81–90 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adobe actually did extensive market study regarding a PS Linux port. The conclusion was that there is basically zero demand for a PAID Photoshop. People do want PS on Linux,but they want a FREE version (sudo apt-get install photoshop)
Is this publicly available info?
In some ways Photoshop is losing relevance in the creative space. Adobe’s rent seeking has pissed off a lot of people and upstarts like Krita, DaVinci Resolve and Serif are making waves. Affinity Photo and Designer offer strong Photoshop and Illustrator alternatives on MacOS, Windows and even iPadOS (no plans for a Linux version however) when Adobe seem to struggle to get a half baked version of Photoshop on iPadOS.…
Lightroom is still irreplaceable so far for me and photography.
The distinction is basically in ease of use. What I've found is that Lightroom has a bunch of linear sliders that take you mostly through the range of what looks "good" photographically. You'll want to adjust contrast (for example) and each position of the slider will look good in its own way (though the end points obviously top out looking silly).
RawTherapee has a lot more multi-dimensional editing modes, and the vast majority of options in this multi-dimensional space make no sense at all photographically. The way Lightroom is programmed you basically get a little less control, but more expressivity, because when you change a slider the image tends to accurately reflect what you actually wanted the photograph to look like. Lightroom feels kind of magical like that, whereas you have to put in the hard work in RawTherapee. But it is quite usable, when it doesn't crash or fail to read your DNGs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, because i've never really understood, I see this a lot without much explanation. I've used gimp for years for various image and photo things and haven't used Photoshop since the mid 2000's, what's so bad about gimp in comparison, other than the ui(which to me seems much the same as old versions of photoshop), to Photoshop?
Personal and strongly-held opinion follows: The biggest drawback of GIMP is that it is the least intuitive software I or anyone I've asked in person has ever used. Basic operations like making selections, cropping, and moving selections or layers are a chore. The keyboard shortcuts don't make any sense, and the tool icons all look the same, so I wind up hovering over each one to find the dang crop tool in the first p…
Personally I find GIMP far more intuitive than Photoshop. The problem with GIMP for me is that most of the editing tools are pretty low quality, across the board. The text layer tool is terrible, the filters aren't very good, support for non-destructive editing is missing, the quality of edits are pretty bad - at least for a long time curve adjustments were done in 8 bits, leading to banding when trying to do almost any kind of significant adjustment. That might still be the case, it wouldn't surprise me.
From the article: "Yes, all of us know the text tool (in Krita) is horrible but at least it is a bit better than the last one which was just pure shit." Pinta also has a terrible text tool. It's so bad that sometimes the font selector disappears and you can't get it back. Generic problem with Linux image editors? I'd settle for something on Linux that works as well as Photoshop Elements from ten years ago.
So to get decent looking fonts in GIMP, I have to do this:
1. Render the fonts into a layer with 3x the final resolution, hinting disabled, and anti-aliasing enabled.
2. Use the desaturation filter to get rid of the terrible colorful pixels created by the anti-aliasing.
3. Scale the layer back down 3x to the final size I wanted.
The fact that this works proves there's no inherent reason why GIMP couldn't have good font rendering, but it's been a mess for as long as I can remember.
This has been my only argument for years for not switching to Linux. I've realized I haven't used Photoshop in more than two years now. I either work on projects where the designers provide me with already cut and ready to use props, or I work with people using Figma. My only argument now is that my Macbook is still working and I don't "have" to spend 2k on a Thinkpad. :)
Sweet jesus, don't get a thinkpad after having used a macbook. They are built of soft, grease-absorbing cheap plastic. People say 'oh, but thinkpads are so rebuildable'. Yeah. Because they degrade easily and are made of such cheap materials, they have to be. I bought a second hand dell laptop. Five years later bought a brand new thinkpad. Which do you think had to be repaired, and even with new parts still looks more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adobe actually did extensive market study regarding a PS Linux port. The conclusion was that there is basically zero demand for a PAID Photoshop. People do want PS on Linux,but they want a FREE version (sudo apt-get install photoshop)
zero demand for a PAID Photoshop? If that's what the study really concluded then it completely failed to take into account current customers who want to switch to linux. I would love to read more about that study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal and strongly-held opinion follows: The biggest drawback of GIMP is that it is the least intuitive software I or anyone I've asked in person has ever used. Basic operations like making selections, cropping, and moving selections or layers are a chore. The keyboard shortcuts don't make any sense, and the tool icons all look the same, so I wind up hovering over each one to find the dang crop tool in the first p…
> The biggest drawback of GIMP is that it is the least intuitive software I or anyone I've asked in person has ever used. Personally I find GIMP far more intuitive than Photoshop. The problem with GIMP for me is that most of the editing tools are pretty low quality, across the board. The text layer tool is terrible, the filters aren't very good, support for non-destructive editing is missing, the quality of edits are…
> Personally I find GIMP far more intuitive than Photoshop
Whew, we did it! I was worried for a few minutes, but we're still at 100% of GIMP/Photoshop comparisons containing this exchange in the comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Gimp wasn't completely terrible, despite the decades of work that's been put into it, I'd give that some weight. But it's just not good, and it's not going to be. Better to start over than keep throwing good money after bad.
I tried Gimp but from an UX Perspective it is just a horrible mess. Its ways are so idiosyncratic its unbelievable. Power to those who use it, but it is hardly surprising that it never gained traction in the graphics industry. Affinity Photo is the first true contender; It optimizes for reliable and recognizable workflow, and the devs are committing to keeping it lean. I wish there was an foss alternative, but there…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
zero demand for a PAID Photoshop? If that's what the study really concluded then it completely failed to take into account current customers who want to switch to linux. I would love to read more about that study.
"current customers who would switch to linux". Again, this is 0 incremental revenue but a ton of incremental costs to Adobe.