For photo editing Adobe Photoshop is THE program for sure.
GIMP is the closest comparable that is free. But it has maybe 10% of the functionality.

Otherwise there is Adobe Illustrator, Freehand and Corel Draw, which are all more vector based programs. You would use them to create illustrations and designs.

And then of course layout based programs are Adobe InDesign, Quark (and maybe Corel Draw again). These are meant to layout print based products, but you could theoretically do a web design mock-up in InDesign if you really wanted.

End of the day, if you need to build graphics for web pages I'd recommend Photoshop for your photos, Illustrator for your vectors. You just can't beat Adobe products IMO.

I wouldnt waste my time with GIMP, go buy photoshop ASAP!

Well, since the topic was brought up...
I've been trying to find out, what is the big deal with Photoshop (all Adobe products, really)? My experience with Photoshop is pretty limited. I got trained in the basics away back in '98, and the last time I used it, about a year ago, it just seemed as though they had added a lot more bells and whistles. But, I don't use these things for the kind of serious, advanced stuff that most people here probably do.

If it's not too much trouble, could anyone take the time to explain, in relatively layman's terms, why Photoshop is so superior, to say, GIMP? The one thing I am aware of is that GIMP doesn't support C.M.Y.K., which is a reasonable issue if you're hoping to see something you do put in printers' ink on paper. Other than that, from my limited perspective I just don't see much difference between the two, and I'm curious as to why this software is something that's worth spending two months' rent for, once you get up to professional usage with it. It's something I'd be grateful to know for future reference.

^ Nobert what are you using GIMP for?
Just to open photos and crop them?
Cause quite frankly that is about all it can do besides maybe colour correct a little bit.

Not working in CMYK is a MAJOR issue at a design agency. We always want to be in control of our colours as much as possible, and most of my printers won't accept files unless they are CMYK exclusively.

Photoshop is THE tool. All Adobe products are THE tools. If you are truly unaware of why then I think you need some serious GD education. Sorry but you can't do even 2% of what needs to get done at a standard GD job without Adobe products. (or at least not properly or well).

Gimp lacks in some areas especially around non destructive editing. That's where the original content does not get modified in the course of editing the pixels, but the edits themselves get edited. And GIMP is very unstable on OS X which is fair enough as it wasn't built for that.

All in all GIMP is an ok substitute but as a replacement for a professional tool like Photoshop it just doesn't cut it. Although you can do most tasks with GIMP that Photoshop can do, Photoshop just does them better.

Audentia, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just trying to get a basic idea of why Photoshop/Adobe is is better. I certainly accept the C.M.Y.K. barrier as making GIMP not practicable for professional printing.

The idea of purchasing C.S. anything is utterly out of the question for me for the foreseeable future. I know there's a lot of stuff I don't know, and I'm trying to define the scope of my ignorance.

A few weeks on the G.D.F. convinced me I'm never going to be a Graphic Designer in the way it's usually understood, but I'm still interested in this field in some capacity, and defining my goals involves knowing what can and can't be done with various tools, and where to focus my energies in learning.

That's the kind of information I was asking for, thanks.

Adobe products are the industry standard for professional desktop publishing and graphic design. Also Quark for layout but I haven't been a fan since v.4.
Why? They've been around since publishing came to computers. Do they have a monopoly? Yes. But what're gonna do? Use Publisher and have all the other Graphic Designers point and laugh at you?

^lmao

Well, if Publisher could do what I wanted/needed it to for a specific project, and in the increasingly unlikely event I could find a printer who would accept a .pub file, yes I'd use it, despite its annoyances.
People have been pointing and laughing at me since grade school and, not being possessed of psychic powers, there wasn't much I could do but suck it up and learn to take it. I know, you were basically kidding, but insomuch as there were grains of truth to it, it's a non-issue.

We pardon this interruption, and now return you to your regularly scheduled screen shots of Carrie. (That's kidding too, by the way.)

Most printers accept Publisher files now, they feel dirty doing it but they do it.
I've never had any use for Publisher because I own Quark and InDesign, so I'm unfamiliar with it.

Please stay away from Quark... If I can turn one designer away from Quark everyday the world will be a better place... That software is a nightmare...

I still see job ads online requiring knowledge of Quark. I wish they would just understand that GD schools don't teach Quark any more. Why would I buy and learn an extra program when the Creative Suit that I spent good money on pretty much does everything?