Why do you use proprietary Photoshop? Is there any reason not

>>235508
Fuck off freetard.

>>235514
No, seriously. Are there good features on Photoshop that Gimp and Krita lack? Do companies expect you to use that specific program? I wouldn't insist people bend over backwards for Free as in Freedom software, but when opensource alternatives exist, I'm curious why people don't insist on them, especially when they cost no money.

>>235515
If you work for a respectable company/client and hand them a fucking GIMP file or whatever you'll be laughed at then fired. 99% of workflows in this industry are structured around Adobe programs running on Apple computers. If you want a job, deal with it.

Unless your ambitions are to do freelance work on Craigslist for the rest of your life, in that case go ahead and use shitty free software.

>>235515
Not familiar with Krita, but Gimp sucks balls.
Why, you ask? Here's why: non-destructive editing.
Ever tried applying an adjustment mask in gimp? Or positioning and scaling layers?
Nope. Why? Because it's not possible.
Another reason: masks are retarded to work with in gimp, and you can't have them on groups.
The usability is... not tested before release, to say the least. Every feature is behind a checkbox behind a panel behind a menu behind an other menu. Though that's not surprising, because open-source philosophy seems to be adding features (because that's fun to do for free), but not actually integrating them in any usable and logical way (because that's not fun to do for free).

>>235508
In a professional environment, Adobe is the only way to go. Why?

Industry standards. Those color profiles, color spaces, CMYK support, and many, many, many other things MATTER when it comes to building files.

Or, you can use GIMP, and bake in production charges to your budget by the pre-press department to rebuild your files with reliable, predictable profiles and color spaces, and print the files correctly.

If I build files in Photoshop, using color corrected images, that are converted to CMYK using the correct printer profiles, and placed in InDesign, I can be pretty confident that the output will be pretty damned close to what I want/need. When GIMP can do that, I'll consider it in a production environment where time is money, and a luxury. I don't have time to fuck around and do 4 rounds of color correction because I used free software - I pay for my tools, and I make enough that I can afford $50 a month for rock solid, reliable industry standards - and my company pays for it at work without question. If I suggested anything else for crucial color work and color correction, I'd be laughed out of the building.

GIMP is a great tool for non-professional, non-budget and deadline critical work. For the stuff I get paid for - Photoshop. Period.

Krita has amazing potential, but alas, Photoshop has been around long enough to become the hated king.

Photoshop is a heavy name in this industry, You hear "graphic design" and a huge amount of people thinks "photoshop" . I think using it is a standard now,rather than "best program ever hur dur. ".

>>235537
>>235598

Agreed that gimp is useless, but krita does have nondestructive editing, adjustment masks that let you scale/position/deform etc nondestructively, put masks into groups, better UI, CMYK & other colorspaces, etc. It also supports 16 and 32 bit colorspaces (unlike gimp) so you can colorgrade your raw images you shot with your DSLR without getting banding etc.

Most of my for-work stuff happens with vectors (or 3D), but for my pixel-based needs, krita does the job (converting raws to jpegs, painting, sketching/drawing, colorgrading/compositing.)

The issue is just that people are ignorant of better alternatives such as krita (as all-rounder) or mypaint (as painting-specific tool) to GIMP, and they keep recommending GIMP as the standard free option because they don't know shit. GIMP is not the best free software has to offer by a long long shot.

No one really gave you a good answer so here you go:

> I use Photoshop because when I do visual design I don't only want to draw something, but add text and other things. Sometimes I will do a photomain rather then a drawing and for then you need a completely different set of tools. Most free programs don't have those - they are only for painting

> In the industry nobody cares what you use to deliver artworks so use what you're most comfortable with

>have to close PS to free up memory
>input lag
>needs addons like a color wheel (sold seperately)
>line tool is a joke, no stabilizer
>hundreds of tools you will never use

It's a bloated photo editing tool.

>>235968
>Krita
Checking it out now
>Vector tools
>Masks
>Fast and snappy
Holy mother of god. I like what I see so far.

>>236074
https://medium.com/@vervalkon/fixing-photoshop-85fcb9d5295c

>>236089
That's a list of cool suggestions, but I doubt any of us here are photoshop developers soooo... not really we can do much about it/with it?

>>235508
Krita is pretty good for drawing but neither of them have the features that photoshop has and neither of them are close to respectable industry standard software. If you don't know how to use Photoshop in this industry you might be in trouble.

>>235530
But GIMP both saves and opens .psd

>>236081
No Mac client. Looks like a great amateur tool - I'm gonna stick with Adobe.

>>236373
There's no guarantee that the specification implementation is accurate.

