Talk:Comparison of raster graphics editors

ImageJ
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)

Reason
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)

GIMP
Why the heck isn't the gimp included in the list?


 * Well spotted. It looks like someone has removed all the closing comment tags within the table, so large sections of the table were being blanked out by invalid comments. Ojw 12:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Features of GIMP
This is a list with the features of GIMP and GIMPShop.
 * Retouching: yes
 * Resizing: yes. resize and scale
 * Noise removal: There is some plugins and filters.
 * Lens correction: Not, but there is a external plugin.
 * Printing: Yes
 * Sharpening: yes and.
 * Image Library: not

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.172.13.154 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Okay. Althepal 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

GIMP and GIMPShop?
I propose merging all the GIPM and GIMPShop rows. Support or reason not to? Althepal 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose. GIMPshop is essentially a fork of GIMP and there is a version lag, --Karnesky 07:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. That's a good point, but I just thought that since all the rows were the same, why not merge. On a side note, how come Photoshop CS2 is on the list, but Elements, Album Starter 3.0, etc. are not on the list? Althepal 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge List of bitmap graphics editors
The comparison is much more comprehensive than the list (it also seems to be less of a lightning rod for link spam). See Articles_for_deletion/List_of_image_viewers for precedence. --Karnesky 19:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've merged all but the historical programs. Propose that we trim down to these & move to List of historical bitmap graphics editors and put a redirect to the comparison from the original list. --Karnesky 02:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's no reason, why historical editors should not be listed. Which editors are historical and which are not is really more of a matter of personal opinion - you never know who may still be using this old software. And including the historical programs would provide us the valuable historical information of how the software has developed over time. Anyway, other Comparison-of-articles provide the historical programs too (e.g. Comparison of web browsers). Renka 12:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I, as a reader who wants to find more info about OLD computer games and programs used to make them, would vote for a merging of the topic about rasterized

programs. The page might be longer, but I can search through it quickly if something interesting is there :-)


 * So let's merge them! It makes sense. Except, in the comparison, all the editors are listed in the first box anyway. -Althepal 00:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What does it take to merge the articles? -Althepal 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Converting to higher standards
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)

Improvement
Good start, in major need of development. I think I'll nominate it at Article Improvement Drive.--Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 04:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Note on removal of footnote about scripting support in Adobe Photoshop
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

iPhoto
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)
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.--Karnesky 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  Diverts self from fixing Falkland Islands edit war. Me no like editing tables. ..dave souza, talk 10:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

remove mng format?
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


 * The only good reason on your list is the 2nd. The 1st is not good because it is still a point of comparison & other programs may start to support it or new programs which support it might be added to the list.  The 3rd point simply isn't true.  It is only five years old & nothing has definitively replace it.  It might be a bit more accurate to say it "hasn't yet been widely accepted by the market."  Right now, I see no problems keeping it in the comparison list & removing it would decrease the information content of the article.  If space starts to get cramped, I agree that this would be one of the first pieces of information which could go.  We could potentially have a column of "Other formats supported" & list it there.  This would take up less space for this and other rarely-used formats. --Karnesky 19:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Come to that, I'm not entirely sure what the XCF and PSP formats are doing in there. I've never seen either in the wild, largely because they're non-standard formats; as such they're pretty much insignificant in the bigger picture, being used only privately and converted into a standard format when artwork is shared.  I would have thought that such formats should be included only where they're actually often shared, as PSD is; rare formats like XCF and PSP should be removed, and other proprietary formats like Corel's CPT should not be added.  (I would suggest replacing them with formats that are actually common, like PCD, XPM, and possibly PCT.) &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, as it's not relevant to raster graphics editing, I'll delete MNG. -Althepal 06:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * MNGs are raster-based (just as pngs are). I really don't see what the point of removing it is--it is a narrow column and is verifiable and informative.  --Karnesky 13:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it isn't useful in the comparison if hardly anything supports it and almost no editors use them. (I mean, would you want me to make a column for every feature supported by a single editor?) It can be mentioned in Kirta's article that this program supports MNG, but in the comparison of graphics editors, it is essentially taking up space and making the chart a little less readable.

Merge notice
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)
 * And other software lists have also been merged into their comparison articles. At one time, I merged all but the historical section of the list to the comparison page.  Instead of just removing the tags, we should decide whether or not the historical programs belong in the comparison or not.  I don' think they do.  Renka does.  Either finish the merge or move the list, but don't just ignore the tags.--Karnesky 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Microsoft Digital Image and Quantel Paintbox should be merged either way. --Karnesky 05:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

suggestions
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.
 * Not all the time. Many programs can open certain files, but can only save in restricted formats. RAW format is one obvious example.Althepal 06:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I'm thinking you're right. I might just merge them, and if there is a difference, I can just say (import) or something.Althepal 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done!Althepal 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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).

