![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Why aren't image editing programs such as the public domain ImageJ included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.16.1 ( talk) 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Because nobody has taken the time to enter it into the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.99.19 ( talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Why the heck isn't the gimp included in the list?
is ArtRage really opensource/free software? I do not see any indication of that on the ArtRage website.
Alikins 20:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, the URL column is overflowing on some rows. I'm not an expert in WikiML; could somebody fix this?
86.131.11.123 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a list with the features of GIMP and GIMPShop.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.172.13.154 ( talk) 13:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
I propose merging all the GIPM and GIMPShop rows. Support or reason not to? Althepal 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The comparison is much more comprehensive than the list (it also seems to be less of a lightning rod for link spam). See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_image_viewers for precedence. -- Karnesky 19:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
programs. The page might be longer, but I can search through it quickly if something interesting is there :-)
I think, this comparison-page should be converted to look like most of the other "Comparison of ..."-type pages. For example the Icon-column has almost nothing to do with comparing the editors. At the same time, the use of icons to describe licenses is fuzzy - using abbreviations like GPL would be more precise. And of course the features should be listed in a separate table, so that a comparison of those could be possible.
I have started this conversion with adding a "Operating system support" table. 212.27.234.164 09:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Good start, in major need of development. I think I'll nominate it at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive.-- Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the footnote suggesting that Photoshop 'scripting' support wsa more like macros than scripts. I believe this note to be looking at the Photoshop "Actions" support, which is very much a form of macro, but missing the support in Photoshop for scripting via Javascript. Google "Photoshop Javascript" for several references or see the PDF reference guide here: Photoshop Javascript Scripting Reference
Eh, shouldn't iPhoto be on this list? It's rather more current than its equivalent Microsoft Photo Editor seems to be. ... dave souza, talk 23:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we remove the MNG format. 1st, because the format appears to only be supported by one of the graphics programs listed, 2nd, because it is an animation format and the listed programs are bitmap editors and not (necessarily) animation programs, and 3rd, because it seems to be an obsolete format.
- dialectric - 16 May 2006
In other articles topics they have separate list and comparison articles. Since no one has been talking about the merge issue - with the list of bitmap graphics being up since February i suggest it be removed. -- ShaunMacPherson 02:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the import/export format tables should be merged; in most cases programs will do both for a given format, the cell contents could be I/E/B.
The "selection editing" table header seems to be a little vague, as evidenced by the ? present in some of the cells. A more useful heading would be "non-rectangular transparent selection" or some such.
How about 2 different sections (or maybe pages) - one for palette based programs, and the other for 24bit ones? Some of us still have to deal with palettes and there are huge differences between the first camp (Deluxe Paint, Pro Motion etc) and the second (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro etc).
Does Apple's Aperture program belong here, or is it in a different category? 64.90.198.6 18:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is the column for Windows in platform support larger than any of the other columns? Theshibboleth 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And why is "Windows" in bold, then? Candelabre ( talk) 11:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The table says that Painter supports CMYK. It does support loading and saving CMYK TIFFs, but only by converting to and from RGB. I certainly would not call this "supporting CMYK". The same state of affairs applies to indexed color: Painter can import and export indexed color, but you can only edit in RGB. Yet, the table says "no"! So here we have two color spaces, indexed and CMYK, with the same behavior, but one is marked "yes" and the other "no". I think perhaps they should both say "partial". What do you guys think? - furrykef ( Talk at me) 05:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Raster was the term used 10 years before bitmap came into use. Bitmap redirects to Raster graphics. Raster is used more often than bitmap on Wikipedia. Bitmap could be confused with the Windows bitmap file format. [ Raster and vector] go together better than [ Bitmap and vector] and the two prior Google searches support that statement. If my reasoning for moving this page is incorrect I'm sorry to cause you so much trouble and please leave me a message on my talk page telling me why I was wrong so that I won't mess up again in the future. Jecowa 07:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
simonthebold 08:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Timeshifter 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC). I was wondering why IrfanView was not in the article anywhere. Is there a reason? I have used it for years. So I went ahead and added it to the article. Here is more info on it:
Its features:
Winner of 2006 Shareware Industry Award for "Best Graphics Program or Utility":
I don't think that Paint.NET has PSD support. That extension does not appear in the drop-down list in the program.-- 69.221.247.78 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a plugin that will allow to handle JPEG2000 format in GIMP. Now, it is a external filter that can be compiled and used under GPL license. Maybe, in the future, it will can be a part of official GIMP.
