How does GIMP compare to Photoshop?

[Sonic4Spuds]

Just out of curiosity I decided to do some calculations about 8 bit vs 16 bit, and what I discovered surprised me.

A standard 8 bit image stores 8 bits for each of the either three or four channels. As only three of the possible four channels are useful for photography I will discuss only the R,G, and B channels. 8 bits gives you 256 possible values for each channel. Now most of you are probably aware of this, but using the three channels which cameras can capture this gives you 16,777,216 or over 16.5 million possible unique colors. If you add the alpha channel this number rises to 4,294,967,296 or over 4 billion colors.

If you are talking 16 bit per channel you have 65,536 values per channel. For a photographer this gives you 281,474,976,710,656 or more than 281 trillion possible colors (assuming there are any cameras that can capture true 16 bit color). If you add the alpha channel you can store 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 values. I'm not quite sure what the name of this number is, but it is quite large enough for anything.

I personally don't know how many color values a camera is able to capture, but I don't think that it comes even close to the possible values 16 bit color is able to store.

-Sonic

[Donald]

A standard 8 bit image stores 8 bits for each of the either three or four channels. As only three of the possible four channels are useful for photography I will discuss only the R,G, and B channels. 8 bits gives you 256 possible values for each channel. Now most of you are probably aware of this, but using the three channels which cameras can capture this gives you 16,777,216 or over 16.5 million possible unique colors. If you add the alpha channel this number rises to 4,294,967,296 or over 4 billion colors.

If you are talking 16 bit per channel you have 65,536 values per channel. For a photographer this gives you 281,474,976,710,656 or more than 281 trillion possible colors (assuming there are any cameras that can capture true 16 bit color). If you add the alpha channel you can store 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 values. I'm not quite sure what the name of this number is, but it is quite large enough for anything.

That's a lot of colours. And if you're colour blind like me, it could drive you stir crazy! (or not, if most of them all look the same anyway!)

[revi]

Just out of curiosity I decided to do some calculations about 8 bit vs 16 bit, and what I discovered surprised me.

A standard 8 bit image stores 8 bits for each of the either three or four channels. As only three of the possible four channels are useful for photography I will discuss only the R,G, and B channels. 8 bits gives you 256 possible values for each channel. Now most of you are probably aware of this, but using the three channels which cameras can capture this gives you 16,777,216 or over 16.5 million possible unique colors. If you add the alpha channel this number rises to 4,294,967,296 or over 4 billion colors.

If you are talking 16 bit per channel you have 65,536 values per channel. For a photographer this gives you 281,474,976,710,656 or more than 281 trillion possible colors (assuming there are any cameras that can capture true 16 bit color). If you add the alpha channel you can store 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 values. I'm not quite sure what the name of this number is, but it is quite large enough for anything.

I think there's a slight misunderstanding: taking the alpha channel into account does NOT increase the number of colours you can encode (note: colours, not values): alpha channel adds transparency, so you'll mix the colour in one layer with whatever is underneath, and the result must be expressed in 8 or 16 bit without alpha channel (sooner or later). That said, none here ever disputed that 8 bits/channel was enough for display...

I personally don't know how many color values a camera is able to capture, but I don't think that it comes even close to the possible values 16 bit color is able to store.

Camera data are stored in 12 or 14 bits, and the value of using 14 bits is I think still being discussed (not only a question of camera construction, but also of physics imposing hard limits, aka noise). So currently, most cameras are able to encode up to (2^12)^3 or 68 719 476 736 values/colours.

A few things to keep in mind:
- in all cases, we work from black (no light) to white (all channels saturated), those possible values get mapped on a certain range (using 8, 12, 16 bits). As we have to do some interpolations to get RGB pixels, 16 bits/channel allows to minimise information loss in this step.
- as said, we always need to end up with 8 bits/channel, and that is enough for display on any known medium.
So the reason for using 16-bit in processing is NOT the extra number of colours that can be encoded, but to limit loss of information while processing.

To get back on subject (), I use the Gimp, but it seems that PS has some possibilities that make it easier to modify corrections you applied (adjustment layers?). That might be an advantage for those who do a lot of complicated adjustments over multiple layer groups (and might make life a lot easier for the ones with simpler images). As you won't find many using both the GIMP and PS, getting a good somparison between the two seems difficult

Remco

P.S. 12-bits/channel would probably work as well as 16-bits, if our computers had 12-bit words... the reason we have the choice between 8 or 16 bits in post-processing is purely dictated by the CPUs we use, which are designed to work with values over 8, 16, 32, 64, ... bits. Cameras use custom chips, so they have a free choice of bit depth (except for the final storage, which must be 8-bit based for compatibility with other equipment)

[Sonic4Spuds]

Remco,

Thanks for the info about the bit depth of camera sensors.

As to the alpha channel, I should have thought for a second before doing the calculations for it. I have been thinking that it may be useful to store something such as luminance in for archival image storage.

As to using both I have used both, though not PS on a regular basis.

