Background removal - Is Gimp sufficient?

I use gimp occasionally as well as CorelDraw.
Our typesetter uses Photoshop.

The impression I get from speaking to the typesetter, is that Photoshop has an easier interface and generally easier to use with a few extra features. Photoshop does have a nice extract filter that gimp doesn't.
It is more important to understand the techniques used by the software, than to have the cutting edge software. It does take a bit of trial and error.

In Photoshop, our typesetter says there are 3 ways that he uses:
1) Clipping path - Rarely used, but often chosen by the inexperienced. This gives a hard edge, but he often gets round this by adding light to the edge to break the sharpness.
2) Airbrush the background - He would normally add a bit of noise to the filter of the airbrush to make it look less perfect.
3) Use the extract filter - most common.

In Gimp I see 2 very similar options for the first 2, but there is no extract filter


Below I have found a tutorial that helps compare the 2.

blog.thembid.com/2007/08/24/removing-bac...quickly-in-the-gimp/

blog.thembid.com/2007/08/22/removing-bac...uickly-in-photoshop/

I think Gimp is sufficient for most things, but if doing this regularly photoshop is probably quicker and certainly worth investigating.

It doesn't even have to be limited to these products. For example Signlab has a Fluid mask plug-in for the removal of backgrounds:
www.sign-update-magazine.co.uk/images/st...-%20Fluid%20Mask.pdf
As well as the fluid mask add-in there is a Gimp add in, with Signlab.