Also, there is a external plug-in that allows to save files in TIFF with CMYK format.
This article is very incomplete and doesn't include many common features for these editors. It has information on a few basic abilities (confined edits, HDR, histogram, color support, file support), but not many others. For example, it lacks information on: red eye, sharpening, color edits, color swap, noise reduction, straightening, distortions, interpolating, panorama, multi-exposure, brushes, edit maps, image library, etc. Without this information, two totally different programs could appear very similar! I suggest that we decide which of these functions should be added. Then we can add a few extra important columns. - Althepal 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I added RAW support to the file import section, but if you feel it would be better placed in the features list, please move it.
I also nominated this article for the improvement drive, but
it needs votes.
I suggest that the "First public release date" column becomes "First public version" and contain the first version number. I also suggest that the "Latest stable version" column contains information about the release date for that version. Who's with me? Althepal 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am adding a short description column to the comparison so people can get a basic idea of the programs at a glance (instead of having to check out each article for the program's basic uses). Althepal 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Instead of the notice at the beginning of the article informing about obsolete graphics editors, since that doesn't really say which ones are obsolete, why not just say "Obsolete" next to the version number (or price?) of those editors and remove the note? (Otherwise, I would suggest splitting the comparison into groups: Proprietary editors, free editors, and obsolete editors. And if we merge the list of editors with this article, I might actually suggest removing those obsolete editors from the comaprison.) Althepal 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The two sections for file type import and export seems quiet redundant and makes the article longer. It also makes it more difficult to compare the imports and exports for a single editor. I suggest merging the two sections. So the section would read "File types" any rare time there is a difference between if a program can open but not save a file, it can be mentioned right there in the box. Althepal 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I took care of it. Althepal 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I intend to merge the pages (this with List of raster graphics editors. But first, I would like your opinions. Should this page to be the main page? Should the list to come first or should the article be separated between free and commercial editors with appropriate list coming before each comparison group? -- Althepal 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be no real information anywhere in WP about combining two images overlaid into one. The somewhat pitiful Layers article is about it. The Alpha compositing article focuses on video. And this comparison article just uses the word "layer" with no explanation. If one wants to combine two images, add them, subtract them, multiply them, logical AND OR XOR etc, do any of these tools do that? What are the proper names for such operations, and what programs are best? What programs let the user easily create new pixel transformation filters/effects?-- 69.87.200.66 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Aren't there any web-based services to at least convert file formats we could mention?-- 69.87.204.97 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes there are but where would we put it? ( Manwichosu ( talk) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
"Image Analyzer is really a minor program" ???
