Most of the people comparing Photoshop and GIMP have no idea what they're talking about and are not in a position to make any kind of reasoned assessment.
I've used GIMP on my (exclusively) Lignux desktops nearly daily for years, and I run a media business that relies on the Adobe suite (Photoshop, Lightroom, After Effects, and Premiere).
Photoshop's tools -- all of them -- have built-in smarts about the way they do things. It's especially noticeable with selections and opacities. Photoshop generally produces better-looking results for the most common cases, creating refined edges with subtle alpha taper, without you having to do anything at all. This is a godsend for someone just trying to make something look nice and not all aliased and fucked. Now, in certain cases (usually shitposting) I want the program to stupidly do what I told it to do and nothing else, and that's when I use GIMP. But for professional media you're going to have a better time with Photoshop.
GIMP still does not have non-destructive editing. This is critical for explorability and flexibility. Destructive editing binds you to a linear path of undo/redo. It fucking blows. Non-destructive editing means you can change anything at any time, which is the entire point of computerized editing, really. Imagine having a video editor that isn't an NLE. What's the point of this being on a fucking computer? I really cannot emphasize how much of a mental box this is. It's totally suffocating. What the hell?
Photoshop's Content-Aware system simply cannot be beat. That shit is magic. For those who don't know, Content-Aware tools use orphan souls and presumably machine learning to magically fill in the background of things. You know how fucking boomers will ask if you can move things in a photo to reveal what's behind them and you're like no, you stupid fuck, that isn't how any of this works, the data doesn't exist? Well now, most of the time, you can. I've removed people and objects from photos and even video and had the holes immediately and automatically filled in, with results ranging from serviceable to literally pixel-perfect. It's really astonishing. We've had footage come in with dirt on the sensor and I get some coffee and polygon that shit and Adobe makes it go away.
When I have to use Adobe software, I bitch a lot. I'm usually mumbling curses under my breath the entire time, because a lot of things are so fucking asstarded with the UI. I'm used to GIMP and I prefer GIMP. But it produces better results, full-stop.
GIMP is essentially super-MSPaint and I use it as such, for edits, memes, and glitch art (which I'm very fond of). At all of these things GIMP is easier, faster, and better than Photoshop. For anything real-world you're going to get better results with Photoshop. I love GIMP, but it's currently an image editor, not a photo editor. This is a critical distinction.
Don't even get me started on Lightroom/Darktable or Premiere/anything else. Fuck.
Adobe software sucks in various ways but it's generally much more reliable and usable than the alternatives and this is why it persists.I never went to a "media course" whatever the fuck that is. I've always been self-taught, like all my editors.
Yeah, it's proprietary software, but I'm not going to sit here morally cranking out shitty-looking photography when I can use Adobe and make a ton of money instead. Lol.
I forecast much asshurt and continued bitching ITT but it doesn't matter because you're all wrong. Seriously, there are some people who just don't fucking get it and never will, like office drones who think their Word document website with twenty different rainbow fonts looks good (fuck I despise Office so god damn much). Some people just like to put shit into their eyes. More power to you. I'm going to be over here extracting dosh from suits.
t. entrepreneurial titan