I had a conversation with a twitter user named andrea_bianco last night, and thought I'd take a second to share it with you guys. (Note that if it it says @alexstandiford that tweet was sent TO me, not FROM me, and conversely if it says @andrea_bianco it was sent TO him, not FROM him. Hope that makes sense.)

andrea_bianco Andrea A. Bianco
It's so sad when people thinks you can't be a professional if you use #gimp. So much ignorance & elitism in the industry.

@andrea_bianco I feel your pain. It's especially relevant on Twitter. I love proving them wrong though.



@andrea_bianco I was just thinking about that last night. They're a photo-editing program with a bad website. Doesn't say much about them.



@andrea_bianco The gimp team is small, and they make software not websites. Maybe if someone volunteered to help and presented a concept?



What do you guys think of this conversation? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you believe there is a stigma associated with our software? If so, why? Do you think the website needs an update?

Have a read of the "new website" thread on the gimp.org mailing list: http://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-web to see what you're up against suggesting a web-site re-design.

Thanks, I'll jump in.

years ago people showed the same kind of elitism to other OS's or programs. In my case Amiga....even though it was the Amiga that revolutionized the film special effects industry.

I've been called an Amiga Snob (which I take as a compliment). People will think whatever they like because they have some need to feel 'more important' than others. whatever. I pay no attention to all that. I just concentrate on my work.

the bottom line is that once artists can get whatever computer/software they can afford and like it's really irrelevant. All that matters is the result. If you can get the job done that's what counts

I agree. There is definitely PhotoShop elitism and I think it is aided and abetted by Adobe. It's wearing down though.

As cecilia said, it's the results that count. As far as I know, I don't think there's a way to tell whether an image was edited in PS or GIMP.

I agree; most of the sites I go to (other then here) know I'm a GIMP guy and they ask questions and do my best to respond to them. GIMP really needs a PR group but that doesn't look like it will happen. Adobe, of course, has it's PR group and minions of paid defenders. I do have to add though that I do have CS5 and my main use for it is in RAW file processing (haven't found a good open source or free software that can beat ACR). Still, short of RAW and 16-bit or higher photo editing, GIMP is the King with me and I pretty much use GIMP exclusively on all edits that I share online. I do hope UFRAW or it's variants get better over time, but not holding my breath anymore.

Elitism exists even in the GIMP world. People tend to forget they were once beginners and they feel they don't owe anyone any kind of assistance. The RTM attitude is just a form of laziness, especially when the manual is what causes most of the problems (e.g. lacks proper information on how to "use" it).

But getting to the heart of this thread: the GIMP stigma. GIMP was never created to be a rival to Photoshop. It's the people who put that warped vision into action. It's also the people who feel the need to create that stigma for whatever reasons they feel justified. The bottom line is: I've submitted work (layouts for web media printing) and not once has my client ever asked me what I use for layouts. It doesn't really matter, until I get to the vector side of things. For that, I use CorelDRAW because my client has CorelDraw. I can't fake CDR files in Inkscape, unless I use the converter (a hassle). But since I know my way around the program, it's easier to stick with it.

Photo Shop is the industry standard because that is what the bigger design companies have.
They need their designers to have it also for the PSD files that get delivered upon completion of assignments.

If the bigger companies had Gimp, that would be the industry standard.
It's as simple as that folks.

I have had jobs where clients do not mind what i use as long as it's delivered in their format.Just in case they need to update or change something small they can do it on their own.Which is yes you guessed it, usually PSD format.

Back on Topic - i do not see any changes in Gimps website anytime in the near future.
That is really not the interest right now.Development is.

But if they do decide to create a new design i will apply.

Its all about the mighty $ any way I think!

sure is akky

It makes sense, it's just funny to me that there is bias because of something as simple as that.

I really do not think it is a question of being bias, just a expense thing.
Big developers for design associates, own 600 dollar licenses (for many users) for Adobe Photo Shop.
Throw in Freehand, Illustrated, and Dreamweaver and you are talking thousands of dollars invested in their products.
They simply want their money back.They do that by using the product and gaining monetary value from it.

Adobe products aren't just software anymore.They are considered an investment.

Thankfully the internet is beginning to give the small guys some leverage at the bittersweet cost of more competition.

Yes it's just too bad the little guy has to fight with such fierce competition overseas and abroad.
Big design companies hire teams over in other world countries because they do the work for pennies on the dollar.That means a big markup for the companies which pays off their investments even faster.

Consider Odesk.I have an account there.Mostly i do Flash work, but so many people struggle there because designers from other countries will do a logo design including the logo and branding for 10 bucks.
Bid any higher than that and your bid is refused automatically.
In fact most design companies that hire teams through Odesk, will not even consider you unless you are from another country other than the USA.Now that is bias.

Old but still quite valid article on this:
http://justcreativedesign.com/2008/05/2 ... 5-dollars/

-Rob A>

Interesting article.

And you wonder why so many web start-ups truly fail.

Remember when the graphic artists ripped James Cameron for using Papyrus font for the Avatar logo? Talk about cheap, for a multi-million dollar movie.

Quite biased IMHO, when it shows the "expensive" logos. Some of these logos don't fullfill his criteria (NBA) and IMHO some are known because of the brand and not the other way around (Harley-Davidson, Starbucks...)

Not sure how that constitutes bias just on the merit of criteria, but I clearly understand that branding can supersede a logo just based on the popularity of the brand alone. (Meaning any logo with a company with excellent branding will be popular, regardless of the logo design). But an equally outstanding logo is pure win-win for the brand. (i.e. Nike, Harley Davidson, etc.).

What's even more interesting is how logo designers like to take credit for the brand popularity by using logo examples that were probably before their time.

The Harley-Davidson logo was pretty bland when it was created. There were similar logos on all the automotive industry between the wars...