| User | Post |
Tarale
Posts: 1456/2720 |
Paint is actually very very good for some things. It's very well suited to pixel art.  If it had better pallette options, it would be excellent for pixel art.
But yeah, I've been using Photoshop for just under a decade now, it's what I'll stick with.  Unless I need to do isometric pixel art |
windwaker
Posts: 1188/1797 |
Photoshop > you.
I found that it's pretty easy to use after you find a few tutorials... Well, and the fact that I've been using it for a year.
Trial + crack = heart. |
Karadur
Posts: 828/1192 |
I use Paint for all of the stuff I do as well  I don't really even draw stuff too much, and when I do, it's usually 100x100px or less  The only other image program I have on here is Animation Shop 3, and I just needed that when I was trying to make an animated .gif for my minipic, which was only there for a couple weeks anyways 
To recap, Paint suits me for any needs I have to make some sort of drawing  |
RoboticParanoia
Posts: 167/184 |
Unfortunately, I use MS Paint for my painting needs. |
Banedon
Posts: 946/1408 |
I use the GIMP, even though it's overkill for what I need to do with images (ripping sprites from various videogames). |
Jesper
Posts: 2014/2390 |
Originally posted by ||bass
No question. It's got to be Corel Photopaint. It's got all the features of photoshop and more. -AND- it's actually designed for Windows, not Macintosh code that's just been ported.
Yeah, like Paint Shop Pro. |
||bass
Posts: 201/817 |
No question. It's got to be Corel Photopaint. It's got all the features of photoshop and more. -AND- it's actually designed for Windows, not Macintosh code that's just been ported. |
Rydain
Posts: 472/738 |
From what I recall reading on various Slashdot discussions, the main gripes seem to be with the way a multiple-windowed application works under a version of Windows that doesn't do taskbar grouping. Every window gets its own entry, and you can't minimize or restore the entire application at once by itself. Putting the windows inside a main root window, like Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro does, solves both of those issues. There is a Windows Gimp Deweirdifyer plugin that gives the application a root window. I haven't tried it yet, but people who don't like using Gimp under Windows for the reasons above should take a look.
As far as the rest of the interface goes, I agree that it depends on what you know and what you started out with. Gimp (even 1.x) has always worked well for me, especially because I'm running it under a GUI with multiple desktops and no taskbar, so the issues mentioned above don't affect me at all. I think it arranges options logically and in a manner similar to Photoshop (which is the first image editor I played with at length), and I like the lack of root window because I can scatter Gimp windows across multiple desktops if I want to (a definite advantage of this GUI style!), and I can see my perty desktop background while working. |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1147/1657 |
Originally posted by Rydain
I know it has an unconventional interface that many people dislike, but I think it offers the best value.
See, that's also a placement of opinion. One that's mostly based in what you started using. The Mac version of Photoshop handles its windows much like GIMP does. |
Rydain
Posts: 471/738 |
OMFG Paint 0wnz j00!
Seriously...which editor is best really depends on your preferences and needs. Of the choices, Photoshop is the most powerful, and it's also a standard among graphics pros. However, as we all know, it's quite expensive, so it wouldn't be the best choice for someone who doesn't need its unique features or is unwilling to pay several hundred dollars for them. Thus, for the average person, I'd say that Gimp is best because it's quite full-featured, completely free, and available for multiple platforms as well. I know it has an unconventional interface that many people dislike, but I think it offers the best value. |
Smallhacker
Posts: 1321/2273 |
Macromedia Flash MX 2004 Pro together with MS Paint. |
Kasumi-Astra
Posts: 1225/1867 |
Photoshop, although Adobe should be flogged for charging that much for it. There is no justification for a single piece of software to be that expensive. If it's to be run on one PC, for one user, then the charge should only be a little more to cover the costs to develop it. |
labmaster
Posts: 27/43 |
The GIMP is good, but Photoshop is much more feature-rich (though to be fair, I haven't looked at GIMP for over a year, now). |
Jesper
Posts: 1998/2390 |
Originally posted by neotransotaku
I prefer Photoshop. I would try PSP but my last version was the version that could fit on a floppy disk. GIMP, well, if there is a Cygwin distribution of it, then I may try it--but compiling stuff to get stuff running is 
There's a standalone Windows version, too. Installer-based, for heryour pleasure. |
Sokarhacd
Posts: 1048/1757 |
Photoshop is my choice, thats the only image editor I use, nothing more, nothing less. |
tuna
Posts: 226/2 |
MS Paint.
Duh. |
neotransotaku
Posts: 2287/4016 |
I prefer Photoshop. I would try PSP but my last version was the version that could fit on a floppy disk. GIMP, well, if there is a Cygwin distribution of it, then I may try it--but compiling stuff to get stuff running is |
Surlent
Posts: 772/1077 |
A combination of PSP8 and GIMP 2.
GIMP 2 is used for pasting screenshots fast, working with semitransparent PNGs and stuff. For all other things I prefer PSP8, since the UI improved. Only the very long loading time compared to version 7 sucks |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1139/1657 |
The GIMP. I used it first, so it's the most familar to me. Oh yeah, it's also free as in freedom
(dammed www.) |
DarkSlaya
Posts: 3449/4249 |
I prefer Paint Shop Pro. I still remember when I used PS3. Then, a long time after, I switched to PSP7... and that's still what I use. Fast to load, perfect for fast editing (well, that's what I think ) |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
