My second photo (Two images, png made with photoshop and jpeg made with gimp)

This was made with Photoshop for a competition known as “photoshop battle” created by benny productions known as a youtube channel.

Gimp part

I think you can’t see the difference, as the human is only made with gimp for working in photoshop. But the difference is in details and color and highlights which feel a bit lower quality, the gimp part looks dull-colored when printed on a paper. And it also has less contrast and highlights which is un-noticeable at all if you just see the image not examine it.

It’s very hard to spot differences because the human was created with gimp and background and grass with photoshop, but there is a mistake in the photoshop section, I’ll send an Easter basket* to the first person who finds it.

1 Like

There is for sure a HUGE difference, the one from Photoshop is 2.37 MB while the one from GIMP is only 516 KB, so yes the quality cannot be the same :wink:

Also you’re comparing jpg (the one in GIMP) and png (the photoshop one) format… Thus comparing bananas with oranges…

Export that PSD you did put in GIMP as png with the same quality you did in Photoshop and you will not have anymore problem :+1:

1 Like

:thinking: :thought_balloon: :question:


What is more strange is there is no “Adobe” nor “Photoshop” in it and we know how Adobe LOVE to put their stamp all over the exif.

i am curious about the solution to the riddle :grin:

This was first composited in photoshop, then I noticed that it was having a watermark and I searched for its lot, finally, I was unable to find a solution to remove the watermark, So I just took the image to gimp, removed the watermark, and exported, that’s why it has gimp color profile, and it also shows gimp, in actual it was made in photoshop, but the watermark became a culprit, so I used Gimp just for the sake of simplicity and ease otherwise the same would be very hard for photoshop.

You won:-

A virtual easter basket

1 Like