Aperture
Does Apple's Aperture program belong here, or is it in a different category? 64.90.198.6 18:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would expect that Aperture would fit in. Althepal 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do too, especially since version 2 has the plug-ins architecture. Candelabre (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Windows bias
Why is the column for Windows in platform support larger than any of the other columns? Theshibboleth 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply because of the longer entries. "Yes (for PocketPC also)" for Photogenics is quite long.  --Karnesky 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And why is "Windows" in bold, then? Candelabre (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Painter / CMYK and indexed
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)

Reasons for move/rename
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)

IrfanView is a highly-rated, popular, freeware image editor
--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:
 * http://www.irfanview.com
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrfanView

Its features:
 * http://www.irfanview.com/main_what_is_engl.htm

Winner of 2006 Shareware Industry Award for "Best Graphics Program or Utility":
 * http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/002464.html --Timeshifter 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Paint.NET?
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)

JPEG 2000 & GIMP (and CMYK saving)
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.
 * JPEG 2000 plugin for GIMP
 * Divyanshu Vats's blog

Also, there is a external plug-in that allows to save files in TIFF with CMYK format.


 * I have found the plugin compiled in www.gimp.org.es, the link to download it is this: JPEG 2000 on GIMP.

Needs improvements
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)
 * If I personally had to choose five new features to include in the comparison, they would be: image library, retouching brushes, resizing, perspective/lens correction, and then maybe color edits, sharpening/softening, or noise reduction. -Althepal 19:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Natural Media needs to be a column. It is the main feature of several listed products (ArtRage and Painter) and is an important distinction for how the program is used.
 * The list needs to be alphabetical. The current article is biased because it is designed to compare photoshop and gimp.
 * And HDR should be switched from Color Spaces to Features. -Althepal 02:57, 14 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)

Description column
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)

Obsolete or obsolescent entries note?
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)

File type Import and Export?
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)

Merge
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)
 * The comparison should be the main article & the list should just redirect here. There is no need to sort it by license--that information is reflected in the tables. --Karnesky 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that the merger did not take place, though List of raster graphics editors does now redirect to Comparison of raster graphics editors. If it is so, then the merger banner should be removed. (A merger does not seem necessary to me - this small comparison seems to fit well here).GeiwTeol 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The list and the comparison WERE merged into the comparison article. I don't see any merge banners on the article page (though perhaps some of the discussions about merging can be archived). --Karnesky (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Layers
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)
 * I wrote most of the Layer article, and I have a draft of an article about overlaying/blending layers as well on my harddisk. However, I was not too happy myself with the Layers article and there has so far been very little feedback on it. Reluctant to make the same mistakes once more, I have still not created any Blending article. If you come with hints what could be improved with Layers, I have quite a lot of text and examples for blends as well. Mlewan 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I will now unwatch this page. If anyone has comments, please, put them on my talk page or the discussion page for Layers (digital image editing). Mlewan 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Web-based?
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
"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)
 * Listen. I'm on your side, and I tried to improve its information in this article and its own, but it is not really an "advanced" program capable of running all common image types and performing all advanced edits on them. Sure, it has a few very nice features, but so does Picasa. This is also very good, but advanced doesn't really fit into its description. Advanced edits are complex and require larger programs, and a program full of advanced edits will be at least 20MB; while a 1MB program may be very good in one or two areas while having a small footprint, it will not be a thoroughly advanced program. Althepal 17:33, 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)

Paint Shop Pro
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)
 * CS3 has a couple professional tools not found in PSP. Also note how it is the photoshop article which says it is the industry standard. Althepal 01:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding an additional column in the Features table titled "vector graphics support" Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Programs Without Supported Operating Systems
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)

MERGE REVERTED
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)
 * Excuse me??? Did you even think to bring it up before making this huge edit? All (or at least most) lists and comparisons I've seen here were one article. Please undo what you did until there is a consensus in one direction. And just so you should know, I didn't merge the two pages without asking. I saw someone requested the merge, no one said otherwise, the request was up for a long time, and then I asked, then I merged. How about you do the same on such an edit? Althepal 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree this should have made use of the splitsection template & should have had discussion (just as the merge did). -Karnesky 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted and tagged for discussion. --Karnesky 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Split to List of raster graphics editors

