Holy... #&%!ing god!...

[Lingus]

Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.

And this is only in that one example. I noticed other things on the other two example pictures that seemed not only better quality final product but easier to accomplish with Adobe's. Which, there's nothing wrong with that. Gimp is free. They don't have as much money to throw at the problem. They got there first, but then Adobe was able to throw tons of money at improving on the concept.

[ARTgames]

Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.

And this is only in that one example. I noticed other things on the other two example pictures that seemed not only better quality final product but easier to accomplish with Adobe's. Which, there's nothing wrong with that. Gimp is free. They don't have as much money to throw at the problem. They got there first, but then Adobe was able to throw tons of money at improving on the concept.

Is photoshop $699/$999 better than gimp? For me i don't know. I know the back ground mechanics of photoshop are well built. I dont know the iner working of gimp.

[Pinball]

Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.

I don't know how your making that argument with how dark the picture is in the photoshop video, this is a screen-shot of it and I can barely see sand spots, yet alone bushes.

[NotSoCheerios]

Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.

And this is only in that one example. I noticed other things on the other two example pictures that seemed not only better quality final product but easier to accomplish with Adobe's. Which, there's nothing wrong with that. Gimp is free. They don't have as much money to throw at the problem. They got there first, but then Adobe was able to throw tons of money at improving on the concept.

http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer also.. It has not really been updated lately either. So Adobe does have more recent improvements. But if your working professionally.. you're to go with Adobe.. as a freelance, or hobbiest or something along those lines.. No reason to pay for something gimp provides (and updates more often) for free.

[Mr Pwnage]

I thought I might as well show you all the test I did all myself after the first 5 minutes of acquiring cs5. Now, granted this was an extremely quick test I did so quality was not my goal, it was more of a speed test to see how easy I could do things.
I googled for a picture of an ocean shore:

Made a very quick selection:

Used content aware fill to replace the sand with ocean:

Used the Spot Healing brush to do a very brief touch up:


Now I realize there are still many blending flaws/etc with the image but I did this to test speed and convenience. It certaintly got the job don't rather quickly. Though I have never used GIMP before so I can't really make a comparison.

[Lingus]

Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.

I don't know how your making that argument with how dark the picture is in the photoshop video, this is a screen-shot of it and I can barely see sand spots, yet alone bushes.

It doesn't look that dark on my screen. I can see it pretty well.