Nah. It is possible to make professional-quality, shiny, colorful graphics with GIMP if you know what you're doing. Sure, installing the non-default fonts (that is, not having a one-button install method) and configuring everything is what prevents most people from adopting it.
There are graphic designers who are graphic designers, and then there are web developers who are also graphic designers.
Have a look at what some "designers" are getting paid on sites like crowdSPRING.com and 99designs.com and it's pretty obvious that graphic designers who don't know code are fairly easy to find.
I think this has been why there's been such a backlash against the freelance sites by the brick-mortar "design only" firms.
The vast majority of them. Photoshop was designed from the beginning to work with print media -- it's called Photoshop for a reason.
Conversely, the people who just need to whip up some graphics don't need Photoshop; they have cheap alternatives like PaintShopPro, Paint.NET, or competing lesser-known commercial software.
Comments
Nah. It is possible to make professional-quality, shiny, colorful graphics with GIMP if you know what you're doing. Sure, installing the non-default fonts (that is, not having a one-button install method) and configuring everything is what prevents most people from adopting it.
There are graphic designers who are graphic designers, and then there are web developers who are also graphic designers.
Have a look at what some "designers" are getting paid on sites like crowdSPRING.com and 99designs.com and it's pretty obvious that graphic designers who don't know code are fairly easy to find.
I think this has been why there's been such a backlash against the freelance sites by the brick-mortar "design only" firms.
You miss the point. The Gimp and Inkscape, as for as they go, are great tools - if you care about nothing but the Web.
They are in no way, shape, or form, ready for the print production environment. Not even close.
How many photoshop users really need to do print production work? Compared to people who just need to whip up some graphics, perhaps for the web?
It's not necessarily about being "the best", it's about being "good enough". The Gimp is probably there for what a lot of people need.
Oh, how about almost anyone who needs to work with a commercial printer? And I said Gimp is fine "for the web". Were you listening?
This is not a question of "best" vs. "good enough" for those who need CMYK and color management. It's a question of "works" vs. "doesn't work".
The vast majority of them. Photoshop was designed from the beginning to work with print media -- it's called Photoshop for a reason.
Conversely, the people who just need to whip up some graphics don't need Photoshop; they have cheap alternatives like PaintShopPro, Paint.NET, or competing lesser-known commercial software.