Far from being minor, IA seems to be the only small free tool available offering user-defined effects filters and the ability to combine (composite) mutiple images, overlaid as logical AND OR, multiplied, add/subtract, etc. (And the article says so little about layers that we have no idea which if any of the other programs can do these things.) If there are any other sleek little efficient free tools with these features, please tell us all about them! The article tables should add a column for download size, so we can get an idea of the footprint. Many of the programs listed are rather bloated, 10-20MB; IA is only 1MB. Irfanview is also only about 1MB, but the plugins add another 5MB.--
69.87.199.81 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is Picnik on the list of Freeware? It's not software, it's web-based, and it's not free!!! It does have some free "filters" but you have to pay for others.-- 62.249.233.80 ( talk) 09:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Paint Shop Pro is only called advanced while Photoshop is called professional other than how many people are using it? After all, the entry for Corel Paint Shop Pro says the only difference is that Photoshop is also available for Mac, while PSP costs $99 AND gives you both raster and vector graphics which is not available in Photoshop. Furthermore, PSP can both read and write the photoshop file format, while Photoshop can't even read PSP's own format. -- Tlatosmd 20:48, 29 March 2007 (CEST)
I noticed while looking through the comparison list of supported operating systems that more than one of the programs (including one named "MacPaint", which I would assume could run on Mac) had no "Yes" entries. Are these simply outdated, or has something else taken place? Zorgon X 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
=I believe this is because they run on Mac OS prior to X, which isn't included in the headers. 80.229.81.26 ( talk) 14:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no point in merging with LIST. Thus, I reverted the merge. Sorry! I WILL REVERT. See my user page for details. - PGSONIC 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no need at all for a list in this article; lists are completely superfluous to comparison articles (per PGSONIC; agree with all those points) and the one here is very long & off-putting. You could be forgiven for thinking a list was all there was here. I would support a separate list, since WP:LISTs are an entirely different thing. In some ways a sep list would be a good place to "deposit" those programs which don't fit in the tables for whatever reason. A seealso link to the list at the top of the page is all this article needs. mikaul talk 10:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
A few notes... this is a list of "raster graphics editors", but at least one of the programs listed here, ArtRage, is meant to be a painting program rather than an "editing" program. Anyway, I know that it's just the general term that's being used; I'm not arguing against that here. But it seems that the list of "features" takes the definition of "graphics editing" literally. If someone were looking for the best painting program rather than the best graphics editing program, it would certainly be useful to compare the features which are used in creating images rather than those used in editing. I'm talking about things like different paintbrushes (or pencils, pens, markers, rollers, airbrushes, palette knives, crayons...), canvas textures, pressure/tilt sensitivity (for tablets) and so on. Esn 11:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And - urgently needed: ability to handle 16-bit (32bit?) colours - note: it is an important feature, as a hugh number of programms can import RAW or PNG16 of TIFF16 or TIFF32 or what so ever- but saves files only with colours in 8-bit. - mhonline 00:00, 28 April 2008
I don't understand why there is some picture viewers included in those lists. Because it can rotate a JPEG? Xnview and IrfanView are ones of those viewers which have nothing to do here. Lacrymocéphale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.154.218.123 ( talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a merge notice at GIMP#Comparison and compatibility with Adobe Photoshop. There was once also a merge notice at Adobe Photoshop#Comparison and compatibility with GIMP, a section which has been deleted. Please note that the section deleted from the Photoshop page is nearly identical too (and where it varies, worse than) the section at the GIMP page; see this comparison (search for the string "mergeto"). — Toby Bartels ( talk) 08:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to read the tables when the column headers have scrolled out of view, so I placed them also at the bottom. But then I discovered that those bottom headers (footers?) would move to strange places after a resorting. Does anybody know a method for fixing those footers at the bottom? It could be done - assuming ascending sort - by preceding each footer with a character which sorts after the others (like \ or |). Not elegant, but readability is still improved. OlavN ( talk) 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Solution found (in the article Comparison of file systems) and implemented: The parameter class="sortbottom" just before the footer. OlavN ( talk) 07:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO bits per channel information should be incorporated into this page. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two different versions of Artrage; one is fully freeware (no time limits or anything) and can be downloaded on the official website. It has a limited selection of tools and only one layer, but it is fully usable. The other version is commercial and costs currently $25. So I think that Artrage should be in both the commercial and freeware columns. Esn ( talk) 08:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Just as a suggestion, then: maybe the freeware column can be renamed to something like "freeware and functional shareware with no usage time limit". Functional meaning that you're able to save your files, for example. It just seems to me that these two things should be under one column, because I think there is no real practical difference between freeware and that particular kind of shareware. Esn ( talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Text now says Adobe Fireworks, but is sorted as if it were Macromedia Fireworks. Maybe the applications should be sorted by their name (PhotoShop, PhotoPaint, Fireworks) instead of the company which makes them (Adobe PhotoShop, Corel PhotoPaint, Adobe Fireworks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 ( talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Since version 4.10 IV features the Paint plugin, so IrfanView now has basic retouching capabilities. BTW, it doesn't need plugins to support indexed images. MItaly ( talk) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Blender has also an options for raster graphics manipulations. It should be included in this list.-- Popski ( talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
What about Amazon Paint? It sounds sorta like CinePaint.
