I'm certain this topic has been discussed before (can't imagine it hasn't...)

This question i've been wanting to ask of you all for sometime now.

In my case, it's a matter costs & principle as i feel like it's a bit of a rip-off the amount Adobe charges. Although, i'm starting to feel like Gimp is a bit buggy, I may have to entertain the idea of looking at Photoshop.

How about you?

Was it a matter of costs?
Are you just 'Pro Open Source/Free' software?
Do you actually think it's better than Photoshop?

It's originally because I use Linux, bit it's also a principle thing. If people didnt pirate PS to the extent they do, very few outside the professional sphere (and some in that too, as we know) would find it motivated to pay the cost of Photoshop over what open-source has to offer.

The choice is not only between GIMP an Photoshop though. As a digital painter I'm driftining more and more towards other open-source offerings, like MyPaint and Krita.
.
Griatch

Simple - cost! I can't afford Photoshop. I imagine (and please nobody jump down my throat if I'm wrong) that all Open Source software is in a continual state of development and therefore is hardly likely to ever be 100% bug free. Sometimes though, something can seem like a bug until we discover what we are doing wrong. A number of times I have found that tools don't work on an image and then discovered that i accidently selected a single pixel. I couldn't see the selection because it was so small but it prevented tools from working on the area outside.

I'm with Erisian, it came down to the cost. I can't afford photoshop. Why pay for an image editor when you can get it for free if you can find it?

Was it a matter of costs?
My first use was to edit photos. For the price of Photoshop I could have another lens and Gimp. Plus I was looking at quitting Windows, so I had to start using software with Linux versions.

Are you just 'Pro Open Source/Free' software?
Just, no. Also, yes.

Do you actually think it's better than Photoshop?
For some things like scripting, definitely.

I had, at the time, PS5.5 (came with my laptop when taking a computer course; upgraded every few years until finally stopped at CS5 since I refuse to pay for upgrades every cycle and definitely refuse to pay for yearly licensing) but gave GIMP a try because it was open source (i.e., cheap for a poor man; lol). I stuck with GIMP since, for my needs, it was easy to do and fun. Amateur I am though. Still, GIMP is extremely powerful. Lacking in a few areas the have kept more then many pros from using (16/32bit edit and color space until more recent times; still not so good for CMYK separations as far as what's perceived is needed for commercial print. Still, GIMP is getting more of a following at other sites (non-GIMP) that I frequent and I suspect it will be getting more of a professional following soon.

And Ofnuts just Ninja'd me.

When I used Windows, I used Paint Shop Pro. After moving to Linux, I started learning GIMP.

I am pro FOSS, but I have no objections to commercial or closed source software, as long as it's not being used to secretly data mine or spy on me.

I've never used Photoshop and probably never will.

cause i'm a cheap scape.

Interesting responses guys thanks (i'm pretty much in unison with you all...)

I use GIMP over photoshop 1 I can't afford it, 2 I don't like the idea that photoshop gets all the praise when things just as nice can be made with GIMP, I've used GIMP for about 5 years and I think I've gotten reasonably good at it, I had photoshop for a minute and I didn't touch it or want it (my dad kinda forced me to play with it) then I got GIMP (also my dad) and I stuck to that one, it's my favorite program to use, before GIMP I was using MS-Paint! Even if it doesn't have "all the filters" and the few perks that Photoshop has I don't see a reason to buy photoshop if GIMP works just as good and is free. As for being buggy, I haven't had much issue with 2.8 but I'm not one who uses many filters and addons.

If you're in to Photo-Manipulation it works good for that, if you're in to from scratch arts and posters it's good for that, if you're a Digi-painter it's just fine for that too! If you want to do Digi-painting GIMP is good on it's own but with the addition of MyPaint I've gotten a whole lot better at it so if you wanna get in to that sphere I'd look in to both programs!

It's been Gimp for me since the beginning when I explored my options and had a project that needed to be 'shopped.' Let's be clear though, I detest that phrase, 'shopped.' Most shop-jobs you see floating around the web were probably gimped.

Why am I choosing Gimp over PS? Well, let me count the ways. Money is a huge factor. Not just because PS will charge any, but because they are way overcharging for what they're offering. When really, with a little finagling Gimp can achieve the same results as PS, even professionally applied why would I pay upwards of a thousand bucks for PS. That's coming from me who gimped entire covers for books that went into print - in gimp.


Like this cover that went flawlessly up on Createspace for publication.

I actually would argue that gimp is just as good. What it isn't is as user friendly. The learning curve is steep and it isn't in PS. Where PS wants to hold your hand and guide you to the right filter and layer style, Gimp let's you sort that out for yourself. By necessity a whole different kind of user will stick with Gimp than PS. With Gimp you have to try things, search for solutions, look stuff up. While that may seem like a huge PITA at first, in the long run it breeds good research habits that benefit you later. So Gimp also is a great educational tool.