 * Oppose - There's no reason for the list, as the comparison accomplishes much more & has attracted less spam & been better maintained than the list page was. Most of the products from the list are in the comparison tables.  I propose cleaning up the merge--removing the entries from the list that are already in the tables, placing notable entries from the last that are absent from the tables into the tables, and deleting the non-notable entries.  The only question is over the historical tools.  We can either:
 * Add these to the comparison
 * Move the list to the bottom
 * Split off a smaller list of historical tools
 * I have a slight preference for the first of these three choices. --Karnesky 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It is pretty standard for larger lists to show up above comparisons. The fact that they are together makes it easy to keep track of the programs in one place, and it is a good, single source for identifying the different editors. I would not agree with removing the compared editors from the list, since the list would be incomplete and it would make it more difficult to find a program if you aren't sure where to look. Althepal 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm sorry for shouting before. I just thought: a) that this wasn't standard (you can see most, if not all, of the other list articles have separate comparison articles) and that b) what does a list have to do with a comparison if the comparison doesn't contain everything from the list? However, this is the majority, and I'll still accept the merge. But we really need to make the comparison more complete. This way, that very first table in the comparison would act as the list, if needed! I think that the historical should be moved to the end if we do this. - PGSONIC 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The comparison is only as diverse as the Wikipedians who use the different programs. That being said, with almost 50 different programs in the comparison, and with only like 10 non-historical editors listed not in the table compared, this is the most complete comparison article I've seen. Althepal 05:24, 25 July 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. mikaultalk 10:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion kinda died without consensus, leaving the article in the mess it ever was. You get here and all you see is list, list, list.. I guess some users might persevere to the point (the comparison table) without giving up in exasperation.. I did argue for a split, but I think a good compromise would be the use of show/hide boxes. That way the lists can come first but the table is right up there too. Any thoughts? --mikaultalk 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I guess not :/ Having struggled with the collapsible table idea, I've used embedded lists (normal tables, basically) which match the rest of the page style-wise and cut down the space previously taken up by about 80%. A draft version of the page can be found here. I'll give it a week and if there are no objections I'll take it live. I'd appreciate any/all feedback and welcome edits to the draft in the meantime. --mikaultalk 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that looks great. I don't really see much value in any information on historical or obsolete editors, but whatever... Might as well be bold and make your tables a reality here. Althepal 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll post it up then. I wasn't sure about the historical stuff either, but it does mean we have a totally comprehensive list, ie even if you weren't aware that what you were looking for was a discontinued title, you'd still find it in the list, at least. Thanks Al. --mikaultalk 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As this would appear to resolve the issue with the list, I'll remove the merge tag as well. --mikaultalk 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Features" not mentioned
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)
 * That's what I was looking for when I first found this page. The only problem with it is its sheer scope: the "features" table is already too wide, without mentioning brushes etc. I guess you could set up a "tools" table underneath, but it would have to be reasonably brief, ie not a lot bigger than the list you made here. --mikaultalk 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that there should be a seperate comparison table for painting and editing software (or is there one somewhere hidden already?), since the current list really focuses towards photo editing. Tools which score good for the current list (such as photoshop etc), are certainly not the best software to use for painting (although some people insist they are), while software that is built from the ground up by artists for creating new works of art may score extremely bad in this table because it doesn't have all those omg omg shiny random effects. --Kaetemi 21:08, 27 March 2008 (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

editors versus viewers
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)

Merge of GIMP
There's a merge notice at GIMP. There was once also a merge notice at Adobe Photoshop, 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)

Column headers also below?
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)

Bits per channel
IMO bits per channel information should be incorporated into this page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Artrage is both commercial and freeware
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)
 * Commercial software with a free but limited version is still commercial software, see demoware, shareware and freeware. However other software comparison pages such as comparison of e-mail clients and comparison of media players distinguish between commercial software without free versions and commercial software with free versions, and I feel that it would be appropriate to make that distinction here. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of Artrage, though, the "free, limited" version is the one that existed originally, and eventually they added more features and released a commercial one. Does not the line between freeware and shareware become rather blurred at that point? If we were talking about a "free software" that is only free for 30 days, for example, I would agree. But in this case, it seems to me that functionally there is no difference. The freeware version existed for a long time before the commercial one did. All they did to it is keep the same functions, but allow the user to see what other functions were now present in the commercial version. Esn (talk) 00:50, 5 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)
 * Perhaps we could include separate entries for ArtRage Starter Edition and ArtRage Full Edition. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fireworks sorted as Macromedia Fireworks
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)

IrfanView has basic retouching capabilities
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
Blender has also an options for raster graphics manipulations. It should be included in this list.--Popski (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

ifx Software
What about Amazon Paint? It sounds sorta like CinePaint.

link gone. delete?
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)

Pixen
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)

Running under WINE should not be an exclusion criteria in this comparison
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.