was on geocities. "Graphic Editor Cross-Reference List" archive.org has no copies of the page. I tried various googles, hoping to find a current url. 2z2z ( talk) 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I've started adding Pixen to the comparison. Got the first two tables done so far (it was already in the list at the top). The rest will be a bit more work, as wikitables are unfriendly to me. :) -- Lewellyn talk 01:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is there the exclusion of using WINE? It would be most helpful to know which editors run using WINE. It is a most artificial distinction, for example Google's Picassa is compiled w/ the WINE libraries for the Linux version. So should it be excluded? Furthermore, some vendors even support their product running under WINE.
I noted that Cinepaint has been recently updated to version 1.0, and work on version 1.1 is going on. I downloaded the program, it was a broken compressed archive but I could read in a readme file this: "CinePaint runs on Linux and other UNIX-compatible operating systems. The versions for Mac OS X and Windows are currently broken." So it seems to be working for Linux and UNIX now, according to the developer, and it is intended to work also on Mac OS X and Windows but the developer has some bugs to sort out. I don't know exactly how to update information about Cinepaint, especially considering that the download I got was a broken archive, and I can not test the Linux and UNIX versions. Roger491127 ( talk) 13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless it is buried under another name, you are missing PhotoFiltre. It can be downloaded at http://photofiltre.free.fr/ I do not have the time to do it myself. In addition, when I used it before, I did not use more than a few special features. You really need to have it entered by someone who is more familiar with all of the features. It has 40 or so plug-ins and add-ons, which are downloaded and installed if and as needed. It has been several years, but as near as I can remember, it had some features that my other graphics programs were missing.
agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.206.142 ( talk) 20:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Unless it is buried under another name, you are missing mtpaint. It can be downloaded at http://mtpaint.sourceforge.net/ Jonpatterns ( talk) 13:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
mtPaint is a great program.
Interface
Pixel Art
Image Manipulation
Ryanodforce doubled the content 1-3 is 4-6 and 8-12 = 13-17 with marginal new text. Galantea0 ( talk) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Would be great if this table would only include actively developed (non-beta) software. Otherwise, it's a bit confusing. SelfishSeahorse ( talk) 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The Adobe RGB column confuses me, should that be ARGB as in Alpha+RGB? – Be..anyone ( talk) 14:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
AdobeRGB (1998) is a particular colorspace (profile), just like sRGB is a particular colorspace (profile) with different primaries, white point, and tone reproduction curve. In the chart, it probably should just list RGB as the color model. Color Management would be a separate feature column indicating that the software can use different profiles for the supported color models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.178.247 ( talk) 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I just updated the "last stable version" for Irfanview and Paint Shop Pro. There are possibly a number of other places where such information is provided, and it is obviously tedious to maintain this information everywhere. There should be as few as possible places where such information needs to be kept up to date. What about a central depository of such information in, say, Wiki data? -- L.Willms ( talk) 07:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of raster graphics editors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comparison of raster graphics editors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
After deep digging en.wikipedia comparison I've just found ImBatch — powerful batch graphics editor (free for personal usage):
http://www.highmotionsoftware.com/products/imbatch
87.205.132.13 (
talk) 16:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Both programs do not use rasters, they use a pixelpipe. You don't have layers or brushes in these programs which are used by raster-based programs. Moreover you cannot do other raster-based actions like rezising an image. Think this applies to other raw development software like Adobe Lightroom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.213.12.245 ( talk) 11:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
What do the asterisks after names in most tables indicate? ◄ Sebastian 20:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Under the List section, numerous commercial software, such as Photoshop, are put under the Freeware column. Either the software list should be properly divided by freeware/commercial or the subheading should be eliminated to put it all just under Proprietary. I'm sorry my editing skills are not up to par to revamp the table. 98.110.130.230 ( talk) 20:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Why aren't image editing programs such as the public domain ImageJ included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.16.1 ( talk) 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Because nobody has taken the time to enter it into the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.99.19 ( talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Why the heck isn't the gimp included in the list?
is ArtRage really opensource/free software? I do not see any indication of that on the ArtRage website.