-Sonic

[sleist]

I've been dual booting Windows and Slackware Linux for the past 8 or 9 years. I like GIMP, but I was not coming at it from the perspective of a long time Photoshop user (I've only been serious about photography for a little over a year). Those used to Photoshop have a difficult time with GIMP for a variety of reasons. The multi-window layout is bad enough, but the naming convention and layout of commonly used photographic tools is different enough to drive one nuts at first. Many don't commit to the learning curve and run screaming from the building before giving GIMP the chance it deserves. I hit the 8 bit limit in both GIMP and Elements, but I seem to be OK working with 8 bit TIFs.

One tool I love in Linux (if you go that route) is the KDE application digiKam. There is a Windows port for the 1.7.0 version, but it's very buggy so I don't recommend it on Windows other than to install for a peek at the interface. I would call it a Lightroom clone that uses your own directory structure instead of the library system. http://www.digikam.org/ I find the digiKam interface more intuitive than Elements, but I think it's more a case of the familiar winning out over the unfamiliar.

I have moved to Windows for most of my workflow due to preferring ViewNX and soon Capture NX2 for RAW processing, but I do bounce between operating systems because I just like doing some thing more in certain programs. As if my workflow wasn't schizophrenic enough

I find GIMP is much faster when running in Linux by the way.

[revi]

Another Digikam user

I like the program (and use it for storing/classifying my photos and for 90+% of my editing), but
1- they seem to have trouble to get a decent windows installer and
2- both 1.7.0 and 1.8.0 have nasty bugs in the RAW developer (1.7.0 drops metadata, and 1.8.0 has big issues with post-processing ); there is a 1.9.0 version that has both corrected, but I haven't seen a compiled version so far (and compiling that under windows is not for the faint of heart)

So, either wait a week or two for the 1.9.0, or 3 months for version 2.0 (which is supposed to have a lot of new functions, we'll see what they are worth)

To get back to the GIMP, note that it reads 16-bit formats quite well, and that it can do treatments in floating point.
As for it running faster under Linux, doesn't everything?

[sleist]

Hey Remco! Nice to see another Linux photog. I did notice some bugginess in the last 2 versions, but I've just about given up on RAW conversion in Linux so my issues were different. I tried UFRaw as well as the RAW converter in digiKam and was just not satisfied or confident in the results. My work flow was to transfer and edit/cull using Transfer NX and View NX2, convert to 8 bit TIFF (all in Windows), then switch to Linux and use digikam, showfoto, GIMP, then save as JPG and use kipi-plugins for uploads to SmugMug. I too am looking forward to the 2.0 version. I'm really hoping that they fix the integration with later versions of the lensfun library. Very simple an effective lens correction, but a bit dated when stuck at version 2.3

Well I fear I'm dangerously close to hijacking this thread to I will return y'all to the regularly scheduled discussion.

[Manfred M]

Hard to say how both programs compare to each other.

I use PS already for years. In the very past I once downloaded one of the first GIMP versions to test.
But because I'm very used to the way PS works it's difficult to switch your mind and way of working, so I gave up and stick to PS.

If you are not very used to a other PP program it's for sure worth to test. Lots of people are very happy with GIMP and save quite some money as well.

This thread is over 8 years old.

Yes, there are people who use Gimp. There are a lot of people who use Capture One, Serif Affinity, Corel Paintshop, etc.

It does not matter what one uses so long as the results are what you want.

The issue with all of these products is that they lack the infrastructure and third party knowledge levels of the Adobe products. This is effectively parallel with the stranglehold that Microsoft has with its Office Suite. If one gets into the commercial, rather than amateur side of things, these programs become pretty well mandatory.

[Shadowman]

An old thread yes, but biggest difference I saw between the two programs was the NR filter, in Gimp when used it actually added noise or as it was designed to do; it adds grain.

[wangyu]

Photoshop does not run on Linux . GIMP available for for GNU/Linux .
Gimp is "image editing software", and so is adobe Photoshop.
the reason for that is so you can get other programs to edit with.

whatever program you get, your still going to go through the same thing.

I prefer Gimp, as it is free to use, and you can still get professional results.

I am using the XP-Pen Artist 12 Pro drawing tablet with screen for GIMP . It’s the best thing I ever did for photo editing. It’s seriously amazing.

I hope that helps.

[Manfred M]

Photoshop does not run on Linux .

That is true. Having worked with Linux "evangelists" in the past, I understand their passion for FOSS. They often forget that not everyone shares their passion.

Whatever works for you may not work for everyone else. The best way to convince people that your approach is a solid one is to show your work, rather than your words....

[Terry Pinfold]

I own Photoshop and I have GIMP. My preference is to work with GIMP not Photoshop. GIMP will handle 32 bit images as well as 8 and 16 bit. Install Darktable and/or Rawtherapee and then you can open RAW files via GIMP, do the required edits on the RAW file and close Darktable or Rawtherapee and the image will open in GIMP for further edits.

