Would GIMP work?

I don't normally argue with experts but, Chosen, you are dead wrong on that statement. I draw and paint directly on an alpha channel all the time. In fact that is how I draw and paint most everything I make with GIMP. I have several saved "templates" in various sizes pertinent to SL that are nothing but alpha..........100% transparent. RBGA with no RBG channels specifically for me to draw on. You keep mentioning that you are going to play around with GIMP someday.............you need to do that if you are going to argue your case accurately. I'm more than a little disappointed to see you post that.

And, this is just my experience when learning GIMP. I had downloaded a trial version of Photoshop before I got GIMP and played around with it for the full trial period to attempt to learn a little about it. I was hard for me since my experience with graphics programs was pretty much limited to MS Paint.........big jump. I knew that Photoshop was out of my league so I got GIMP. Guess what, it's interface was no more complicated than PS........in fact it was cleaner and easier to figure out for me. I found a few sites with tutorials and generally played with every tool there is in GIMP until I learned what did what and how I could use it to make what I wanted to make. Took me roughly 2 months to get an outfit made that I could upload and wear. Not the best by any means but I wasn't too embarrassed to wear it in public...........it was better than some stuff I paid lindens for. Then I got a book on it...........and learned more and continue to learn every day that I use it. I'm no programmer, I'm no artist, I'm nothing more than a hobbiest. I can do sellable clothes and building textures. My "work flow" would probably make you faint..........but I have fun. That is why I do it. I could care less about all the nifty toys PS has........I'll never be a commercial graphics artist (nor do I want to be) so telling me and people like me that in the long run Photoshop will serve me better is you just not getting the message. We really don't care........honest.

But, you really need to try the program out before you argue against it.

Umm.. This feature is done with layer masks in The Gimp.. It's always had it since I started using The Gimp. Out of interest I did a quick google and am finding information on it dating back to 1998 easily, and undated references to it for Gimp versions as low as 0.5 which I believe was the first released version. So that "never have" is really "always had"

And just a thought, but I bet most novices would better be able to guess what a "layer mask" does than an "alpha channel". Alpha channel is a programming term rather than a descriptive English one.

No, of course, it is rarely a good idea to lie about things if one has any sort of decent contract. Either do it or don't do it. That sort of thing would be reserved for "I need to pay my rent, I can't get another job now and my boss has just told me to write all my emails while wearing a Napoleon hat because it's part of the workflow".

I'm glad other people are mentioning the layer mask thing, I thought it must have been referring to some Photoshop feature that I'd not encountered.

Peggy, if you've got a method that allows you to paint on just the alpha channel, without requiring you to touch any of the RGB info, please share what it is. By your description though, it doesn't sound like that's what you're talking about at all. I don't mean simply starting with a totally transparent image, and then painting on it, thereby letting the transparency just be the function of the absence of opaque color. That's not it at all.

What I mean is creating an alpha channel completely independently from anything that might or might not be happening in any of the RGB channels. What I'm after is the ability to see the single channel in isolation as a grayscale image, and paint directly on just that.

In Photoshop, you can simply click on the alpha channel in the channels palette to activate it, just as you would with a layer in the layers palette, and then paint whatever you want on the channel's canvas, no muss, no fuss. This can be done with or without the RGB channels even being visible. It's incredibly simple.

In PSP, the same thing can be done, only in a slightly more roundabout way. You first paint on a mask, and then you copy the contents of mask to an alpha channel. Similar functionality exists in other programs that do not have a dedicated channels palette in them, like Photoshop Elements. It's a couple of extra clicks, but it's basically the same thing. What's happening on the alpha can be the same as, or completely separate from, anything that's happening on the RGB channels, as it should be.

In GIMP, even though it does have a channels palette, I haven't found any way to just activate the alpha channel and paint on it. It only seems to want to let you paint on the RGB channels, and force-auto-construct the alpha channel from what it thinks you want based on the visual layer transparency. I haven't found and other way to work than this fully WYSIWYG methodology, which is a tremendous handicap. (Not counting that Decompose thing, which as I said, I still haven't tested.) So again, if you know something I don't, please share it. Otherwise, let's try and make sure we're not talking about two different things, OK?


