There's plenty of chatter on this matter on the web already - but with the number of Linux/Open source fans and graphical-minded peopleon here, I thought I'd open it up for a more reasoned response to the question.

Basically, as most of you know, I work in architecture. I am a BIM specialist first and foremost, but my role sees me play a major part in managing software and such also (since it's more technology orientated role than it is construction based) and yesterday the call went up for 2 more CS licenses. Firstly, I am not a fan of the amount of time spent making pretty pictures and documents at the cost of making accurate technical drawings and specifications - but despite my argument that as architects we should be doing architecture, and leave the graphics side to those in the know (i.e. pay or hire someone else, more specialised) the sad truth is that architecture - in the UK - is becoming ever more orientated toward fluffy images and "soft sell" presentations given most contract types these days leave the contractor to decide how everything gets built anyway.

So, I could just let it be - and not contest the outlay. We'd get CS over PS alone since there's also "demand" (read: want) for InDesign and Illustrator. But it just irks me that I can pretty much guarantee (having seen the work being produced) that we're not fully exploiting PS's full gamut of features - and something like Gimp, or even Paint Shop Pro, would be a far wiser investment in terms of ROI. I've this much already. I suspect it won't make much difference, and we'll drop the cash (needed for training and other more essential architectural software) regardless - but I just wanted to get your thoughts on the argument. As in, am I wrong to suggest it's a suitable alternative (for people who only pretty much use levels, layers and the magic wand tool)

How comfortable are the staff using PS now?
I found GIMP to be completely arse about face to use. I needed PS on my work machine, they wouldn't pay, had to make do with GIMP. The amount of time I spent in GIMP was vastly longer than the amount of time I would've spent in PS, and as we all know, time has a value.
I understand there's been an UI update to it, and it's not so bad now, but something to bear in mind.

And yeah, as someone who's had a photo job go away this week because the client 'Can do it themselves for less', I'd rather you hired some clever CS monkey and let the architects to get on with architect-ing.

GIMP takes a while to learn, but it's a very powerful tool.

What OS are you planning to run it on? There's someone who compiles a Windows version, but I'm lead to believe they're going to stop. If they did, you'd have to compile the code yourself.

I totally get what both of you are saying. I've GIMP on this machine, but because I don't dabble in graphics work much these days I seldom fire it up for anything more than a little retouching, and it's island-style GUI (if that's what it's called?) does take some getting used to compared to PS.

And yes, the years of familarity with PS does make GIMP feels a little cludgy - but then I was a PaintShopPro user years before ever picking up PS and I thought the same then (about PS) when I made the switch - that much is standard with software switching though (Windows/OSX, FF/IE, MSOffice/OpenOffice, Autocad/Microstation, etc) - and I can't help but think with some perseverence, I could get the handle on GIMP to get me to the same level I used to be at in GIMP.

Sure, the market-dominance of PS in educational/pirated use means it's pretty much 100% Adobe in architecture - so training is a major factor. But so is cost - and yes training costs, but then on-the-job-training is key - since there's plenty of bad-practice to be weeded out of most PS/Autocad usersin my office as it is, and unlearning takes just as long, (and costs just as much - if not more) as learning does. For example, we had a 200mb .psd being used for a 20x40mm thumbnail in an InDesign document recently. And we regularly remake our InDesign documents in Powerpoint (and vice versa). Complete and utter, absolute nonsense!

And when you consider that when I suggested we calibrate our monitors and printers, I got returned a universal blank-stare as if I had started speaking in tongues, I'm convinced that I'm not dealing with expert users - just complacent ones. Which is why I'm reluctant to green-light money being dropped on CS6 when the "skill base" still seems to be fairly limited in a limited number of program functions.

As it is, I'm going to install GIMP on our virtual machines, and encourage people to "give it a go" and in the mean time introduce a queue-policy, as we simply can't afford a license for everyone just because they want it (especially when some just want to crop their print screen and don't know they can do that with MS Paint, or better yet, the snippy tool!)

