21–30 of 310 posts
Still no adjustment layers, still no layer styles. It’s so easy to just critique away…but really? Really? Those are just absolutely essential image editing software features. What have they been prioritizing ahead of that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its open source, so feel free to prioritise your own workload into making this feature.
Unless you are ideologically inclined, it would be a better use of your resources to just pay for photoshop. As much as it angers people on this website, the subscription model provides a constant stream of funding that has gone in to keeping the tool the best on the market and for anyone using it professionally, it delivers far more value than it's cost.
Subscription. Check. Paid add ons. Check. Paid color palette. Check and mark.
The biggest stain on FOSS, with the worst apologists, 27 years strong! Try drawing a circle, in the year 2022.
> The biggest stain on FOSS Pretty sure that program that is useful and usable, but not as much as you want, does not qualify for this description.
A needlessly polarizing/antagonizing name that they've refused to change? Check.
A user interface that no one but the developers could love or understand? Check.
A focus on knobs for users to tweak and being far behind the rest of the industry in basic usability improvements such as "auto levels" that have been table stakes for many years? Check.
Deflection of any criticism by saying "there's a plugin for that", when the plugin is probably locked in a filing cabinet in a basement closet with a sign saying "Beware of the Leopard" and another saying "only supported up to "? Check and check.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What have they been prioritizing ahead of that? There are very few active maintainers, what few there are have been scratching their own itches.
That's evident. I've used the tool periodically and I can't think of anything that's improved in the last 10 years. I think it actually got worse when they made all the icons greyscale and hid some under others. You still have 3 different tools for moving, resizing, and rotating when every other program has them all in one.
But it's just a bummer, not a source of anger/furor/vitriol for the project. I don't get why so many folks are talking shit like they didn't get their refund.
I congratulate them but after 27 years I'm still using and paying for Photoshop.
For it to have such a bad UX after 27 years is a feat in itself. I can't fathom that to this day people present it as an alternative to Photoshop where it's little more than an unusable Paint. I mean, photopea.com is free, developed by a single guy, and runs in the browser, and it's light years ahead of Gimp.
Yeah, it's not amazing, but Gimp is light years from Paint. Just removing background on stuff, crap like that, 80% of the graphics stuff people ask me for at work. It's not PS, it's not even Blender-levels of OSS, but it works alright.
Now, compositing and actual challenging graphical stuff, different story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you are ideologically inclined, it would be a better use of your resources to just pay for photoshop. As much as it angers people on this website, the subscription model provides a constant stream of funding that has gone in to keeping the tool the best on the market and for anyone using it professionally, it delivers far more value than it's cost.
I don't think you have to be ideologically inclined. Photoshop is already turning on the milking machine. Subscription. Check. Paid add ons. Check. Paid color palette. Check and mark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its open source, so feel free to prioritise your own workload into making this feature.
I don’t understand this recurring retort. Does it mean that to use a tool you must be capable of building it? Does it mean that to share criticism you must be able to build it? I’m thinking about applying this logic to the rest of life and it’s rather amusing to imagine the silence. Hmm, maybe that wouldn’t be so bad. I think one could more fairly say, “offer up money for someone to build the features you need” but I…
No, it means it's not a priority for those who are building it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What have they been prioritizing ahead of that? There are very few active maintainers, what few there are have been scratching their own itches.
That's evident. I've used the tool periodically and I can't think of anything that's improved in the last 10 years. I think it actually got worse when they made all the icons greyscale and hid some under others. You still have 3 different tools for moving, resizing, and rotating when every other program has them all in one.
There is one capable of doing the three now: "Unified Transform Tool" (Shift+T)
The grouping is welcome for me, but the grey icons are less easy to read indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its open source, so feel free to prioritise your own workload into making this feature.
I don’t understand this recurring retort. Does it mean that to use a tool you must be capable of building it? Does it mean that to share criticism you must be able to build it? I’m thinking about applying this logic to the rest of life and it’s rather amusing to imagine the silence. Hmm, maybe that wouldn’t be so bad. I think one could more fairly say, “offer up money for someone to build the features you need” but I…
The tool is free, so you are free to use it, and you are free not to. That is up to you. If you want a feature, please support the development woth either you cash or skill. Its that simple.