Alikins 20:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, the URL column is overflowing on some rows. I'm not an expert in WikiML; could somebody fix this?
86.131.11.123 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a list with the features of GIMP and GIMPShop.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.172.13.154 ( talk) 13:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
I propose merging all the GIPM and GIMPShop rows. Support or reason not to? Althepal 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The comparison is much more comprehensive than the list (it also seems to be less of a lightning rod for link spam). See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_image_viewers for precedence. -- Karnesky 19:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
programs. The page might be longer, but I can search through it quickly if something interesting is there :-)
I think, this comparison-page should be converted to look like most of the other "Comparison of ..."-type pages. For example the Icon-column has almost nothing to do with comparing the editors. At the same time, the use of icons to describe licenses is fuzzy - using abbreviations like GPL would be more precise. And of course the features should be listed in a separate table, so that a comparison of those could be possible.
I have started this conversion with adding a "Operating system support" table. 212.27.234.164 09:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Good start, in major need of development. I think I'll nominate it at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive.-- Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the footnote suggesting that Photoshop 'scripting' support wsa more like macros than scripts. I believe this note to be looking at the Photoshop "Actions" support, which is very much a form of macro, but missing the support in Photoshop for scripting via Javascript. Google "Photoshop Javascript" for several references or see the PDF reference guide here: Photoshop Javascript Scripting Reference
Eh, shouldn't iPhoto be on this list? It's rather more current than its equivalent Microsoft Photo Editor seems to be. ... dave souza, talk 23:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we remove the MNG format. 1st, because the format appears to only be supported by one of the graphics programs listed, 2nd, because it is an animation format and the listed programs are bitmap editors and not (necessarily) animation programs, and 3rd, because it seems to be an obsolete format.
- dialectric - 16 May 2006
In other articles topics they have separate list and comparison articles. Since no one has been talking about the merge issue - with the list of bitmap graphics being up since February i suggest it be removed. -- ShaunMacPherson 02:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the import/export format tables should be merged; in most cases programs will do both for a given format, the cell contents could be I/E/B.
The "selection editing" table header seems to be a little vague, as evidenced by the ? present in some of the cells. A more useful heading would be "non-rectangular transparent selection" or some such.
How about 2 different sections (or maybe pages) - one for palette based programs, and the other for 24bit ones? Some of us still have to deal with palettes and there are huge differences between the first camp (Deluxe Paint, Pro Motion etc) and the second (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro etc).
Does Apple's Aperture program belong here, or is it in a different category? 64.90.198.6 18:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is the column for Windows in platform support larger than any of the other columns? Theshibboleth 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And why is "Windows" in bold, then? Candelabre ( talk) 11:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The table says that Painter supports CMYK. It does support loading and saving CMYK TIFFs, but only by converting to and from RGB. I certainly would not call this "supporting CMYK". The same state of affairs applies to indexed color: Painter can import and export indexed color, but you can only edit in RGB. Yet, the table says "no"! So here we have two color spaces, indexed and CMYK, with the same behavior, but one is marked "yes" and the other "no". I think perhaps they should both say "partial". What do you guys think? - furrykef ( Talk at me) 05:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Raster was the term used 10 years before bitmap came into use. Bitmap redirects to Raster graphics. Raster is used more often than bitmap on Wikipedia. Bitmap could be confused with the Windows bitmap file format. [ Raster and vector] go together better than [ Bitmap and vector] and the two prior Google searches support that statement. If my reasoning for moving this page is incorrect I'm sorry to cause you so much trouble and please leave me a message on my talk page telling me why I was wrong so that I won't mess up again in the future. Jecowa 07:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
simonthebold 08:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Timeshifter 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC). I was wondering why IrfanView was not in the article anywhere. Is there a reason? I have used it for years. So I went ahead and added it to the article. Here is more info on it:
Its features:
Winner of 2006 Shareware Industry Award for "Best Graphics Program or Utility":
I don't think that Paint.NET has PSD support. That extension does not appear in the drop-down list in the program.-- 69.221.247.78 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a plugin that will allow to handle JPEG2000 format in GIMP. Now, it is a external filter that can be compiled and used under GPL license. Maybe, in the future, it will can be a part of official GIMP.
