So, you need to complete a design project that requires the image-editing capabilities of Photoshop along with the vectorised lines of Illustrator, and it needs to be animated in Flash with documentation in a PDF. However, your software budget is looking somewhat threadbare. Take your head out of the oven — there is a way to save your project and your wallet from the eye-watering price tags of the various versions of Adobe's Creative Suite 3 (especially in the UK). You just have to be a bit…creative.
Photoshop is arguably the most powerful and certainly the best-known of the Adobe lineup. In fact, the term 'photoshop' is now in common usage as a verb that describes altering an image. The program’s popularity is well-deserved, with an array of features that is mind-boggling. Unfortunately, that incredible feature set comes with associated bloat, and Photoshop is quickly becoming the juggernaut of image editors: yes, it gets the job done, but no, the job description should not include cruising down country roads.

There are two great, free alternatives to Photoshop. First, Paint.NET utilises the Microsoft .NET Framework to create a stable, lightweight program with nearly every major function the average user could want, from a Lasso tool to Gaussian blur. The interface is completely familiar, with the added benefit of translucent panels that make it easy to see what’s going on when the windows get cluttered. Paint.NET doesn’t yet support RAW format, however, which certainly limits its appeal.

The second major image editor far more closely rivals Photoshop in features and functionality, if not in appearance or price. The GIMP is a freeware editor that started off in Linux and was eventually ported to Windows, boosting its audience and popularity. It seems to include almost everything that Photoshop does: channels, layers, masks, more than 100 filters and effects, tabbed palettes, RAW support, editable text tools and colour operations such as levels. And if the feature you’re looking for isn’t in the main program, the chances are very high that someone has created a plug-in for it, including digital printing. Although the GIMP may be more difficult to install and start using than Photoshop, it takes less time to get up and running once you’ve got it set up the way you like.

Photoshop is not the only Adobe design juggernaut with a free analogue. The tools in Illustrator, everybody’s favourite vector-graphics software, also can be emulated without too much fuss. Enter Inkscape. It’s not the only one of its kind, although it seems like it at times. Many of the now-essential tools found in its competition show up here, including paths, text, markers, clones, alpha blending, transforms, gradients, patterns and grouping. The program also supports Creative Commons metadata, node editing, layers, bitmap tracing and direct XML editing. It does all this, and more, without an enormous system footprint or any installation hassle.
Much like its siblings, Adobe Acrobat does its job well, except that it, too, can become a black hole for system resources. If you’re looking for a good PDF reader, Foxit PDF Reader has been a favourite, deserving of its popularity. It opens PDFs from the Web quickly and without hanging our system, not even for a few seconds. Adobe Reader has improved recently, but it can still take some time to load.

PrimoPDF is a great PDF maker for similar reasons. It’s lightweight, with a small footprint, and is easy to use. Primo installs as a 'Print' option in every program you’ve got, so you can create a PDF using anything from HTML documents in Firefox to images in Paint.NET. Simple PDF publishing doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.
Now let’s look at Adobe’s Dreamweaver. Although Dreamweaver is the acknowledged leader in the web design field (beating Microsoft's FrontPage), there have been full-featured web editors floating around since the early days of the web. KompoZer, built on the NVU architecture, is a good free option that's beginning to approach the functionality of Dreamweaver.

The interface is different to Dreamweaver’s, but it should still feel familiar. Major editing buttons live in a three-tier toolbar at the top of the program that includes a one-click Publishing icon as well as one-click buttons for Image insertion and Table and Form creation. Font tweaks like Size and Style live in toolbars just below for easy HTML editing. A Site Manager, including File tree, is anchored on the left, although it can be collapsed. We didn’t notice any glitches when playing with the WYSIWYG function. Running lean and mean lets KompoZer compete more than adequately with better-known competitors.
As the cost of high-end graphics editing software rockets, and digitally produced art continues to improve in quality, it’s going to be increasingly difficult for struggling artists to acquire the tools they need. These programs show that not only can those tools be made for free, but in many cases they run better than the expensive paid-for industry standards.
See the following page for some free alternatives to Flash, Premiere, InDesign and other applications in Adobe's Creative Suite.







Talkback
Equivalent means "equal in value". I think we can all agree on that. But it really is mind-boggling to me how someone can call The Gimp and Photoshop equivalents.
I've used both a lot, and The Gimp is a good application for light graphical work and when it comes to digital media you can attain the same results in both applications. But when it comes to printed media, The Gimp does not have what it takes. No CMYK, no Pantone, no PDF creation. Neither does it have many of Photoshops essential workflow tools;
Non-destructive edits? No. Selection refinement tools? No. Easy exchange of data between Gimp and Inkscape? Proper support for vector graphics? A functional stroke tool? Layer groups? No. No. No. No.
I am a big Open Source fan. I use Ubuntu on all my servers, my laptop and my main workstation. I've used both Gimp and Inkscape a lot, but Inkscape still has a ways to go before reaching 1.0 and Gimps featureset is simply to small for graphics professionals nowadays.
And don't get me started on KompoZer... Sigh.
What really bothers me is that you post this article, acting as if our open source apps are as good as the products that Adobe has invested millions of dollars and years and years of development time into.
They are not, and pushing them as if they were is bound to cause a lot of people to be disappointed and disgruntled with Open Source.
Don't oversell our applications. Gimp is a good tool for non-professional work, but it should not be likened to Photoshop. Likewise with the other apps you mentioned. It's not that it can't be used for professional work, but it just does not have the quality that professionals expect. Yet.
It wasn't our intention to 'push' open source alternatives to Adobe's applications by publishing this article; rather, it was simply to remind people that such choices exist. We also specifically asked for feedback from graphics professionals who have used both Adobe and open source apps, so thanks for your input.
What we will do is keep an eye on the development of open source apps like The GIMP, Inkscape et al, and in due course run full head-to-head reviews against their Adobe counterparts.
While we agree that Inkscape, The Gimp etc. are capable of lifting some, if not most, of the task that is accomplished, they are for all the reasons I mentioned earlier (and more) not of equal value.
Calling them equivalent is deliberately misleading and simply not true.
Fair enough: although there was no intention to mislead, it so happens that the word 'equivalent' was substituted for 'analog' in the <a href="http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-9714054-12.html?tag=more">original US-written article</a> in the editing process for the UK site (we routinely edit 'Americanisms'). We have now reinstated the original wording (with Anglicised spelling).
Or an app a standard? Way back in the early to mid 90s, creative types swore blind that it had to be Apple, then a couple of years later as Windows PCs became widely accepted in the sector, the insistence was for the Corel suite, with Quark.
Now it appears to be Adobe. So, which features in CS3 that were not in CS2 are professionally essential? How did professional users of CS2 get anything done without those features? CS1? Those Mac creatives of 10-15 years ago?
I'd be interested in the answer to this question:
what are the missing features of the open source software described in the article that would prevent a professional graphic artist from being productive? When were these features introduced in the proprietary world? When did they become commonplace? When did these features become essential?
Just interested...
I got Paint.NET installed on my pc, but I dont seem to handle it right...
I thought it was an alternative to regular Paint...
Free TV
This post has been removed by a moderator.