Was gonna say, gimp is open source and mature, why the hell would users use this?
Comment on Silver lining
JoMiran@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
I applaud the troll aspect of it all, but imma stick with GIMP.
chocrates@piefed.world 1 day ago
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Having used both for years, Photoshop is a better product by miles. It’s not even close.
Inkscape, QGIS, Blender, OBS, Jellyfin - there’s lots of GOSS products that blow the commercial stuff out of the water.
GIMP is not one of them.
Flukeyfox@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
It’s a shame it’s not open source, but I’ve found Affinity to be a great alternative to Photoshop + Illustrator. Especially with them recently going free. I’ve always felt GIMP has been a little… Lacking. I hope one day it has that large burst of development and catches up, like how Blender did so long ago… As I’ll always prefer open source.
I’m sadly stuck with Adobe for stuff like Substance Painter + Designer for now :/
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
At this point I don’t think GIMP will ever have a competent UI. All the people contributing to it are those who like working with GIMP and don’t actually want a massive UI overhaul.
But just opening a ficking folder with lots of large image files in it alone makes GIMP nearly unusable for me. I don’t love waiting 2 minutes to name and save a fucking document.
Rubanski@discuss.tchncs.de 22 hours ago
Would you say Inkscape is closer to Illustrator than GIMP is to Photoshop?
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Yes. But I actually find Inkscape to be better. On vectors with especially high numbers of vertices (e.g. contour map exports from QGIS), Photoshop just gives up while Inkscape chugs right along.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s the whole suite of Adobe, not just photoshop
plateee@piefed.social 1 day ago
Because Photoshop is far superior to gimp for…. reasons? But Photoshop costs $$$$$, so this is like free.
/s
Honestly, the only thing not to like about GIMP is the name. There was a fork a while ago, but that closed down.
LegoBrickOnFire@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Non-destructive transforms not existing is definitely a thing not to like about GIMP
LegoBrickOnFire@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I hoped someone would correct me and tell me I am stupid and that of course GIMP has nondestructive transforms and then procede to explain how. I guess that trick doesn’t always work :p
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
And pixel management.
But Krita somehow fulfills that, configured correctly.
There are also the high seas for those who want to sail! Old shops are very good, no ai stuff.
CmykStudent@fosstodon.org 1 day ago
@LegoBrickOnFire @plateee For raster layers, yes (at the moment). You can do non-destructive transforms on vector layers and link layers (so you could add an external PNG/JPEG/SVG/etc to a composition as a layer and then non-destructively transform it).
Transforms are really a filter under the hood, so we have the infrastructure to make them all non-destructive. Just need to work on the UI elements. :)
Amir@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Nowadays you can do per-layer post-processing filters without baking
nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
If you’re a Mac user (like many designers) Pixelmator is an excellent alternative to PS, it’s lacking in some of the smart object/layer stuff I used to lean on heavily in adobe world (illustrator smart layers in ps used to be clutch in the old skewomorphic days).
Axolotl_cpp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I don’t see anything bad with the name tbh
HeHoXa@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
GIMP was always better anyway
And that is a purely objective take that has nothing to do with the fact that it’s the one I used first
Dojan@pawb.social 2 days ago
Same. GIMP and Krita.
GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I adore Krita. Gimp is useful for exporting more esoteric file formats, but Krita does the heavy lifting in my artwork.