In closing, if there was any place on Gimp I could put a ring, I'd marry the damn thing.

I use Gimp because it's open source. There's an entire community of users helping to make it better and improve what's already there. I don't feel like I'm being forced into doing or buy something because of some "pencil necked geek" in a corporate building somewhere says so.
I have both Gimp and CS5, but I didn't buy Gimp or the copy of CS5. I've always used Gimp, and rarely have a need to use my CS5.
Photoshop wins the feature war hands down, (if it can be called a war). It is an older, more mature project with a huge staff of very capable programmers. That said, most users need only a tiny fraction of what the program has to offer. If you want to create a great-looking logo or create some icons or dress up a web page, Gimp is more than up to the task.
I haven't need to us PS for anything in a very long time and currently it's uninstalled.
I did plop down the $70 or so dollars a few years ago for PS Elements 8, and in retrospect it was a wast of money. It too is uninstalled.
My Gimp is something I'm actually proud of. Part of the fun was creating a sort of personality for my Gimp.
Being able to add or remove things as I see fit. I would be very unhappy to not have the Gimp I have.
To me PS seems kind of sterile and flat.
I'll always be Gimping, but I can't say that for PS.

I can't add much more to what has already been said but will iterate: the expense, the "hand holding" PS approach and I had recently gone from a pc to a mac. Had PS years ago and I found that I had spent a lot of money for something I seldom used - used Paint Shop Pro instead. I've also found that in wanting to really learn Gimp and with the help of "happy accidents" (to use Bob Ross' favorite term) I can replicate a lot of PS tuts online. I like a good challenge and Gimp does that in more ways than I can count.

Some one needs to give ek22 a picture of gimp with a ring hanging on it

I have used gimp on several computers now for ten years. Although I originally used it just for putting text on pictures and manipulating photos. I was in an Australian forum where they had a weekly manipulation thread and gimp was advertised by members there. I have used it since
I didn't start as early as other but wouldn't try PhotoShop because of the price. (I am with you Moko re gimped pictures being mistaken or called shopped.) I have seen gimped pics up in Google and know exactly where they come from.
I have tried a trial run of PSP but couldn't work that out even so deleted it and have stuck with Gimp. Probably always will too. Am still learning but enjoying as I am learning.

At first, it was a cost issue for me too, (Don't care to pirate software anymore.) but now, it's a matter of preference. After two years of using GIMP exclusively for art, learning everything I can and customizing the interface to my liking, I have CS2 now and find Photoshop's interface strange to GIMP 2.8's single window mode.

Besides the odd filter, PS-exclusive scripts, and being unsure if GIMP can handle CYMK colors, I feel like Photoshop doesn't offer me anymore features than GIMP can now. More advanced digital artists might disagree with me, I'm unsure, but so far, GIMP has everything I need save for path folders. (Although using blank paths to label different sections is pretty effective.) I don't feel like I'm sorely lacking in any tools or layer effects tutorials written for Photoshop require.

Here's something GIMP can do but PS can't. Run a filter (slow one) and while filter is still running, dup the layer and then do other enhancements on the new layer while the filter is still running on the original layer. GIMP can do things in parallel; PS cannot. Do things like this all the time. I run a filter and say to myself, I wish I would have dupped the layer first. So long as the filter hasn't completed yet, you can dup the layer after the fact and be happy. How you like that PS? lol

I went a step up and drew Wilber, the mascot himself, wearing a ring. Would anyone have preferred a Manga girl with Wilber's ears? =P

What can I say? I love my tablet.

GIMP is awesome. The look, though may not be a perfect UI yet, gives me a personal touch. The current development which involves a complete GEGL implementation + on-canvas live filter ops preview will render GIMP a formidable ground in not a very distant future.

I don't even know why I keep a copy of a portable PS CS6 on my machine which I can't use, because GIMP is "imbedded" in me.

Alright, you got me.

I didn't choose Gimp over Photoshop, just stumbled across Gimp, found out that I enjoyed making photomanips, moved over to Linux, so there appears to be no more bugs for me, and carried on from there. If it came down to it I could probably find the money to shell out on ps, but in all honesty I can't see the point to that. If I ever do get to the point where I think Gimp is holding me back then maybe I'll think again about ps, but as it stands at the moment if there's something I can't do then it's through my lack of ability and not because Gimp is incapable of making things the way I want them to be.
Plus, and this may be the final nail in the coffin for ps, I would have to start using windows again, anything but that