Sometimes I feel GIMP is unfairly bagged out by people who are just stuck on Adobes products and don't like change. GIMP has been used to produce films like Stuart Little and Harry Potter. It is no B grade program.

Darktable is an amazing program if you take the time to learn it. When you do learn it the options exceed those available in Lightroom. I love Lightroom and own it so I am not bagging it out but Darktable is way more sophisticated in its editing capabilities but the learning curve would be too steep for many users where Lightroom is relatively straight forward (which is its strength)

GIMP, Darktable, Rawtherapee will run on Windows, Mac and Linux.

[Stagecoach]

Whatever works for you may not work for everyone else. The best way to convince people that your approach is a solid one is to show your work, rather than your words....

I agree.

More convincing Manfred would not only be to show their work but to demonstrate and explain how what they have done can not be achieved in one system compared to another.

[Manfred M]

GIMP has been used to produce films like Stuart Little and Harry Potter. It is no B grade program.

Terry - that statement is incorrect. Gimp is a raster editor, not a non-linear editor. Non-linear editors are used to produce Hollywood feature films as well as TV and other video programming. Raster editors are used to edit still images. Given the age of the movies you have mentioned, chances are that they were likely either assembled using Avid Media Composer on an Avid Workstation or Final Cut Pro using Mac Pro hardware, but not Gimp.

As I mentioned in #31, please show us some of your work done in Gimp. I'm quite sure that some very good work is done using that software but to be totally honest, I can't say I can definitively say that I have seen any high end work done with it. Virtually all of the top end photo editors / retouchers I know are firmly in the Adobe camp.

I get very suspicious of first time posters who sing the praises of software but don't show examples of their work. I get even more suspicious when they don't understand the difference between editing feature films versus editing still images..

P.S. - I was a video editor before I became a retoucher so I know and use the software.

[Carusoswi]

Terry - that statement is incorrect. Gimp is a raster editor, not a non-linear editor. Non-linear editors are used to produce Hollywood feature films as well as TV and other video programming. Raster editors are used to edit still images. Given the age of the movies you have mentioned, chances are that they were likely either assembled using Avid Media Composer on an Avid Workstation or Final Cut Pro using Mac Pro hardware, but not Gimp.

As I mentioned in #31, please show us some of your work done in Gimp. I'm quite sure that some very good work is done using that software but to be totally honest, I can't say I can definitively say that I have seen any high end work done with it. Virtually all of the top end photo editors / retouchers I know are firmly in the Adobe camp.

I get very suspicious of first time posters who sing the praises of software but don't show examples of their work. I get even more suspicious when they don't understand the difference between editing feature films versus editing still images..

P.S. - I was a video editor before I became a retoucher so I know and use the software.

The OP (may he/she be live and well after all this time), stated that he/she wanted to dual boot, and, in addition to being unwilling to pay for an updated version of Photoshop, wanted advice from users familiar with both Gimp and Photoshop as to their preference.

Terry Pinfold expressed his preference for Gimp. I didn't see anything evangelistic in his post, just a genuine attempt to answer the OP's request and add to the discussion.

In your post #28, you listed a number of alternative applications, and stated that "The issue with all of these products is that they lack the infrastructure and third party knowledge levels of the Adobe products." I do not know what you mean by "infrastructure," and while it may be true that the knowledge levels of the Adobe products may be numerically greater, I can assure you that there is no shortage of informational sources and tutorials for products like Capture One, Gimp, and darktable. I agree that Terry was not precise in his statement that Gimp was used in the production of Stuart Little and Harry Potter. More precisely, Film Gimp, the precursor from which present-day Gimp is a branch, was used.

I most respectfully disagree with your notion that Terry or anyone else making their first (or 10,000th) post should come under suspicion for expressing their preference in response to a posted request for same, nor do I believe that posters, in order to validate the expression of their preferences need to show examples of their work.

Personally, I use Lightroom/Photoshop CC for photo work in Windows, darktable/Gimp in Linux (thre is another open source application, Lightzone (also a raw editor), which is effective, though less powerful, but much simpler than darktable if you want to check it out. For video editing, I use Vegas Pro (been using it since version 2.0 from the old boys at Sonic Foundry) in Windows, and Blender (primarily an animation application, but which includes a wonderful video editor) in Linux.
My personal preference at this time is darktabe, which, as a RAW editor, allows me to make most of my critical adjustment while working from the RAW file. For any other adjustments (usually nothing more than some healing or cloning, for which Photoshop has, IMHO, the best implementation in the business), I will export a tiff from darktable. Often, nothing else is needed, so, depending upon use the image will see, I will export it (individually or as a batch) to jpg or tiff.

I believe that everyone needs to use what works for them, and one way to find what works is to ask for advice on Fora such as this. When that advice is given, it deserves to stand on its own merits, not to be put down as suspicious.

Photography can be a source of income, it can be a source of artistic expression, or it can just be a hobby, or all of the foregoing. To all the posters in this forum, which ever of those categories describe you, I wish that you find success and satisfaction.

Respectfully,

Caruso