The purpose of this post is to ask those of you who have experience with TPs/RPs whether you think Gimp or Photoshop would be better for a personal custom pack I plan on creating. Most likely (if I'm able to) a 64x64 pack. Let me know your thoughts, thanks.
Paint.NET is better for low-res such as 32x and 16x, and Gimp/Photoshop is better for 32x+.
I respectfully disagree with you. GIMP and Photoshop are good for any resolution if you know how to use them. I've been doing 16x packs with an ancient version of Photoshop and have never had the slightest issue.
But yea, on the graphics side of things those three are probably your best bet. Paint.net and GIMP are free while Photoshop costs money.
For audio editing, the only free editor I know of with any power is Audacity.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
12/7/2012
Posts:
350
Minecraft:
timurovich
Xbox:
tfw a PC gamer
Member Details
Photoshop is the best program to go with, if you have it of course. If money does not allow you, and piracy isn't yours, get Paint.NET, it's free and is pretty good for small textures.
Paint.net and GIMP are good options. Each can do a variety of resolutions.
Paint.net has a simpler interface and is easier to use at first, but GIMP is much more powerful and better at high resolution. Which one you use all depends really on which one you start with, and what kind of textures you are trying to make.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The official Bluebird continuation is underway! Please come and help keep the pack alive!
This might also be because of my background as an architecture student and designer, but I prefer Photoshop to everything else. The commands all make sense. It's clean, professional, straightforward to use, and there are tons of guides out there specifically for Photoshop.
GIMP, so much GIMP. It's just as amazing if not better than PS once you learn how to use it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
I don't get why people think you cant do pixel work in photoshop.
See? Pixel work, Photoshop. MY work I've been a graphic designer for 15 years now, been working in photoshop sense 1.4 BETA of the program. Hands down it can do pretty much everything graphic wise.
Gimp is the next best thing as it is very close to photoshop in power but does lack many of it's advanced features. But it also has much of the same including interface. If you know gimp, you know photoshop, and vice versa with little in ways of learning curve aside sorting out what things one may or may not have, or what may be the same, but done in their own ways.
Paint.net is nice, and cheep, small program that is better for those starting out, or those whom may not have the system resources to handle the bigger programs. I know on my laptop Gimp would not load, photoshop chugged at best, but Paint.net worked fine. It can also do HD textures as well as pixel work. You just have to know how to use the brushes, and that same goes for all three programs.
The purpose of this post is to ask those of you who have experience with TPs/RPs whether you think Gimp or Photoshop would be better for a personal custom pack I plan on creating. Most likely (if I'm able to) a 64x64 pack. Let me know your thoughts, thanks.
I personally use Paint.NET
But yea, on the graphics side of things those three are probably your best bet. Paint.net and GIMP are free while Photoshop costs money.
For audio editing, the only free editor I know of with any power is Audacity.
Quote my post so I can reply to it.
Paint.net has a simpler interface and is easier to use at first, but GIMP is much more powerful and better at high resolution. Which one you use all depends really on which one you start with, and what kind of textures you are trying to make.
GIMP is better for somewhat more detail, but is a little harder to use.
Photoshop I hear is the best, but it costs money. (although I did hear of adobe giving out old versions for free)
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Aw man we about to start a war now.
See? Pixel work, Photoshop. MY work I've been a graphic designer for 15 years now, been working in photoshop sense 1.4 BETA of the program. Hands down it can do pretty much everything graphic wise.
Gimp is the next best thing as it is very close to photoshop in power but does lack many of it's advanced features. But it also has much of the same including interface. If you know gimp, you know photoshop, and vice versa with little in ways of learning curve aside sorting out what things one may or may not have, or what may be the same, but done in their own ways.
Paint.net is nice, and cheep, small program that is better for those starting out, or those whom may not have the system resources to handle the bigger programs. I know on my laptop Gimp would not load, photoshop chugged at best, but Paint.net worked fine. It can also do HD textures as well as pixel work. You just have to know how to use the brushes, and that same goes for all three programs.