Cinepaint
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)

PhotoFiltre missing
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)
 * Please add the info you know and leave unknown blank. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

mtPaint
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
 * Toggle the toolbars on or off at the touch of a button.
 * Horizontal or vertical split view mode.
 * Pixel grid for guidance at high levels of zoom.
 * Move the mouse pointer with exact precision using the arrow keys.
 * Extensive shortcut keys used to improve productivity.
 * 12 Image clipboard.
 * Up to 1000 undo steps.
 * Zoom levels between 10% and 2000%.
 * Pan window for quickly navigating a large image, or at a high zoom.
 * Browse different files passed at the command line.
 * Translations: Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Taiwanese), Czech, Dutch, English (UK), French, Galician, German, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Portuguese (Brazilian), Russian, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish.
 * Use a pressure sensitive graphics tablet.
 * Limit memory used for undo images.
 * Grab screenshots.

Pixel Art
 * Edit indexed palette or RGB images.
 * Save and load BMP, GIF, JPEG, LSS, PNG, TGA, TIFF, XPM, XBM files.
 * Extensive palette features – load, save, sort, edit, posterize, quantize, remove duplicate colours, remove unused colours, colour protection, palette shifting.
 * Image channels: Alpha, Selection, Mask. All saved to a PNG file.
 * Up to 100 layers.
 * Create animations by moving layers, or shifting palettes.
 * Create animated GIF’s using Gifsicle.
 * 81 brush presets.
 * 100 brush patterns.
 * User defined gradients.
 * Copy and paste using rectangle or polygon shapes.
 * Tools to shuffle pixels, flood fill, draw straight lines, smudge, clone, paste text, draw/fill rectangle/ellipses.

Image Manipulation
 * Quickly transform image gamma, brightness, contrast, saturation, hue, posterize from a single dialog, and preview the results in real time.
 * Apply various effects such as invert, greyscale, isometric transformations, edge detect, sharpen, unsharp mask, soften, Gaussian blur, emboss, bacteria.
 * Use gamma correction on effects to improve the quality of various effects.
 * Crop at the touch of a button.
 * Resize the canvas.
 * Rescale the canvas, enlarging or reducing, using several filter methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.200.76.54 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

please fix page
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)
 * I removed all the duplicated content introduced by Ryanodforce. 86.87.68.167 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Idea
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)

Adobe RGB
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)

Maintenance of "last stable version" in this and many other articles
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214122321/http://nifelheim.dyndns.org/~cocidius/hdrtools/ to http://nifelheim.dyndns.org/~cocidius/hdrtools
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429003037/http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewforum.php?f=16 to http://paintdotnet.12.forumer.com/viewforum.php?f=16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120032358/http://bibblelabs.com/ to http://bibblelabs.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413031703/http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/JP2Index.php to http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/JP2index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Lack of ImBatch
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)

Rawtherapee and darktable are no raster graphics editors
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)


 * At least in darktable, each operation in the pixelpipe is equivalent to an adjustment layer. And since nearly every operation can be masked (drawn and/or parametric), both "selective edits" and "layers" should be "Yes" instead of "No" as long as darktable is kept.
 * If "layers" is supposed to mean compositing multiple different images, that capability will be in the next (4.8) release of darktable. It was merged a few weeks ago.
 * Cites to support "Yes"es in the features table:
 * Selective edits (masks): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7IydpMfGBQ
 * https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.2/en/darkroom/masking-and-blending/overview/
 * Layers: https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.2/en/darkroom/pixelpipe/the-pixelpipe-and-module-order/
 * Sized printing: https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.2/en/print/print-view-layout/ 128.237.82.13 (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Asterisks
What do the asterisks after names in most tables indicate? ◄ Sebastian 20:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they are for discontinued products — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.130.230 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List section is miscategorized
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)


 * Concur. I Moved photoshop to "Commercial", as there are no freeware versions available. "Freeware" as defined in wikipedia is "no cost to the user", and none of the Trialware commercial software should qualify. The page on Photoshop and Adobe's own site both claim it is proprietary commercial software 2600:1700:4270:A1F0:980A:A702:AA3D:6024 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)