Peggy, all I ever meant by saying I need to play around with GIMP more is the fact that I'm not comfortable enough with it to teach it. That doesn't mean I haven't used it, or that I don't know anything about it.

So please don't paraphrase me out of context like that. You are, intentionally or not, trying to twist the meaning of things I've said. Don't do that.

My discomfort with GIMP prevents me being able confidently to recommend it to people or to write tutorials for it, which is why I earlier declined to cite too much detail on the problems I've found with it. I'm aware that a lot of people read what I write, and I don't want to confuse anyone. But that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about at all, so please don't be so "disappointed".

Lots of active GIMP users have confirmed what I've said about not being able to paint directly on an alpha channel. Many have suggested work arounds for this shortcoming, in fact. The only one of these I haven't yet followed up on to test is the one that appeared a few weeks ago on the transparency guide thread, suggesting the use of the Decompose command to make the individual channels paintable.

That was the "convoluted direction" I was talking about, by the way Even if it works, it could be such an incredibly unusual approach to the problem, unique to GIMP, that I still might hesitate to teach it, since it might not be well conducive to a universal understanding, which people could carry from program to program. I don't want to speculate though, so I won't comment on it further until I've actually used the technique.


Look, if you don't care, you don't care. There's nothing I can say to make you care. I think it's unfortunate that you don't, but so be it. It's your decision, not mine.

However, I think you'd do well to realize it's not that I'm "not getting the message". In fact, it's the opposite. As one who "doesn't care", it is you who are not getting my message. I hear you loud and clear, but obviously since you don't care, you can't hear me. To hear me, you'd have to care, and since you don't, you don't. That's fine.

If you ever decide to care, then I can promise you that many of the "toys" you refer to would make things easier and faster for you. But if that doesn't matter to you individually, that's your prerogative. Just don't go pretending you speak for everyone. Lots of people, including casual hobbyists, do care, and it's to them that I speak. You can listen along or not; it's entirely up to you. My concern is just to make sure the correct information is out there. People can make up their own minds from there.


Incidentally, if you really truly feel that GIMP's interface is "cleaner" than Photoshop's, all I can say is wow. Your sense of cleanliness must be so radically different from mine, it's unlikely we'd aver agree aesthetically about anything. To me, GIMP's interface is one of the least "clean" I've encountered in any program of any kind. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, for sure.


How much more clear can I make this? I HAVE USED GIMP. I have used it quite a bit, in fact. I haven't gotten comfortable enough with it to the point where I feel confident teaching it is all. I don't know if I ever will, but I will continue to try, and that's all I mean when I say "I'll have to play with it more".


Thanks, Domino. Yes, I'm aware that GIMP can do layer masks, and that it has been so able for many years. What I'm after though is not just the ability to make a mask, but the ability directly to edit the alpha channel itself. Even with the use of layer masks in GIMP, the alpha channel is still being auto-generated from the visual transparency in the layers, as dictated by the masks.

Unless you know something I don't (and if you do, I really hope you'll share), GIMP does not offer you the ability to copy a mask to a channel like you could in PSP or Photoshop, and remove the mask itself, so you can work on the rest of the image independently, while preserving the state of the alpha channel. In order for the alpha to have black (transparency) in any given spot, you need to keep that spot layer-masked, or erased, or just never painted in the first place, at the time of output. You can't just grab the channel, paint black in that spot, and be done with it. That prevents you from being able to do a lot of things you could easily do in other programs.

What I'm seeking is a way for GIMP to allow completely independent editing of any channel in the image, without affecting the others. The aforementioned Decompose command might be the key, but as I said, I haven't tried it yet. However, even if it is, it's such an oddball approach, it might not be worth teaching anyway.


By just the names alone, you might be right. However, the terms "alpha mask", "alpha map", and "alpha channel" are used pretty much interchangeably, and are often one of the first concepts discussed in any graphic class, from 2D to 3D to video.

When I was taught the concept, it was pretty much "Here's the logic: black is the minumum, white is maximum, grays are in between. Here's what happens when you apply that logic to the opacity of a layer, in the form of a mask. Here's what happens when you apply it to the opacity and/or the colors of an entire image, in the form of a channel. Here's what happens when you apply it to bumpiness, to shininess, to light and shadow, etc., etc., etc." That's how I continue to teach it myself. I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn't get it quickly when it's presented that way.

