are gimp inkscape and scribus good enough for professional work?

>>239522
yes
actually you can do everything using word/excel/paint.
now go make money from open source softs

>>239533
oh you

yes, but you have to expect to work twice as hard for the same results (and hence probably same amount of money) as your peers. Especially inkscape makes you take a huge productivity hit over illustrator, which is more streamlined, powerful and faster in almost every regard.

Also, you wouldn't use GIMP, you would use krita.

>>239582
also, it depends on which area you're in, print is going to be really rough, webdesign and other such more modern fields will be more flexible.

>>239583
thanks
i wish there was more competition

>>239748
Corel Draw / Paint as opposed to Adobe.

I would mention price difference, but it's more a difference in price model now.

>>239582
I'm used to inkscape and I find it way faster than Illustrator, it's just a matter of experience. I'm no pro graphic designer though (and I don't need/have gradient meshes)

>>239791
I'm used to inkscape as well (and I am a semi-professional graphic designer). I've switched from illustrator to inkscape about five or six years ago. You just haven't yet experienced how much more productive someone familiar with illustrator can be.

I don't use gradient meshes either (the UI for it in inkscape is a total mess, unsurprisingly) but if they did work, I sure as hell would use them. Non-meshed gradients are pretty useless. I sometimes use clipped filter effects (blur) to replace them, which visually gives the same result, but makes inkscape 2000% slower and since inkscape cannot quantize to CMYK, only to 8-bit sRGB, it results in very poor quality prints and banding.

It's not like you cannot do GD with inkscape -- people back in the '95 also managed to do it with the shitty illustrator versions et al they had back then, but it sure as hell is not competitive to use it.

>>239522
use Paint.net

>>239522
You'd be better off getting a copy of CS6 PS and Ill.

why dont you just get the $20 student version of CC or pirate cs6 and have everything you need without cutting corners?

how much money are you saving by making life way harder for yourself and not being able to work on files from other people

>>241230
The point of using open-source software is not just saving money. That's just a nice benefit. The point is that you want to 1) own your tools 2) be allowed to modify your tools and improve them yourself if you so desire and 3) share your improvements with others.

With adobes software, you do not own any of your tools, you just rent them. At any point they feel like it, they can revoke your rights to be a graphic designer. You are not allowed to modify and improve your tools, except in a few ways adobe sanctions. And lastly, you are not allowed to share the tools with others.

Right now it usually doesn't pay off for a GDer to take the hit of not using adobes software, but it's certainly a future worth working towards.

Only if you plan to freelance. And even then you won't be able to deliver proper editable files that the client can have their own designers use.

I wouldn't even think about applying to an in-house or agency job with that garbage on my resume. You'll be impossible to work with.

>>241462
Sure, but if they "revoke" it, you learn the open source tools. Or you use them anyways for when you need more specific things. Most people a) don't have the skills to modify their programs like that and b) won't have their adobe software revoked. I love open source stuff, I use it and contribute to it all the time, but the answer to OP's question is no, it's not, unless you only ever work for and with yourself.

>>241570
In general I agree, but

> no, it's not, unless you only ever work for and with yourself.

is not 100% true.

I do GD for academic organizations (universities, conferences, ...), startups and web, and in those areas people are often more flexible about things. Stuff that goes on the web needs to often be sRGB SVG anyway, and inkscape can handle that (and the files are often smaller than the one illustrator spits out). Also these types of clients often favour the use of open tools & standards.

If I have to do anything for print or complex illustrations I switch to illustrator, because inkscape just can't handle that, but for "low-vector-count" web-stuff, logos etc in these areas inkscape does work OK.

Also, I use krita for everything raster and blender for everything 3D, as those are pretty much capable of matching photoshop & maya in any way I have ever come across (whether print, web, engraving, signage, ...)

The main issue for having an open-source only GD workflow is IMO basically the lack of something like illustrator & indesign, since inkscape & scribus are pretty worthless and show no sign of improving. But for raster, 3D, font management, color management, ... we're in a pretty good spot already.

>>239522
Yes they are good enough, not the best of the best but at least you can legally have them for free.

File: 1349697830233.gif (2MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x250px

>>239761
>Corel Draw

>>241751
ok, but OP's question was

>are gimp inkscape and scribus good enough for professional work?

no

>>239522
yes they are. but it sometimes takes you a bit more time for specific actions than it would take you from nonfree proprietary software.

>>241861
Of course they are.

>>241229
How much does it cost now?

>>241784
I've actually been to quite a few sign/decal shops that exclusively use Corel Draw. It's pretty common for a lot of the lower-end places, especially ones that do work for mechanics/auto shops/contractors.