Also, there is a external plug-in that allows to save files in TIFF with CMYK format.
This article is very incomplete and doesn't include many common features for these editors. It has information on a few basic abilities (confined edits, HDR, histogram, color support, file support), but not many others. For example, it lacks information on: red eye, sharpening, color edits, color swap, noise reduction, straightening, distortions, interpolating, panorama, multi-exposure, brushes, edit maps, image library, etc. Without this information, two totally different programs could appear very similar! I suggest that we decide which of these functions should be added. Then we can add a few extra important columns. - Althepal 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I added RAW support to the file import section, but if you feel it would be better placed in the features list, please move it.
I also nominated this article for the improvement drive, but
it needs votes.
I suggest that the "First public release date" column becomes "First public version" and contain the first version number. I also suggest that the "Latest stable version" column contains information about the release date for that version. Who's with me? Althepal 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am adding a short description column to the comparison so people can get a basic idea of the programs at a glance (instead of having to check out each article for the program's basic uses). Althepal 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Instead of the notice at the beginning of the article informing about obsolete graphics editors, since that doesn't really say which ones are obsolete, why not just say "Obsolete" next to the version number (or price?) of those editors and remove the note? (Otherwise, I would suggest splitting the comparison into groups: Proprietary editors, free editors, and obsolete editors. And if we merge the list of editors with this article, I might actually suggest removing those obsolete editors from the comaprison.) Althepal 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The two sections for file type import and export seems quiet redundant and makes the article longer. It also makes it more difficult to compare the imports and exports for a single editor. I suggest merging the two sections. So the section would read "File types" any rare time there is a difference between if a program can open but not save a file, it can be mentioned right there in the box. Althepal 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I took care of it. Althepal 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I intend to merge the pages (this with List of raster graphics editors. But first, I would like your opinions. Should this page to be the main page? Should the list to come first or should the article be separated between free and commercial editors with appropriate list coming before each comparison group? -- Althepal 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be no real information anywhere in WP about combining two images overlaid into one. The somewhat pitiful Layers article is about it. The Alpha compositing article focuses on video. And this comparison article just uses the word "layer" with no explanation. If one wants to combine two images, add them, subtract them, multiply them, logical AND OR XOR etc, do any of these tools do that? What are the proper names for such operations, and what programs are best? What programs let the user easily create new pixel transformation filters/effects?-- 69.87.200.66 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Aren't there any web-based services to at least convert file formats we could mention?-- 69.87.204.97 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes there are but where would we put it? ( Manwichosu ( talk) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
"Image Analyzer is really a minor program" ???