As I keep saying, when you can break something down into its most fundamental underlying logical principle, you can then let the learner apply that principle on his/her own to the whole thing with great and immediate success. The program almost teaches itself that way, because the actual software is almost irrelevant to the equation. The same principle can be applied to all programs the user will ever encounter, as long as each one is equipped with a direct path to the places to apply the knowledge. I've found that such direct paths exist in the vast majority of commercial programs I've ever used, but GIMP is chock full of obstacles, making the path quite indirect and difficult to see. That's why I don't teach GIMP.

Sure, I could spend a few months figuring out the best way to explain all of its unique quirks, one by one, but that feels like a waste of time to me. I'd rather teach things that can be applied universally. Show me a way the shared behaviors from most other programs can be successfully applied to GIMP, and I'll pass that information along in tutorial form until my fingers bleed. Until then, all I can say is GIMP makes me uncomfortable.

Please don't get me wrong, anyone. I'm not trying to scare people away from GIMP here. As I've said numerous times, it is a fantastic program in that it delivers pro level horsepower for free. My problem is with its methodology, not with its feature set.


In any case, if you really like the layer-mask-to-alpha-channel style of work flow better than the paint-right-on-the-channel style, you can certainly do that in Photoshop too. For some people, it's more intuitive way to go, since it's more WYSIWYG as you go. For me personally, it's kind of an unnecessary complication, since it adds an extra step. You can't get much more simple than just painting on the channel directly. But there's certainly nothing wrong with using a mask as a proxy for the channel, and I do encourage that for those who prefer it.



Very interesting. I'm looking at the mathmap website right now. It seems pretty cool if you're into math. I wish I had the temperament to enjoy something like that myself.

Me, I look at all those equations, and it makes my eyeballs want to bleed. I don't create my art with any conscious thought to trigonometry or algebra. For me, it's not about math functions; it's about visuals. I realize that for some people, these things are one in the same, and I really wish they were for me too, but they're not. Given enough direct effort, I could probably bridge the mental gap, and I'm sure I'd be better off if I did, but it's such an uncomfortable prospect, I'm just not up for it. Higher mathematics is just not something I enjoy.

If I'm going to make my own filters, I'd rather use a visual node based system like Filter Forge than do all that math. I realize that those who enjoy the math would probably scoff at that, since the equations are such small and simple things compared with the seemingly elaborate intricacies of visual nodes. However, for those of us who don't think in terms of equations, but in terms of visual flow, the nodes make infinitely more sense than the equations do.

As I said before, different people think in different ways. Programmers and engineering types tend to love things like GIMP and Mathmap. But they are not in the majority of people who use art programs. Most of the rest of us tend not to enjoy that kind of thing. I really wish I could, but I don't. Again, there's nothing good or bad about that. It's just the way it is.

I've read everyone's answers (and the novelettes...j/k...), and am pretty thoroughly confused. I will say, Chosen, that having a computer and paying for broadband is something already figured into our household budget. Spending a lot of money on software that I'm only going to use for my hobby of making clothes for Second Life, is not. Having said that, I am thinking about Paint Shop. You're right in that I could probably scrape up an extra $100, but it would take a while. (maybe with that extra refund we'll be getting here in the states this summer). I'm not a graphic artist in RL, and never will be. I'm also not a programmer....and never will be. I sell insulation for metal buildings, and believe me, I'll never need any graphics program whatsoever for what I do. At this point in my life, I'm not looking for a career change, just something to do in my limited spare time.

I taught myself every program I use on the PC. I taught myself excel and word, formulas and spreadsheets, etc. I suppose with the right tutorials, I could teach myself almost anything. One thing I am, is a fast learner. I do want something that my mind can wrap around, and whether or not these programs are too complicated seems to be a matter of preference or a matter of how one thinks. I'm not sure if my mind "works" like a programmers or a graphic artists, but I suspect it's probably somewhere below both.

