write an article on what GIMP [i]can[/i] do? What you can use it for, what works well. Then compare it with what Photoshop can do. What is the same and what is different. Point out when you need Photoshop and when you don’t.


    Then how about this link for what Gimp can do;


  • http://ranjith.zfs.in Ranjithsiji

    I am a web developer with only GIMP. Dont touched ps or Dreamweaver. We have still clients. And we are working for 2 years in this field. Also I got salary every month also.

    We got Resythesizer (Content aware fill). The cage transform (Not in PS). Also Much more….

    So Save a 700 Bucks + another 10000 for MS

  • http://photophindings.blogspot.com/ Magnus

    One of the big moments of relief in my computing life was when I finally could trash the gimp for Photoshop a few months ago. It was almost like when I moved from DOS 3.3 to MacOS 6 twenty years ago.

    I had been using both gimp and PS for years. However, for financial reasons, one computer I use very often only had the gimp, so I had to work around all its quirks, every time I was at that computer.

    Finally, the money came in, I got PS on that computer too, the gimp is completely gone, and I am an exceedingly relieved and happy person.

    Don’t get me wrong, however. I like the fact that the gimp exists, and that I can use it and download it for free on any computer, I stumble upon. However, it is nothing I would recommend to anyone who can afford PS.

    The reasons to choose gimp listed above are ridiculous by the way. The first point is that basic editing is the same. If they are the same, that is not a reason to choose one product over the other. Besides they are not the same. Content aware fill, for example, is pretty basic functionality for simple photo editing. The gimp has nothing like it.

    Points like "gimp can read PSD" is not true for 90% of my psd files, as they contain features that the gimp does not support. Even if the gimp opens the file, it will then trash hours of work when it is saved in the gimp’s simplified psd format.

  • Raymond Watts

    It is a ridiculous article. The basic message is: "If all you have is GIMP, GIMP is better than anything else."

    But Mike’s says it more politely and with more detail than me.

  • http://enteryoursiteURL... Fred

    That was painful to read. The only real reason would be the price difference but Adobe won’t get any money whether people pirate Photoshop or use Gimp.

    You know how it is, you want to get something done and you get told "oh, sorry, Gimp doesn’t have content-aware tools, you’ll have to work three times as much to get similar results."

    For minimal transformations one could use IrfanView, Picasa or OSX’s Preview.

  • http://enteryoursiteURL... Michael

    Sorry but it takes more clicks in gimp to do the same things in Photoshop, not to mention the UI icons for the toolbox are hard to decipher when switching from photoshop(yes I know its conditioning) but still. Photoshop is easy to use and has a good layout with layers etc.
    A personal dislike about gimp is:
    it looks like it was drawn by a cartoonist, I believe that is the gtk framework and icons.

    I like open source software but unless gimp has a paid developer/company base that can support the software commercially, the switch ain’t happening.

    I believe its about finding the right balance to be able to provide free software and make enough money to do so (via paid support or other pro features etc)

  • Parameshwara Bhat


    All these are true, but look at the interface. When you run GIMP,three different windows open and I have to switch between them, this fact puts me off and I believe it puts off most people like me. I have read on Net many people complaining about this and other UI aspects. I do not understand what wisdom guides GIMP developers to obstinately stick with their UI, when that is not what users want.

    This obstinacy and the mindset in all Gnome-centric applications that ‘I know better than the users, I say it is good for you, take it or not’ attitude is what is holding it back.

    And writers like you should see this and write about this in the interest of GIMP and freedom.

  • Parameshwara Bhat

    I also think if you can send this article to GIMP developers with all the comments, you will do it a great service.

    Do they listen to their users?

  • Buin Geffrey

    Wow, there are still Linux users out there

  • Jaap

    "As a professional photographer I have over $100k in equipment to maximize my ability to handle all types of photography for my clients."

    Really. Makes me question why you feel compelled to respond to a Gimp/Photoshop comparison. This article and site has _nothing_ for you. No seriously, why is a professional photographer (with 100k in equipment) knocking off a free tool?

    Astroturf much?

  • GôTô

    haha, good one :)

    this article is all about trolling anyway…

  • GôTô

    I agree on the idea. You should think of how you can make it better instead of trolling about which tool is the best.

  • James

    @Jaap – Photoshop is considered the industry standard for [i]professional[/i] digital editing. This article claims Gimp to be a [i]professional[/i] digital editing program. I am a [i]professional[/i] photographer. More importantly I am also a business owner with more than 20 yrs of experience in my craft. Running a successful business is more about maximizing your overall efficiency in workflow than the price of a piece of software.