Far from being minor, IA seems to be the only small free tool available offering user-defined effects filters and the ability to combine (composite) mutiple images, overlaid as logical AND OR, multiplied, add/subtract, etc. (And the article says so little about layers that we have no idea which if any of the other programs can do these things.) If there are any other sleek little efficient free tools with these features, please tell us all about them! The article tables should add a column for download size, so we can get an idea of the footprint. Many of the programs listed are rather bloated, 10-20MB; IA is only 1MB. Irfanview is also only about 1MB, but the plugins add another 5MB.--
69.87.199.81 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is Picnik on the list of Freeware? It's not software, it's web-based, and it's not free!!! It does have some free "filters" but you have to pay for others.-- 62.249.233.80 ( talk) 09:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Paint Shop Pro is only called advanced while Photoshop is called professional other than how many people are using it? After all, the entry for Corel Paint Shop Pro says the only difference is that Photoshop is also available for Mac, while PSP costs $99 AND gives you both raster and vector graphics which is not available in Photoshop. Furthermore, PSP can both read and write the photoshop file format, while Photoshop can't even read PSP's own format. -- Tlatosmd 20:48, 29 March 2007 (CEST)
I noticed while looking through the comparison list of supported operating systems that more than one of the programs (including one named "MacPaint", which I would assume could run on Mac) had no "Yes" entries. Are these simply outdated, or has something else taken place? Zorgon X 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
=I believe this is because they run on Mac OS prior to X, which isn't included in the headers. 80.229.81.26 ( talk) 14:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no point in merging with LIST. Thus, I reverted the merge. Sorry! I WILL REVERT. See my user page for details. - PGSONIC 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no need at all for a list in this article; lists are completely superfluous to comparison articles (per PGSONIC; agree with all those points) and the one here is very long & off-putting. You could be forgiven for thinking a list was all there was here. I would support a separate list, since WP:LISTs are an entirely different thing. In some ways a sep list would be a good place to "deposit" those programs which don't fit in the tables for whatever reason. A seealso link to the list at the top of the page is all this article needs. mikaul talk 10:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
A few notes... this is a list of "raster graphics editors", but at least one of the programs listed here, ArtRage, is meant to be a painting program rather than an "editing" program. Anyway, I know that it's just the general term that's being used; I'm not arguing against that here. But it seems that the list of "features" takes the definition of "graphics editing" literally. If someone were looking for the best painting program rather than the best graphics editing program, it would certainly be useful to compare the features which are used in creating images rather than those used in editing. I'm talking about things like different paintbrushes (or pencils, pens, markers, rollers, airbrushes, palette knives, crayons...), canvas textures, pressure/tilt sensitivity (for tablets) and so on. Esn 11:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And - urgently needed: ability to handle 16-bit (32bit?) colours - note: it is an important feature, as a hugh number of programms can import RAW or PNG16 of TIFF16 or TIFF32 or what so ever- but saves files only with colours in 8-bit. - mhonline 00:00, 28 April 2008
I don't understand why there is some picture viewers included in those lists. Because it can rotate a JPEG? Xnview and IrfanView are ones of those viewers which have nothing to do here. Lacrymocéphale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.154.218.123 ( talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a merge notice at GIMP#Comparison and compatibility with Adobe Photoshop. There was once also a merge notice at Adobe Photoshop#Comparison and compatibility with GIMP, a section which has been deleted. Please note that the section deleted from the Photoshop page is nearly identical too (and where it varies, worse than) the section at the GIMP page; see this comparison (search for the string "mergeto"). — Toby Bartels ( talk) 08:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to read the tables when the column headers have scrolled out of view, so I placed them also at the bottom. But then I discovered that those bottom headers (footers?) would move to strange places after a resorting. Does anybody know a method for fixing those footers at the bottom? It could be done - assuming ascending sort - by preceding each footer with a character which sorts after the others (like \ or |). Not elegant, but readability is still improved. OlavN ( talk) 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Solution found (in the article Comparison of file systems) and implemented: The parameter class="sortbottom" just before the footer. OlavN ( talk) 07:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO bits per channel information should be incorporated into this page. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two different versions of Artrage; one is fully freeware (no time limits or anything) and can be downloaded on the official website. It has a limited selection of tools and only one layer, but it is fully usable. The other version is commercial and costs currently $25. So I think that Artrage should be in both the commercial and freeware columns. Esn ( talk) 08:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Just as a suggestion, then: maybe the freeware column can be renamed to something like "freeware and functional shareware with no usage time limit". Functional meaning that you're able to save your files, for example. It just seems to me that these two things should be under one column, because I think there is no real practical difference between freeware and that particular kind of shareware. Esn ( talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Text now says Adobe Fireworks, but is sorted as if it were Macromedia Fireworks. Maybe the applications should be sorted by their name (PhotoShop, PhotoPaint, Fireworks) instead of the company which makes them (Adobe PhotoShop, Corel PhotoPaint, Adobe Fireworks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 ( talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Since version 4.10 IV features the Paint plugin, so IrfanView now has basic retouching capabilities. BTW, it doesn't need plugins to support indexed images. MItaly ( talk) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Blender has also an options for raster graphics manipulations. It should be included in this list.-- Popski ( talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
What about Amazon Paint? It sounds sorta like CinePaint.
