Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 11th Jan 2010 08:10 UTC
Multimedia, AV I followed the hype: Reddit, Slashdot's front page, months of thumbs up on my blog and various video forums by Linux users for OpenShot. Given that I'm longing for a usable Linux video editor since 2003, and given that OpenShot version 1.0 had just been released, I naturally gave it a go, by also downloading its provided dependencies on my Ubuntu Linux 9.10.
Permalink for comment 403796
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: A common problem
by ageitgey on Wed 13th Jan 2010 04:07 UTC in reply to "RE: A common problem"
Member since:

GIMP is better than Photoshop in many ways. First of all, it's easier to use. I have been able to accomplish a lot of things in GIMP, that my professional photographer friends couldn't do in Photoshop, with years of Photoshop experience.

I've developed extensively for GIMP and I've used Photoshop for 15+ years. I very pro open source where it makes sense, but I also understand both applications very deeply. Claiming that GIMP is better than Photoshop is utterly silly.

Yes, there are things here and there that GIMP does better than Photoshop. Working with Animated GIFs is a good example. But those strengths are much fewer than the massive holes it has compared to Photoshop CS4.

GIMP is missing vital tools that are the bread and butter of a working photographer. This includes things like the healing brush, the patch tool, perspective image stamping, real support for actions, the quick select tool, a real brush engine, etc. The list is miles long. Trying to work as a real photographer without these tools greatly increases the amount of time spent editing.

This whole argument between GIMP and PS is out of date anyway. Most of the stuff that GIMP can handle well (color correction, cropping, basic touch ups, etc) are things that modern photographers no longer do in Photoshop. That work has all migrated to apps like Lightroom and Aperture. In fact, Photoshop is quickly becoming just a utility to photographers instead of the "main tool." There's nothing open source that is comparable to Lightroom at the moment.

GIMP is a great application to have around. It fits the needs of many amateurs and is a great utility for professionals as well. It's also a great base to build your own custom image processing tools. But saying that any real professional photographer (who gets paid for their time) could use it daily INSTEAD of Photoshop is silly. It's just not true.

By the way, Photoshop relies on the open source dcraw for its Adobe Camera Raw plugin to import raw camera files (an essential function for pro photographers).

That's misleading at best. ACR uses *pieces* of dcraw. But Adobe has added thousands of hours of their own development tweaking the raw conversion algorithms. ACR is way, way better than dcraw alone.

In any case, this is where open source really excels - producing great reusable libraries of common core functions like dcraw. Where it tends to fail is producing polished, high-end applications for niche audiences. That's no ones fault. It's just economics.

I hear a lot of vague criticism of OSS and Linux, but when it gets down to the details, I find that it is often superior to the alternatives.

I think it's impossible to say OSS is "better" or "worse" than alternatives. OSS kicks ass for low level libraries and applications that apply to a wide user base. That's why Firefox is so great. It attracts a huge number of developers to keep improving it. But that's also why OpenShot is struggling. There just aren't that many people in the world who want to develop a free high-end video editor with a pro-level feature set.

I wrote an article on this phenomenon for this very site half a decade ago:

Reply Parent Score: 2