I do know that it will be a very long time, if ever, that I will have, or want, to be able to invest $650 into a software program. You know the old saying "if it's free....it's for me"....lol However, Paint Shop is probably not out of my reach. I appreciate everyone's input, more than you know. I was just reading some of this to my husband, and it really seems as though it's a matter of preference. I'm sure that, logically, one may be "better" than the other, and each program seems to have it's share of passionate users. I sooo don't speak "tech" and am not tech minded, so I suppose it will just depend on what I find I can learn more logically. In other words, what makes sense to me. I don't mind spending time to learn a program...I find it an interesting and compelling challenge to conquer something that appears difficult, or at least difficult for me, but it needs to at least make sense.

As I said, I certainly appreciate the input and each of you definitely seem to know what you're talking about. Paint Shop might be the best way to go, and since my husband already has it, well I do have a bit of a leg up in that he can help me with the basics he's already learned. Of course, we need house repairs too, so I might be forced to use GIMP simply because an extra $100 might have to put into the home improvement fund, and that depends on our personal budget.......completely.

Sunni, start with Gimp. If you find it difficult to work with or that it doesn't meet your needs you'll be better able to evaluate other options becuase you'll have a baseline to compare against. You can't beat the price. And yes, it can be more difficult to learn an app if you've already spent a lot of time working with a different app that has a substantially different workflow, but if you could learn the first one you're perfectly capable of learning another one, and you'll be armed with the knowledge of what you didn't like or find inuitive about the first. The bottom line is that GIMP is more than capable of producing excellent textures for SL. It just isn't as user friendly which is a common problem with open source applications (like Blender for instance). If your main consideration is price versus capabilities and you'd rather not spend money on an app right now there's simply no good reason not to dive in to GIMP and have at it.

its there trust me, you just have to get over your "this ONE program is the ONLY way to make a interface" mentality

if your a noobie at all this and have equal documentation and help learning them both you will find that they both have the same learning curve

also theres things in photoshop that i just wrap my head around, for example in v7 if an image is at a reduced size and i want to zoom in i can only goto a 1:1 ratio before the mousewheel magically switches from zoom mode to scroll mode wtf maby i need a 10:1 ratio, now i got to go fussing with the side menus and a slide bar that inhibits my workflow (cause i have to stop everything to go looking for it)

in paint shop pro the wheel is zoom no matter what, in the gimp theres a little box at the bottom of the image i can just click on, both are always there and they dont magically change half way tru

You don't seem to have much of a clue what my "mentality" actually is, so I wish you'd quit putting words in my mouth. I never said Photoshop's interface was the only way to do it. What I said was it happens to be one that works very, very well. So well, in fact, that most other programs in the field have incorporated its underlying principles. Still, every program is laid out a little differently, and that's fine. As long as there's consitency from one end of a program to the other, it doesn't really matter precisely what is put where.


As someone who teaches newbies all the time, I would beg to differ. As I've said I don't know how many times now, for whatever reason, Photoshop is almost always really easy for just about anyone to intuit once they've been properly introduced to its basic fundamentals. I've seen the same lightbulb go on time and time again for more people than I could possibly ever count. That's how it was for me when I first learned, and that's how it's been for almost everyone I've ever shown it to.

GIMP just doesn't work like that. Maybe it did for you, since as we discussed, you've got that programmer's mind working for you, but realistically you gotta realize you're in the minority. For people who don't think the way programmers think, it's really a struggle. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept. You appear to bey unwilling to believe that not everyone's mind works the way yours does, and I find that very puzzling.


Version 7 had a number of flaws. Odd scroll wheel behavior could very well have been one of them; I don't remember. I don't know what moron Adobe might have brought on to work on PS 7 who caused so many problems, but whoever it was, I hope they were taken out back and shot. The 7.0.1 patch, which came out a few months later, fixed most of the problems with 7.0.

In any case, there may be a setting in preferences to change the scroll behavior. It's worth a look.

In subsequent versions, the scroll wheel behavior is much more sensible. By itself, the wheel behaves as most people would expect. It operates the vertical scrollbar, just as it does in 99% of all programs on Earth. After that, it gets pretty cool. By using ctrl, alt, and or shift, you can make the wheel do a bunch of different things.

Hold ctrl, and the wheel changes from operating the vertical scrollbar to operating the horizontal one. So many programs offer no way to scroll horizontally at all, other than physically dragging the bar. But PS does, which is great.