was on geocities. "Graphic Editor Cross-Reference List" archive.org has no copies of the page. I tried various googles, hoping to find a current url. 2z2z ( talk) 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I've started adding Pixen to the comparison. Got the first two tables done so far (it was already in the list at the top). The rest will be a bit more work, as wikitables are unfriendly to me. :) -- Lewellyn talk 01:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is there the exclusion of using WINE? It would be most helpful to know which editors run using WINE. It is a most artificial distinction, for example Google's Picassa is compiled w/ the WINE libraries for the Linux version. So should it be excluded? Furthermore, some vendors even support their product running under WINE.
I noted that Cinepaint has been recently updated to version 1.0, and work on version 1.1 is going on. I downloaded the program, it was a broken compressed archive but I could read in a readme file this: "CinePaint runs on Linux and other UNIX-compatible operating systems. The versions for Mac OS X and Windows are currently broken." So it seems to be working for Linux and UNIX now, according to the developer, and it is intended to work also on Mac OS X and Windows but the developer has some bugs to sort out. I don't know exactly how to update information about Cinepaint, especially considering that the download I got was a broken archive, and I can not test the Linux and UNIX versions. Roger491127 ( talk) 13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless it is buried under another name, you are missing PhotoFiltre. It can be downloaded at http://photofiltre.free.fr/ I do not have the time to do it myself. In addition, when I used it before, I did not use more than a few special features. You really need to have it entered by someone who is more familiar with all of the features. It has 40 or so plug-ins and add-ons, which are downloaded and installed if and as needed. It has been several years, but as near as I can remember, it had some features that my other graphics programs were missing.
agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.206.142 ( talk) 20:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Unless it is buried under another name, you are missing mtpaint. It can be downloaded at http://mtpaint.sourceforge.net/ Jonpatterns ( talk) 13:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
mtPaint is a great program.
Interface
Pixel Art
Image Manipulation
Ryanodforce doubled the content 1-3 is 4-6 and 8-12 = 13-17 with marginal new text. Galantea0 ( talk) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Would be great if this table would only include actively developed (non-beta) software. Otherwise, it's a bit confusing. SelfishSeahorse ( talk) 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The Adobe RGB column confuses me, should that be ARGB as in Alpha+RGB? – Be..anyone ( talk) 14:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
AdobeRGB (1998) is a particular colorspace (profile), just like sRGB is a particular colorspace (profile) with different primaries, white point, and tone reproduction curve. In the chart, it probably should just list RGB as the color model. Color Management would be a separate feature column indicating that the software can use different profiles for the supported color models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.178.247 ( talk) 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I just updated the "last stable version" for Irfanview and Paint Shop Pro. There are possibly a number of other places where such information is provided, and it is obviously tedious to maintain this information everywhere. There should be as few as possible places where such information needs to be kept up to date. What about a central depository of such information in, say, Wiki data? -- L.Willms ( talk) 07:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of raster graphics editors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comparison of raster graphics editors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
After deep digging en.wikipedia comparison I've just found ImBatch — powerful batch graphics editor (free for personal usage):
http://www.highmotionsoftware.com/products/imbatch
87.205.132.13 (
talk) 16:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Both programs do not use rasters, they use a pixelpipe. You don't have layers or brushes in these programs which are used by raster-based programs. Moreover you cannot do other raster-based actions like rezising an image. Think this applies to other raw development software like Adobe Lightroom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.213.12.245 ( talk) 11:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
What do the asterisks after names in most tables indicate? ◄ Sebastian 20:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Under the List section, numerous commercial software, such as Photoshop, are put under the Freeware column. Either the software list should be properly divided by freeware/commercial or the subheading should be eliminated to put it all just under Proprietary. I'm sorry my editing skills are not up to par to revamp the table. 98.110.130.230 ( talk) 20:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)