Would be interesting to know what Gimp Chatters think.

The full comparison link seems 404, so I only read the 11 pages. I found the 'navigation' comparison intriguing maybe I didn't catch what its about, the mag says that panning is made easy with the navigation tab.. But I don't see the point of using this tab since I use mouse 3 button to pan...

At the end of the day, Photoshop or Gimp are still just pencils, and its the creative skill and practice of said software that produce the amazing results.

I've given up on the theory. Gimp does everything I want it to so why fork out money??? As he4rty said it's just different pencils. All software has it's limitations and bonuses and you have to adapt just like you do with watercolours, oils etc.

i liked the article, but i thought some of the conclusions were a bit too hasty. about photoshop versus gimp i made up my mind long before i read the article thoguh, and i'm not likely to change it. as tools both softwares work well in their own respective ways, but open source software sort of comes with the creativity built in to its bones .

perhaps there are differences that would make a difference for professional graphics artists, but for me...well, I still have not bothered to work with the free photoshop that was being given away, gimp does all I need and does it well.

Thinking twice about it, I Second this and more, as PS is not exactly an affordable software. We're not comparing a free product vs an affordable product here, PS means 700 US$, and 700 US$ is, converted, approximately the price I pay, monthly, for renting my house, I certainly can't skip the rent for one month. And there's more, I'm living in one of the developed countries around, but imagine what means 700$ for many other countries... In many of them 700 US$ means a complete year of labour and I guess I'm optimistic.

Therefore, in a way, comparing PS and gimp features relies on the postulate that you are kind of rich among the riches, which, for most human beings on Earth, makes gimp the instant winner of any comparison charts.

I wish people would stop saying that. The more people say that, the more people believe it's true...

I agree. Here in Canada where I live, I went into Best Buy a couple years ago before I even heard of GiMP. I asked how much it cost for PhotoShop, and they said over $1000 and they don't stock it for reasons there are not enough people that will pay that much money for something they might not even like,they would have to order it.
To me, comparing Gimp to Photoshop is not even a question. The comparison is one is free and one is not.
For what I want and need is Gimp and it is improving as the years go by.
Why not compare Gimp with another free software, instead of PS

Ok ok, money is not everything in life. Not just about money. It's about the altruism of developers. It's about the OpenSource, free code and freedom. It's about the community.
I remember reading many opportunities that GIMP developers only think about making their own tool. For developers of GIMP, GIMP is an alternative to other graphics programs (not a competitor). For Adobe, maybe GIMP has slowly been turning into an annoying competition (which they can not buy to make them disappear ).
Without programs like GIMP, Adobe would not have needed to launch promotions or make available for free their old software. For this reason even Photoshop users should love programs like GIMP

Well said, and yes I do have Krita but I haven't delved into it yet.
I will always stick up for GIMP and for all the work the developers do to get it where it is. They should be applauded, which in fact, I think they are.
Another thing is that PS people look down on GIMP as inferior and I am sure most of them have never even tried it.
They might be very surprised.

YUP, we are not going to let it. Same goes for other Corporations...windows

I can't tell form looking at an image whether it was Gimped or Photoshoped.

For my money, I'll go with Gimp and as for 'industry standards'... who's to say that Gimp isn't part of this standard.

Well, assuming it's true, I'm afraid target is not acquired, or at least is a secondary objective. I believe that a free product automatically targets generic users, while it doesn't prevent satisfying the needs of the 1337's. After all, we've already heard of painters or photographers who work with gimp, and I don't see why any professional graphician would force himself to use gimp, it they use it then it means the product satisfies their pro needs.

IMO, it hasn't changed at all, it's just more insidious, they just used the clever principle of "paid free trial"
leaving you with two options:
if you dislike it then you cancel the subscription, anyway, you paid.
if you like it then you keep subscribing over and over, you still gonna break your bank, but quite silently.