As for zooming, all you need to do is hold alt, and the wheel toggles from scroll mode to zoom mode. This should be especially easy to remember for SL users and Maya users, since we all have 'alt-zoom' practically hardwired into us. For more control, hold shift along with alt, and the zooming will snap to regular intervals (25%, 50%, 100%, 200%, etc.). Nice.

I'll grant you that someone unfamiliar with Photoshop, or Adobe programs in general, might not immediately suspect that ctrl, alt, and shift would be things to use along with the mousewheel. However, all it takes is the slightest bit of experience, and it becomes a fairly easy guess. Those three keys are used constantly along with the mouse for all sorts of things in Photoshop and in other Adobe programs (and many non-Adobe graphics programs too).

That said, it's important to realize that many Photoshop users rarely, if ever, use the mouse wheel while working, anyway. That is what the Navigator, which has existed for long before mice with wheels were commonplace, is for, after all. Mouse wheels, as a rule, are generally pretty clunky things. The Navigator is far more exacting, and is just as easily accessible no matter what kind of pointing device you're using. Me, I usually have the tablet pen in my hand, not the mouse, when I'm working in PS, and of course the pen has no wheel at all.

This flexibility in behavior, by the way, is one of the main core principles behind how Adobe sets stuff up (7.0 jackasses, not withstanding). The idea is to ensure that every user is able to do every task with equal ease, no matter what kind of pointing device they may have, or how many buttons, wheels, bells, and whistles might be on it. All you need is one mouse button and a keyboard. If you happen to have more than that, you can of course use it, but you don't have to have anything special at all to use the program perfectly well.


Anyway, mouse wheel behavior was hardly the kind of thing I was talking about with the GIMP's logic issues. If the slightly odd behavior of a mouse wheel in a six-years-outdated version that happened to be by far the worst version of the program ever made is the best you've got to prove that Photoshop is confusing, I think we can all rest assured that it's not.

What I was referring to with GIMP's oddities are the often strange procedures required to do various things to images, the rather unique peculiarities of its interface layout, and its overall inconsistency of behavior from component to component.

Look, clearly you're a fan of GIMP, and I certainly don't want to take that away from you. If you love it, great. I'm happy for you that you do. Really, I am. As I said in the beginning of all this, those who like GIMP swear by it, and there's nothing anyone can say to change their minds, nor should there be. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of people tend to have a harder time with GIMP than with PS, and that there aren't as many benefits from having expertise in GIMP as there are from having expertise in Photoshop. That's all I've been trying to say. It's nothing that should bother you.



By the way, Sunni, if you're still reading, please understand that all my extended commentary about GIMP's shortcomings, and Photoshop's advantages has not been with the intention of convincing you which way to go. My original post here was aimed at answering your questions, but pretty much everything since then has been in response to things other people have said. So I hope you're not reading more into it than is actually there. Whatever program you choose, I'm sure you'll do fine.

I've found Paint.NET is a wonderful alternative to Photoshop (Does anyone really pay for Photoshop anyways?, and kicks GIMP's butt. I've since uninstalled Photoshop.

There is a homemade plugin on a German user's website for .psd that you can find easily by looking for keywords in paint.NET's forums, can also save in any photoshop ext.

Note: This is NOT Microsoft Paint, nor is .NET the URL. It uses the .NET architecture which is included in Vista but must be downloaded for WinXP SP1 (free).

http://www.getpaint.net

Much easier than photoshop, GIMP, anything. And its FREE. TONS of plugins, too!

its just whenever this question pops up its "the gimp is good but its not what i use so spend 675$ for something you may or may not want to persue"



as someone who teaches noobies photoshop all the time i imagine its very easy for someone under you to understand, just like i can tell a total noobie how to do it in the gimp or paint shop and hopefully soon paint.net (im getting better)



i learned the gimp well before i knew much of anything about programing so thats a null point

also i dont see your point about how it works sooooo much differently, infact you can follow photoshop tutorials step by step and get the exact same result in the gimp, you just have to translate where the menus are and what they are called, add in gimpshop and alot of it is even in the same place



the same can be said for the gimp and many other linux born programs, it just takes the slightest bit of experience and a easy guess

This is done with the "Lock Transparency" checkbox at the top of the Layers dialogue. It will let you paint away without further changing the alpha channel. It's a per layer setting.



