think about it this way...would u rather have the actual DVD of a movie or would u rather have a bootleg copy of the movie with less special features and less quality...even if they both r free? Photoshop is that actual DVD GIMP is that bootleg sh<img src=\'http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/black_dude504/i.jpg\' border=\'0\' alt=\'user posted image\' />t
I used gimp a long time ago and it lags more than ps and crashed for me too much. Gimp sigs are usually just brush bg sigs.
photoshop by far more features and everything and like everyone else has been saying gimp is freeware freeware vs a 300+ dollar program i think ps is alot better
exactly <a href=\'https://store1.adobe.com/cfusion/store/index.cfm?store=OLS-US&view=ols_prod&category=/Applications/Photoshop&distributionMethod=FULL&NR=0\' target=\'_blank\'>Photoshop CS2</a> is $650 for a reason
Failing to back up your opinion with anything remotely resembling evidence or legitimate justification means that your post is an unfounded opinion and nothing more. Although on a site virtually dominated by PS users this kind of response is to be expected. It is easy enough to convert PS brushes to GIMP brushes, and there are many brush sets for GIMP out there already. Admittedly not as many as PS, but if you're relying on brushes someone else made maybe you need to rethink your style. Btw, GIMP uses the fonts in your system font folder. No different to adding a font to any program. As said earlier: Artist Talent > Program Capability. You're using artist talent (or lack thereof) to define the program? Sure, let's call a car crap because the driver is blind. <_< Funny though. You're complaining that GIMP sigs are brush whored, while The Vengeance was complaining that there wasn't enough brush sets for GIMP. One or the other, it can't be both. I've seen PS sig banners brush whored or simply loads of premade C4Ds thrown in everywhere. However, I'm not going to base any judgement on that because all that does to show artist talent. End Thought - It's one thing to have an opinion, but coming across so arrogant and even refusing to acknowledge another graphics package as a viable platform is the point where you have to prove your point beyond the same recycled and unjustified reasonings such as "cause GIMP sucks". So far I have only seen two viable reasonings. Which are: 1) PS has more resources. This I cannot argue because it is indeed true. That's not to say GIMP does not have numerous resources of its own but rather that they are lower in number. 2) PS is easier to use. I cannot try to comment on this simply because I have not used PS for any extended period of time and thus cannot comment on its ease of use over GIMP.
Right okay, you're cleary a 'tard. Look up the word Gimp on urbandictionary.com I was using it in sense 2. You're a gimp.
If you are the kind of person who doesn't care if they break the law, or has $300 to spend on PS, go for it. If you're like me, and like to keep morals in tact, or don't have an extra $300, use gimp. I do, and while I'm not the greatest artist, I've been able to get good results.
Oh, and as for the rest of your arguement, you keep saying GIMP sigs look ---- because people who use GIMP are ----. Do I see a connection? DAMMIT THIS WAS MEANT TO MERGE INTO MY ABOVE POST BUT SOMEONE POSTED INBETWEENY TIMES >.<
Just to add something, I think that most gimpers use gimp becuase it's a should, not can't thing. Nobody says "I'm going to be a gimper becuase I want to!" They usually say "Well, I can't get PS, might as well use gimp."
