GIMP is a mature, decade-tested editor whose document model is its own; PhotoCraft is an alpha Rust editor whose organising bet is that layered PSD should round-trip. Both run on Linux. The choice is mostly about whether your files must survive as PSD and whether you want a command-driven pipeline.
Install PhotoCraft All comparisons
Written against the build verified on 2026-10-13.
If the deliverable is a layered PSD that another person must reopen in a commercial editor, PhotoCraft is the tool designed for that job. If you want the broadest set of mature features on any hardware with a large plugin and script ecosystem, GIMP has years of reach that an alpha project cannot match yet. Neither statement is a score.
| Aspect | PhotoCraft v0.9.0 | GIMP | How to verify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Document model | Layer-first, PSD as a working format | Own native format; PSD imported and exported | Open a layered PSD, edit, save, reopen in a commercial editor |
| Engine | Pure Rust with Metal, Vulkan, DX12 and WebGPU paths | Mature C codebase with long-standing raster pipeline | Platform notes in each project repository |
| Maturity | Early alpha, panels change | Stable release line, long support cycle | Release history on each project |
| Scripting | CLI, JSON action files, MCP server | Script-Fu and Python bindings with a long history | Command surface in each build |
| Platforms | Linux, Windows, macOS, FreeBSD, WebAssembly build | Linux, Windows, macOS | Published release assets |
| Licence | MIT or Apache-2.0 | GNU General Public License | LICENSE file in each repository |
| Cost | Free, local | Free, local | Both projects' own distribution |
Layered PSD is the difference that changes a workflow. In GIMP a PSD arrives as something to interpret: layers survive import more often than they survive the round trip, and text styles, effects and nested structures get translated into GIMP's own model on the way in and translated again on the way out. PhotoCraft treats the layered document as the thing it is editing rather than as an import, which is the whole reason a designer on Linux would consider an alpha editor over a mature one. The modern GPU rendering paths and an agent-facing MCP server point the same way: an engine built now, on the assumptions of now.
Mature breadth is not a feature you can shortcut. GIMP has a stable release line, hardware tolerance for machines without modern GPU drivers, a scripting API that has been used in production for years, image preparation and printing workflows with answers already written for them, and a plugin and file-format surface that no young project matches. It also handles the unglamorous parts: colour management, huge canvases on modest hardware, and a keyboard-driven workflow that people have built muscle memory for. If your job involves a format or a step that PhotoCraft has not reached, GIMP probably has it and has had it for a decade.
| Scenario | Choose | Because |
|---|---|---|
| Layered PSD must come back editable | PhotoCraft | The format is the document model, not an import |
| Old hardware, no modern GPU driver | GIMP | A long support cycle tolerates machines without current drivers |
| Existing script or plugin you depend on | GIMP | The ecosystem is the feature |
| Batch work driven by an agent | PhotoCraft | A JSON action file plus MCP is designed for that |
| Print or pre-press step | GIMP | Mature colour and output workflows already exist |
| You cannot afford an alpha surprise | GIMP | Stability is a release-line property, not a code-quality verdict |
Comparing a four-month-old release against a decade of stability is a category mistake if it is presented as quality ranking. What you can say precisely: on the specific job of keeping a layered PSD round-trippable, and on driving an editor from a command or an MCP client, PhotoCraft was built for the task and GIMP was not. On everything adjacent to that, maturity carries the day.
A test you can run in twenty minutes beats reading any table. Take one layered file you care about and run four checks in each editor: open it and count the layers; toggle a mask and see whether it was read correctly; save the document and reopen it; export a flat copy and compare against the reference the sender gave you. Those four steps expose the real boundary of an editor far faster than a feature matrix, and they cost one evening rather than a migration mistake.
Record the results as facts about your own files rather than as verdicts about the tools. A note saying that this editor lost a nested object in that particular file is still useful in six months; a claim that it is worse is not, because both the file set and the versions will have moved by then.
One asymmetry is worth naming plainly: a two-decade release line against a project in its first year. That is not a quality score, it is a risk statement, and it should decide where each tool sits in your workflow rather than which one you are allowed to prefer.
Neither. PhotoCraft is built so a layered PSD survives the round trip and so the editor can be driven from a command; GIMP has two decades of formats, plugins and stability. Which of those you need decides the answer for you.
Yes, and it is common. The practical split is working in the editor whose document model matches the handoff, and using the mature tool for the specialist step that neither has yet.
GIMP. Its long support cycle tolerates drivers and machines a GPU-first engine assumes away, while PhotoCraft selects Metal, Vulkan, DX12 or WebGPU back ends, making older hardware its weaker case.
Both offer commercial-use paths, but the obligations differ: MIT or Apache-2.0 on one side and the GNU General Public License on the other. Read the licence file rather than a summary before redistributing modified code.
Open one layered file in each, count the layers, edit a mask, save and reopen, then export a flat copy against the sender reference. Twenty minutes gives you your own answer instead of a borrowed table.