This is done in the channels dialog. The highlighted channels are the ones the paint tools will affect and you can change the visibility of rgb with the little eye icons if you want to just see the alpha channel - yeah it's called that in The Gimp too, was just teasing earlier

The only real difference to watch out for is that it is the opacity setting of the current tool that affects how the alpha channel is altered. When it is isolated in the channels dialog, you can use the erase tool to decrease visibility, or use the current tool's opacity setting to increase.. Anything you would normally do to alter the alpha in The Gimp. The alpha channel gradient is from black (as there's no colour) to transparent (with the grey checks behind) rather than black to white as Photoshop. I find this a benefit as you don't need to alter your current foreground / background colour selections just to work on the alpha channel.

Someone else mentioned Paint.NET also. Do I just search for Paint.NET? I guess so.
Yes, Chosen, I'm still reading this thread.....lol. And I'm certainly not bothered by anything you wrote, and in fact have enjoyed reading everyone's responses.
Chip, I also highly respect your opinion since I'm very familiar with some of the things you've done on SL, and have seen some of your tutorials. That's not to say that no one else knows what they're talking about.

I will soon be posting on the tech forums also, to check on the new computer I'm planning on buying. If nothing else comes up between now and then to take that money.....lol. Currently I'm using a 5-year old Dell Dimension 8250 with only 512 mbs of RAM, so you can all imagine how desperately I need a new PC. So, you see, money really is the bottom line for me.

I'm still taking all of the advice that has been given into consideration and have talked with my husband for his input, too. Still not exactly sure which I'm going to go with, but I can guarantee that it won't be anything that costs much more than $100, so I need to rule Photo shop out, regardless. I think it's probably an excellent program, it's just so far outside my budget that it's not even funny.

Since it will be a couple of weeks before i order a new PC, I'm still eager to read any additional advice that someone can give. I don't want to start a war between the users of different programs, but so far everyone has provided great input and food for thought.

Here you go Sunni.

http://www.getpaint.net/index.html

paint.net is defiantly a program growing up but it still lacks some fundimental features

like psd file support, psd is great, almost anything can read it (correctly) saves layers channels ect and i highly recommend people use it to save their work in progress

if you dig deep in the paint.net downloads section you can find a plugin that allows psd support but its a bit screwey

you can use paint.net, i think its one of the easier programs out there, but you are gonna have to fuss with it alittle to get the functionality of the older programs (ps, gimp,psp ect)

I heard that a well known designer, Simone Stern (owner of Simone!), uses the Gimp. Go to her store sometime, or check out her stuff on Onrez. It's really good, and all done with the Gimp. I also hear that she used to drive a truck for a living, but now she runs her store here in second life and is making a good living from her virtual clothes. The day after I heard that, I downloaded the Gimp, hunted for some tutorials, and started to learn. I'm still learning, and things are going slowly, but I think that is mostly because I am a mom too, with a full time job, a house, a spouse and a dog. And sometimes, I do like to do other things for fun, like watch a movie, or play a different computer game.

I really hear you about the money and children issue. To me this is huge. I wouldn't be able to spend $650.00 on a hobby for myself. The guilt would rack me so badly that the hobby wouldn't be any fun anymore. If I were childless, then yes. Kids really change things. Even though mine is a teenager, she still needs (and wants) so much. She is first in line for that $650.

About the learning hurdle - I have seen so much change in the computer hardware and software fields. My computer had a floppy disk drive that used floppy disks that were really floppy. I started with DOS, then went to Windows (every version). I took a job where Macs were used, so had to learn that. My first word processor was a dos based thing that no one has ever heard of, then I moved on to Wordperfect, Claris Works, MS Works, Word (every version). I could go on, but I'll stop boring everyone. I guess the point has been made. In the computer field especially, change is the only thing that stays the same. You will always have to re learn something. Each time I did, the next one was easier to pick up than the one before.

And about the lack of tutorials for the Gimp, yes that is a hurdle especially in the beginning. But they are out there. Just learn how to use Google's advanced search feature and you will find them. There is an entire book online, called Groking the Gimp. There are sites devoted just to Gimp tutorials. And now I have become familiar enough with the Gimp, that sometimes I can go to a photoshop tutorial site, and then go back to the Gimp and figure out how to do the same thing. I have been able to work through the photoshop tutorials that are listed in the stickies here in this forum, and have applied the same principles in the Gimp.