>>236373
GIMP is probably the program that does the poorest job at opening and saving PSDs. It can't even handle the most basic features. Layer styles (used by many painters in photoshop), filter layers, smart objects, all the different kinds of masks, 16 bit images, CMYK images, ... are all a no-go on GIMP

Krita is way way better than GIMP at opening PSDs. Your chance that a random PSD you found on the internet opens correctly with krita isn't too terrible, as it supports all the aforementioned features GIMP lacks (except for smart objects, I think)

>>236376
If your on a Mac you're an amateur anyway

>>236376
It has a mac version, but its experimental/beta.

>>236502
Careful you don't cut yourself on all that edge, kid.

I use PS because ive got it and i cant be bothered to learn how to use another one.

File: WhatYearIsIt.jpg (59KB, 660x440px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 660x440px

>>235530
>99% apple

If you're just making art, go ahead and use Gimp and Krita. No ones going to care what program you use. But if you want to work professionally with other people in a company, you better get familiar with Photoshop. That's not to say that you have to abandon Gimp and Krita if there's something in those programs that you want to use, just don't expect to be hired by a company if you don't know the programs that the company uses.

if you're making art in the sense of painting with raster-graphics (krita, photoshop, mypaint, sai, corel painter, clip studio/manga studio...), then people/companies generally won't give a shit what program you use either way, because all they expect is that you can shit out a .png or CMYK bitmap in the end (in the case of printing, which e.g. krita et al can do.)

If you're doing vector-illustrations, you have a bigger issue... then its basically Ai or bust.

>>236664
On a mac, there is Affinity Designer.
Serif has also published a photo editor as well.

>>236640
This. I was agreeing with until that point.

>>236664
Laughably untrue. In a professional setting, the software you use is important - some files (coughCorelcough) just clog up imagesetters and RIPS, and color is wonky. If its being professionally printed, it's being taken into Photoshop, guaranteed. Hey, if you want extra pre-press charges, the service provider is more than happy to make more money to bring your image into the app you should have used in the first place.

>>236502
I doubt you've ever worked a day as a creative professional with that comment.

I'm an art director, worked on both coasts in LA, NYC and SF, and have worked with some of the leading ad agencies and production houses in each city. Mac is overwhelmingly the majority platform. Windows is fine for Creative Studio, and more people are using Windows, but Mac is the industry standard in publishing and design.

>>236734
What's the reason behind it? What does Mac have that Win doesn't?
Geuinely want to know.

>>236761
A teacher in my course once told me that Adobe programs and the Mac system are more compatible and work together better, both in workflow and technical aspect. Absolutely no idea if it's true, he sucked Jobs' cock harder than a vacuum.

In reality I myself can work the Adobe programs in Windows without problem, just need a moment to adjust to using CTRL instead of CMD for shortcuts.

>>236733
no, completely true.


1) "being taken into photoshop" does not mean you have to create it with photoshop.

2) The app you "should be using" is the one that makes you productive and creative. Photoshop certainly lags behind corel painter, krita, clip studio, mypaint, ... a long ways when it comes to painting.

3) I haven't used corel painter for print (at least not in the past decade) but I have printed raster images created in krita, mypaint, sai as well as images exported from e.g. Ai, photographs, ..., and there were zero problems. Often I put them through krita and convert to fogra27 CMYK coated press first. Maybe this was an issue a decade ago or so, but its certainly not anymore now.

4) png et al are pretty simple, well-understood formats, if your printing shop has issues printing your .png file (with whatever software they were created) and charge you extra for it, you are either getting ripped off by incompetent morons, or you're just getting ripped off.

5) If you're painting raster images, chances are you're not going to put those into print anyway, at least not directly. If they are going to get put into print (as opposed to other types of distribution) they will most frequently be composed together with text or other shit in Ai or whatnot and shipped off as .pdf, .eps/.ps, .ai or whatever.

For anything raster-based, it really couldn't matter any less what software you use.

>>236765
Yeah, I wouldn't believe him on that. There should be no functional difference between running Adobe stuff on Windows and running it on OSX. Both platforms are PC-compatible, just that OSX is Intel-only.
There may be some negligible difference because Windows allows AMD processors and they MAY perform worse under certain circumstances (that have to do low-level optimization, instruction ordering, cache handling and CPU architecture/organization, but I'm not up to speed on the latest tech specs so don't really know where Intel differs from AMD). I'd say that Photoshop runs just as fast on a Mac as it does on a similarly-spec'd PC.

>>236807
I've used ps and Ai on both macs and windows machines, and yeah, it doesn't particularly work better or worse on either of them. shortcuts are different, thats about it. I would say that maybe it worked better on the win machines, but thats usually because they were more powerful.

intel/amd cpu doesn't really make a difference for Ps and Ai. intel and amd CPUs do differ in some regards, but on average they perform equally well with no drastic edge-cases where one is seriously slower than the other (otherwise they wouldn't be much of a competition.)