    If the article wasn’t intended to have professional comment on it then maybe they should have compared it to Photoshop Elements.

  • myforum

    I would use Gimp if it had enourmous tutorials like PS has

  • amaranth painter

    I am using 64bit GIMP it takes only 1/10 time of photoshop to apply complex filter operations like liquify.

  • dfs

    1 reason to use Photoshop – it is better)))

  • Tim

    "as even professionals cannot afford to buy such an expensive piece of software"
    Are you serious with this statement? You are NOT a professional if you didn’t pay for the software you use to do your job and make money doing it. You are an amateur that has no concept of how the world works.

  • Tim

    How about we compare Gimp to Fireworks?

  • Tim

    I would also argue that #9 is a reason to NOT use Gimp. Most "professionals" use Photoshop. If you are an artist/designer and you send a company a Gimp file, they are not going to be able to open and use that file effectively. Photoshop can have hundreds of layers. Gimp cannot. And Gimp cannot open a Photoshop file that has hundreds of layers accurately.
    In addition, Gimp runs in X11 on Mac OS X. Boooo!

  • http://goodfinance-blog.com MCCRAYElise34

    That’s great that we are able to receive the loans and it opens up new opportunities.

  • Nick

    GIMP over Photoshop? Fat chance… There’s not even a rectabgle tool, you have to stroke fill with some pattern obscurity. Bucket fill with transparent color is a minor project with added layers and alpha channels. When you try to minimize GIMP on Windows, the tool windows stay unminimized and float aroud on the desktop with no parent window. GIMP has possibly the most user hostile interface in the history of computing. I hate it with a passion. It comes from the Linux world and it shows. There’s a reason why 99% of all users choose NOT to run Linux on the desktop.

  • http://www.designartcraft.com David Smith

    OK dude, satisfy yourself, as I’m sure you are more than capable…

  • http://www.designartcraft.com David Smith

    OK dude, satisfy yourself, as I’m sure you are more than capable…

  • http://enteryoursiteURL... David Smith

    OK dude, satisfy yourself, as I’m sure you are more than capable…

  • http://goodfinance-blog.com Sherman22Ophelia

    People deserve wealthy life and personal loans or consolidation loan would make it much better. Because freedom relies on money state.

  • Rab Smith

    I use GIMP professionally, not for photo-editing, but for coloring in comic-strip cartoon frames. It works brilliantly [it took a few weeks to get to grips with, initially], and no paying client has ever questioned the source of the program I used to provide pro-level work for them.

  • Dsolgoo-abu

    Is there soft proofing? If not, it’s useless to me… I can’t afford a hit or miss approach to printing.

  • Ranjit Ratnaike

    Thank you very much for this thoughtful, easy to understand review which has helped me greatly.

    Best wishes

    Ranjit Ratnaike
    Author of Saradasi-The Prophecy

  • Anonymous

    some of the reasons given here are misleading and had the opposite effect on me. GIMP is so much smaller not because it makes more efficient use of space, but because it’s merely a skeleton. Small features are sometimes essential, so they’re good to have. And if you invest time in a piece of software, it better have everything you’ll possibly need! Except the Mandelbrot set renderer. That’s useless and I blushed after seeing it in the GIMP menu.

  • AreYouCereal?

    Many of the reasons given here are repeated multiple times therefore i see this review as misleading.

  • Pingback: better program for making skins()

  • Pingback: Photoshop gimp | Acepet()

  • Xelnaga_kail

    Thank you it help me in my assignment muakx… =)

  • zistoire

    the reasons are true. I used photoshop but apparently it was an illegal copy. I was not allowed to use it and i was fed up with paint. at last i found gimp. i regret to lose my time on spam website to search a crack for PS but i still miss PS. i done a lot of drawing in it

  • somefaggot

    Hey dipshit you repeated liike 50 gtfo

  • Jona

    The only reason is the price. For the rest you are out of your mind and obviously you are not an expert when it comes to this matter.

  • Hermann Lipp

    The best reason to make such an uncooked comparsion is that there is no Photoshop for *nix systems?!

  • gear4
  • whoppers22

    Can you stich photos together with Gimp?

  • Nites

    my views on this
    1. only people who ask “whats an anti-virus”, use macs
    2. get a PC you scrubs as gimp is free-ware and is nothing compared to photoshop although it has exstensive system requirements

    3. linux, the whole 2 people who use it aren’t going to make a difference
    as for memory buy a hard drive

  • Eye

    > Like all open source softwares, GIMP has a tremendous support.

    Oh, I see. All open source softwares have tremendous support. I must have had something in my eye.

  • Илья Порвин


    weighs less -> less can