I've already had the backlash for being a hypocrite for not wanting to spend money on things I don't want (since I actively champion the purchasing of new Revit licenses at £5K a pop! ) - but just like we don't have a camera, disto, or site safety gear for everyone... we simply can't have a PS or CS seat for everyone. And it's not like there's not plenty of work to be getting on with in the meantime.

Do you need the CMYK colour space? if not, Photoshop Elements will do the job you describe at a much lower price. If you need CMYK, then you can run the Elements file through one of the regular Photoshops to convert it.

If you have Macs, the are other choices. Pixelmator, for example.

Does that do CMYK then?
Great piece of software though, and I'd say seriously worth thinking about as a PS replacement.
If you know PS you'll get to grips with it in no time.

Not at the moment. Hopefully they will add that in. To be a serious contender, it's certainly needed.

It sounds like people are wanting to buy software and then find a reason for using it. That's not how it's supposed to work.

1. What tasks do we need to carry out?
2. What are the options that would allow us to accomplish those tasks?
3. Which of those options would allow us to accomplish those tasks with the best balance of cost versus PITA?

Personally I use a weird combination of GIMP (bitmap) and Inkscape (vector) that works for me because

1. When I started I couldn't afford PS but could afford the time
2. I want true cross-platform capability because I use both Linux and Windows
3. Even if I could afford it, I don't want to give a penny to Adobe
4. There are certain very weird things that I can only do in GIMP or by writing something myself
5. These days I prefer GIMP
6. I now don't have the time to re-train

There's no reason for laying out for CS unless there's something about CS that you actually need. However, a lot of people will say "We can't afford PS so let's get GIMP". Time is expensive and whatever you get, the cost of the software will always be dwarfed by the costs of using that software.

Then there's the argument that runs "We don't really need PS so let's use GIMP". That's a stupid argument. IME GIMP is at least as complex as PS whilst having an Old Testament interface so if you don't need PS, you really don't need GIMP.

By the sound of things, I would seriously consider whether architects are the people who should be dealing with Graphic design. If you want that work doing and doing well, architects are not the people who should be doing it. It's like asking a welder to install your central heating.



...imo

If you are looking at going with CS, take a look at Adobe Creative Cloud. That gives you everything for a monthly fee. If you were to buy CS and never upgrade it, the Creative Cloud would be more expensive after 3 - 5 years (depending on which variant of CS you use - Cloud is equivalent to the Master Collection + a few other tools not included in CS).

If you were to upgrade CS each time a new version comes out, CS would never work out cheaper than CC.

I am not generally a fan of "cloud" systems or rented software, but this is one case where it really makes sense. For existing CS users, it is harder to justify, until they are forced to upgrade. But for new users, it seems to be a no brainer. You can also "rent" it for the duration of a project, then cancel it and you've only laid out a few hundred quid, instead of thousands per user and you don't have unused licences sitting in a closet gathering dust.

I don't use cmyk anymore.

Nor me, this past eight years or so. CMYK is something that happens when I make a press-ready PDF, and that's helped by using a colour-managed workflow.

I found it frustrating freelancing last year at a place which still insisted on a full CMYK workflow. It seemed so backward, and added time to every job when client-supplied digital photos had to be converted to CMYK, and upscaled to 300dpi simply because the ancient and creaking RIP couldn't cope with RGB conversion!

Over the course of 6 years I have used both PS and GIMP on and off.

When I first used PS I found it near impossible. I next tried GIMP and found it to be much more intuitive for a beginner.

With a bit more experience I tried PS again and found that it was much easier to use than before.

Out of interest I tried using GIMP a few minutes ago and it was like trying to teach an old dog new tricks.

Interesting - how so?

I'd forgotten many things and had to relearn, not something I've noticed when I've had a break from PS.

The other reason to have Photoshop is that you may get sent files which are in that format. If filters etc. are applied to smart layers, GIMP etc. may not be able to load them correctly.

I certainly get enough files sent to me in that way to make having. Copy of Photoshop mandatory.