So, (not any of the above anons,) would it be better to just get an older version of photoshop or pirate an older version to just get some basic practice in?

>>236502
>>236734
>>236761
>>236765


For all the people arguing Mac vs Windows in this thread, I just wanted to mention that, as a front end developer, I can attest to Mac being a better platform in terms of support and documentation in that field. All the adobe stuff is just really successful marketing. That being said, all Windows laptops are ass and (once again, due to successful marketing) make you look like a 14 year old. I much prefer my Macbook in a professional environment, even if I would never pick Apple for an at-home, multipurpose computer. It does what it needs to do very well, and I simply don't use it for anything other than coding / adobe suite / browsing the web.

Hope that helps.

>>236761
>What does Mac have that Win doesn't?

I don't know how true this is, but this is what I was told in school. Nothing anymore, but long ago when when they were still on powerPC and CPUs weren't what they are today macs outperformed x86 machines by a decent margin in graphics applications, which combined with aggressive marketing lead to Apple taking the industry standard position in a variety of creative fields. At this point they mostly hold it by virtue of momentum.

>>237036
This is truth.

>>236972
Just pirate the current version of photoshop if you want to get practice in with it and you don't have access to a student discount.

>>237036
>PPC was faster than Intel
Googling a little seems to give contradictory opinions on the matter.
>aggressive marketting
This was most likely the reason for PPC's success.

>>236995
> all Windows laptops are ass
> make you look like a 14 year old.

1/8

shill harder

>>237075
PPC was defs never faster than x86, although it did fare better in terms of power consumption. Even back in the day apple had to throw a bunch of extras on it to make it competitive (like the ever-so-terrible altivec)

Nowadays PPC is very very far behind any x86, of course, it's only used in a small fringe market now (mars rovers, some other embedded/consumer electronics, scientific measurement devices, robots etc)

File: 1269119129826.jpg (41KB, 655x580px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 655x580px

i use gimp, inkscape and blender professionally, ie. i get paid to produce results with them,

but why oh why does every freetard have to make us look bad and compare shit software like gimp with photoshop? photoshop has content-aware shit, adjustment layers, 3d painting, and a better interface made by paid UX experts. free programs can only dream of having the feature set of PS. i can get by at work without using these advanced features, but boy would i be happy if i had them.

i'm sure everyone knows your shit free alternatives by now, there is no need to remind us of their existence every day and on every forum, especially with the argument (or lack thereof) that you started this shit thread with

GO DIE IN A FUCKING FIRE

PPC was always shit in terms of performance
>FACT

Macs offer no true advantage, as building a Photoshop/After Effects/Illustrator workstation will be cheaper and better than any Mac outside Mac Pro
>FACT

Every advertising agency and school get an easy setup and niggerrific discounts and support if they buy a shitload of Macs
>FACT

I use a Mac because the place I work at has zero PCs. I use Mac at home because I got a Mini for a reasonable price. But even so, if I had gone the extra mile to build my own, I would save myself a lot of headache rendering and painting, guaranteed.

But if all you do is web design and coding and maybe a bit of animation, getting a Mac really makes no difference. The new Airs have shit performance but run Sketch and a typical code editor just fine, not to mention have a fantastic battery life.

It all boils down on what you do. You wouldn't get a Mac for serious gaming, why would you get one for heavy GD use?

>>237115
> can get by at work without using these advanced features, but boy would i be happy if i had them.

so... try krita? GIMP has content-aware stuff, btw (gimp-resynth or sth.) but as with all of gimps features, its lacking and half-baked compared to photoshops implementation.

>>235508
Interface and familiarity. I would love to use photoline in my workflow because it is more powerful than photoshop, but the interface is sooooo damn different that simply using Photoshop is more efficient in the long run.

Having features doesn't mean shit if they aren't well implemented. The mere fact that everyone is familiar with photoshop makes its features more accessible.

>>236761
Well text rendering on windows kinda historically sucked for some reason. Also OS X and windows DO have different interfaces. Then there's tradition.

>>237183
PPC had incredible stability bruh the first thing that I missed with the Intel switch was the stability of my old iMac that I was replacing.

Also macs are pretty good for heavy GD use. You have a mini, but Mac minis are literally entry level and apple doesn't put its best foot forward for entry level kiddies. Their better deals are in the higher price brackets by design. The mini exists just to get you in the door and looking at their other shit.

>>237618
Not iMac. I was replacing an old powermac with an iMac.

File: 15_minutes_in_gimp.jpg (386KB, 2500x850px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 2500x850px

>>235508
just use whatever you like and works best for you, i retouch photographs with GIMP.

>pic related - quick edit in gimp.

>>235530
>99% of workflows in this industry are [...] running on Apple computers

Topkek, shill harder sheeple.