Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux doesn't have Photoshop

hellozee.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#111

Post by hellozee »

fbnlsr wrote: post #109
cairo_x wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're the first one to tell me not to get a Thinkpad. I've heard nothing but great things about them.

The newer thinkpads are meh, compared to what the older ones were

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#112

Post by michaelbrave »

Web based alternatives might eat Adobe's lunch here. Figma is gaining steam and the collaboration feature might be enough to win, photopea does about 80% of what I want photoshop to do (excepting especially large projects). The only real holdup is video editing since it takes quite a bit of resources.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#113

Post by Semiapies »

cthalupa wrote: post #100
jdjdjjsjs wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't appear this app is trying to be a straight up Photoshop replacement. If that's what people are looking for they can go to GIMP. So I don't see how that answer specifically indicates why people would be unhappy with the situation on Linux.

>It doesn't appear this app is trying to be a straight up Photoshop replacement. It isn't. It's an illustration tool. Which is why this article is kind of weird: An (excellent! I love krita!) adjacent tool exists, so why do people want the tool that fills a different purpose?

Probably because people keep posting articles like this one.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#114

Post by hellozee »

michaelbrave wrote: post #112

Web based alternatives might eat Adobe's lunch here. Figma is gaining steam and the collaboration feature might be enough to win, photopea does about 80% of what I want photoshop to do (excepting especially large projects). The only real holdup is video editing since it takes quite a bit of resources.

Figma is good, but Photopea is ... well, not bad but something feels missing from it.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#115

Post by hellozee »

Semiapies wrote: post #113
cthalupa wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It doesn't appear this app is trying to be a straight up Photoshop replacement. It isn't. It's an illustration tool. Which is why this article is kind of weird: An (excellent! I love krita!) adjacent tool exists, so why do people want the tool that fills a different purpose?

Probably because people keep posting articles like this one.

I never said Krita is a PS alternative, :P

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#116

Post by claudiawerner »

grawprog wrote: post #26
errantspark wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly because this person is incorrect in their supposition that Krita competes with Photoshop. Gimp competes with Photoshop (extremely poorly), Krita is OSS Corel Painter and it's great at that. They're all image editing tools sure, but the focus is different.

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?

Use Gimp's circle tool to create a circle. Create a new layer. Now, try and chance the dimensions of the circle itself rather than upscaling (and pixellating) it. As far as I know, this is not possible in Gimp, but it's expected in Photoshop.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#117

Post by cannedslime »

hellozee wrote: post #103
imglorp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what layers are for?

Take an example you scaled down and 1000x1000px image to 100x100px and then scaled it up back to 1000x1000px. In the process you lost a lot of info on the image. PS solves that by using Smart Objects, Krita by Transform Masks, GIMP? Nope

To be fair, photoshop didnt always do this. I still use CS2 and it definetely doesn't work like you describe.

I'd say that GIMP is somewhat comparable to the feature set of CS2, though I admit I havent used gimp much.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#118

Post by 6d65 »

Funny thing is that I wanted to buy the Affinity Suite a couple of weeks ago on black Friday sale, and gave up after finding out that it works poorly via Wine. Learned to do basic stuff with Gimp instead.

So far Gimp works well for my needs, it's slow, buggy, but still can work with it. Might configure a Windows VM with kvm passthrough if I desperately needed. Also web tools like figma look very interesting.

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#119

Post by hellozee »

cannedslime wrote: post #117
hellozee wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take an example you scaled down and 1000x1000px image to 100x100px and then scaled it up back to 1000x1000px. In the process you lost a lot of info on the image. PS solves that by using Smart Objects, Krita by Transform Masks, GIMP? Nope

To be fair, photoshop didnt always do this. I still use CS2 and it definetely doesn't work like you describe. I'd say that GIMP is somewhat comparable to the feature set of CS2, though I admit I havent used gimp much.

Smart Objects were introduced in CS2, so no, :)

Re: Linux doesn't have Photoshop

#120

Post by bscphil »

trynewideas wrote: post #88
bscphil wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> GIMP 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 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.

Well, that's not all that surprising, is it? The reason the response is required is because people who use Photoshop frequently feel that it's just obvious to everyone that GIMP's interface is bad, and they need to be reminded that quite a few people find it more simple and intuitive.

Other parts of the complaint don't make a lot of sense either. For example the complaint about the icons -- I agree, the default icons are completely unintelligible. But GIMP ships with alternative icon sets, several of which are far easier for me to use and discern.

As someone who does use Photoshop sometimes, and still uses Lightroom as my primary tool for photography, I still prefer GIMP and its simple interface for quick edits.

Post reply on HN