Cool! Extremism is awesome when you're trying to evade a valid point! Kudos to you for that!
By the way, I think you'd better run - it looks like your KIA is rolling away from you...
And what
is the 'valid point'? That only software that costs money is worthwhile?
Not at all. The valid point is that the "best"
IS Photoshop, so
IF the OP's budget can handle it, and
IF the OP expects to be in the photography thing long-term, and
IF the OP really wants the best as asked for in the first post,
THEN Photoshop is
THE BEST editing program to get, hands down.
Why?
1. It is
THE standard by which all others are measured and assessed.
2. That's because it has more capabilities than
ANYTHING else.
3. Once you learn Photoshop, you're
SET on editing ability for the rest of your life.
4. If you start with Photoshop, you will waste
ZERO time and energy learning how to use other editing software programs that you will likely abandon someday when you realize that there really is just no serious contender to Photoshop, and suddenly you have a windfall of cash to get it.
Let's see your Kenworth go through the drive-up at Mickey D's then.
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Your KIA/Kenworth analogy was cute, but ultimately worthless. We're talking about tools to get work done, and we're talking about the capabilities of various tools to get work done. Gimp hasn't even gotten out of 8 bit editing, has it? It doesn't even matter - Photoshop blows it away in too many other ways to even talk about it.
As for "need", sometimes it's not just about "need". I'll bet you don't "need" every single piece of camera gear you have, but every once in a while, it's useful to you and makes things easier because you DO have it. It's the same with Photoshop; You don't "need" every single tool it has to offer all the time, but when you do, it sure is nice to have it.
You've got a toolbox with basic tools. Great. I've got a toolbox with basic tools PLUS a PILE of specialty tools that allow me to tackle virtually ANY image editing situation I encounter.
Now, if you want to take that statement and say something silly like, "Oh yeah? Well I'd like to see you turn this photo of a blurry tree at night that's underexposed by 15 stops into a masterpiece", then you'll just be showing how ignorant you are, so you might not want to go there. Just sayin'...
If you simply can't afford Photoshop and are willing to settle for something less, that's understandable and reasonable. But that doesn't make it a great tool when compared to Photoshop, regardless of any analogies you'd like to throw against the wall hoping they stick, and it's not been determined that the OP can't afford it. If that were the case, it wouldn't even make sense that the OP is asking.