This paragraph is for Chosen. Thank you so much for your posts here and through out the forums. I am so grateful to you for your help and encouragement. Now this may surprise you after all I have said, but I think you are right that photoshop is the best way to go. Some day, when my daughter is grown, I will buy Photoshop, and I will learn it. I know that there will be an adjustment, but I know that I will be able to make it, even though it is hard. When I had to learn Word after Wordperfect, I had to practically slap my own hand to keep myself from hitting an F key instead of clicking on an icon. And there were also many times that I felt like Word was doing things bass ackwards, but I muddled through. I bet Sunni will too. Thanks again Chosen for all of your posts. I really mean that, and can't say it enough.

You can always work your way up. Start with GIMP and see if you enjoy it, and enjoy making things for SL. If you start making sales and your business becomes successful, then put the proceeds from it towards buying better software. Then there's no need to feel guilty because your hobby is paying for itself. It also gives you a goal to work towards.

OMG! I can really relate to everything you said. If I didn't already know my alt, I'd think you were her. Except my kids are a bit younger, but one by just a small bit.

My first goal is to get a new computer. That's not such a large issue because it benefits the kids, too. Then I'm going to try out GIMP and see how it goes. I'm impressed if it's true that Simone Stern uses it, because I really enjoy her designs. I read an article on MSN about making RL money in SL and Simone's RL agent was interviewed a bit and quoted in the article.

Thanks, again, Chip, and what you said makes perfect sense, also. It will be a slower-than-most process for me, I think, for the same reasons Hope mentioned. However, I don't expect to turn over a huge profit in SL, I never did. Meeting all my expenses, including tier, would be good enough for me, even if it's not for another year.

Just a quick note, there's an excellent freeware html book called "Grokking the GIMP" at http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/, its easily the best tutorial I've seen on the program and it finally made some stuff understandable.

Can't really get into the religious arguments like others have since I've only messed lightly with photoshop and used GIMP heavily. If it weren't for the price, Photoshop would be the clear standout -- however, GIMP is nearly as powerful as Photoshop in its core featureset, so long as your point of view is from that of a hobbyist. For a SERIOUS hobbyist or a paid professional, then Photoshop is your only choice. You can get more done, faster, and there are better tools and toys that plug into it. But you can do more than have a lot of fun with GIMP, you can get some nice, quality work done and it could be years, if ever, before you move on to Photoshop.

Its the difference between a high-end professional kitchen, and your home kitchen. A bad cook can burn toast in either, and a professional chef could create the dinner of your dreams in either. He/She won't win an Iron Chef competition with your aluminum cookware, electric cooktop, store brand olive oil and knives that haven't been sharpened in six months, but you yourself won't notice that much of a difference.

Religious arguments? I assume you mean from the Photoshop users? Even so it's highly insulting to anyone to suggest their choice of software is based on anything other than whether it does the job they need it to,



Not sure why you felt the need to qualify that. Even Chosen admits that The Gimp's feature set is only one or two versions behind Photoshop. For an application that is half the age of Photoshop (10 years, rather than 20) that shows it is gaining fast and it's not difficult to predict that it will overtake Photoshop in the not too distant future.



That depends on who is doing the hiring. There are studios based on open source software where The Gimp would be your only choice. They are far fewer than Photoshop only studios, but they do exist and they are growing in number,



The differences are less than this suggests imho. You wouldn't find a professional chef using one of those gadgets for making flower tomatos for example. Sure it's faster but he would prefer to use a nice sharp knife. The Gimp has nice sharp knifes just like Photoshop does. And there is no store brand olive oil in The Gimp, it has the same ingredients as Photoshop, pixels! So any differences in the final product are purely down to the artist - unless Photoshop has gained a "Make This Crap Picture Great" button I don't know about

There was a time when artists working for print pointed out the lack of color profiles as a reason why Photoshop was better than The Gimp for that type of work. The Gimp gained color profiles. You'll see this happen time and time again with open source software, a need is identified and filled and every user benefits. It's one of the reasons I encourage people to try The Gimp, if it does the job they want, great! If it doesn't, then perhaps their reasons why will help spur new features so the next version will.

And given how much professional work was done with Photoshop over the past few versions, there's really no reason why The Gimp can't be used that way. So non serious hobbyist only? I think not, especially if you factor in Cinepaint which is a fork of The Gimp to support the specific needs of the film industry. You'll find some pretty big studios on the user list then.

I really don't like arguments like this as it really depends on what program is easier, comfortable or more familiar for the individual to use and is within their price-range.

It doesn't really matter what program you use as long as you get the results you are after in your final image.

I'm also tired of these arguments as each program has it's perks and disadvantages and often what can be done in one image program can be done in another, even though the work flow is different.

For example, GIMP automatically creates an alpha layer from layer transparency and all the masks of every layer.

I know some people use masks as a sort of preview in Photoshop before transferring(for lack of a better word) the information to an alpha channel.

In this way GIMP eliminates a step in the Photoshop workflow.

Photoshop allows you edit an alpha channel directly, eliminating a step in GIMP's workflow.

I don't believe there really is such a thing as an all-encompassing better program, only better programs for the individual.

GIMP is more than up to the task, so is Photshop, Paint Shop Pro and many others.

Was there an argument going on? I'm just correcting misinformation like The Gimp not being suitable for professional work when it already is used that way.



And misinformation like this. See my reply to Chosen's questions on alpha channels earlier in this thread for how to do this in Gimp.



No argument here. It's when people say The Gimp isn't good enough that I end up repeating the alternate point of view that you share. Or when they say it doesn't do something that it does I'll correct them. If that's coming across as argumentative, that's not my intention. I'm just trying to help by sharing my experience with using The Gimp

@Domino Marama
Thank you for correcting me on GIMP's alpha channel, how did you find out about this? I've searched for how to edit it directly in the past and all I got was that it couldn't be done.

I'm not sure how I discovered it, I think it was just from playing around with the channels dialog. It certainly wasn't from the manual as I've not got it installed. Odd that people would say it can't be done though. I just googled for "gimp channel dialog tutorial" and it comes up with the red eye removal stuff, it's a small step from there to editing just the alpha channel.

Now I think about it, it was just playing around with it. I was doing some photo compositing and needed to seperate some tree leaves from the sky, so I explored a lot of areas to find the best ways of attacking that.

Cost $1500???

PS & GIMP both have learning curves.

In the end its just a matter of preference. I use BOTH. I like both!

And if you have an laptop, GIMP is pretty easy on system resources compared to the RAM Hog known as Photoshop.

Eventually I'll get around to doing more GIMP tutorials. Just havent had time.

One thing people seem to expect from a tutorial is to come away "an expert". That takes time & Patience. Tutorials are just good for learning the basics. Spend time with either PS or GIMP and learn. Make mistakes. Make ugly clothes! Dont know what a button does? Click on it, find out!! Just learn from what you do. Remember- Picasso didnt paint a Masterpiece as his 1st painting.

Personally, I hate Gimp. You will see that in my sig. But the whole creating textures thing comes down to this. Do you want to expand your skills beyond SL. Are you doing this for fun and relaxation or are you doing this to make money and have this be a part of a resume?
If for fun, then if you are comfortable with Gimp, use it. It is free and well maintained. But it isn't industry standard and they aren't many magazines that will make tutorials with it for that reason.
If one the other hand you want this to possibly lead to a RL job and more money, then Bite the bullet and get Photoshop.
Computer programs in companies are decided by IT people and management. And Management like ROI and TCO. ROI is return on investment. TCO is Total cost of Ownership. And while ROI is self explanatory, TCO includes the learning curve. Gimps learning curve is nearly as steep a Photoshop but you don't get the same perks as a major corporation backing, at least 20 magazines with 1000s of tutorials. The ability to 3d inside etc.
And companies expect the people they hire to set down and work immediately. And exclusive gimp person will have major issues with Photoshop because it is so different. That is why the special settings were created for GIMp to emulate Photoshop.
Haven;t seen the other way around yet.

So, for as long as Photoshop remains industry standard, you will get jobs with it. You will get laughter with Gimp.
But if you just here to have fun, relax and enjoy yourself than it doesn't matter.
I personally Love PSP myself. That is what I use.