111–120 of 130 posts
[1]: http://www.flyingmeat.com/acorn/ [2]: http://www.bohemiancoding.com/sketch/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear this stuff all the time. So this is my own canned response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6675258 > it has a ways to go before it will actually be a competitor. And it doesn't have a few features that I find incredibly invaluable as an Evernote user: [list of features snipped out] As an Octave developer, I frequently hear exactly the same things about Octave vs Matlab, and if I listen too closely, I fin…
Instead of the GIMP limping along behind PhotoShop, both dragging their decades-old legacy baggage, monolithic architectures, 1990s pricing models, etc., into the foreseeable future, I wish we had something more like Octave, SQLite, or Python: a powerful, faceless dev platform on which to build graphics-processing apps. Basically, a runtime that holds a GPU-optimal image model (raster layers, vector layers, non-destr…
The naïveté of a budding hacker.
Great UIs are done by experts too, young padawan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ex-Gimp User here. The article does point out that most photographer workflows are in their raw editors. You get Non Destructive Editing with tools like Darktable in Linux. Non destructive editing helps to improve your productivity. It's similar to making code changes knowing you have a revision system behind and to when you don't. That being said non destructive doesn't make you a better retoucher, it's there to sav…
"Usability" never seems to mean anything specific, but rather whatever the speaker has in mind as a personal taste. In this case, my best guess is that you mean "UI works exactly like Photoshop"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying this stuff is easy. I'm saying professionals (people who are skilled in non-easy stuff) know what they want and just do it. Probably there are just many people out there who using PS and aren't professionals, which is okay...
I note that it has taken you - so far - two attempts to make your point ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could be wrong too however we are both just stating opinions and mine is proven to work eventually so why am I being downvoted?
Because "code it if you know how or pay someone to code it" is not an answer when talking about software and lack of features, even if it's OSS. OSS software is built by its community of developers, not by its community of users (even if those overlap a little, the second is many orders of magnitude bigger). So when someone criticizes it that it lacks feature X, telling them to "code it" themselves is not really help…
Krita may have a different aim on paper, but that just looks like a way to avoid conflict with the GIMP devs until it's clear to absolutely everyone that they've replaced it. One of the real shockers with the GIMP is how badly it plays with Ubuntu's Unity, where the menubar will get emptied whenever you change something in a non-image editor window.
I thought Krita might fit the bill, but apparently it only has support for Windows and Linux. Much sadness.
EDIT: never mind, just seen the Pixelmator rec lower down - problem solved I guess!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear this stuff all the time. So this is my own canned response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6675258 > it has a ways to go before it will actually be a competitor. And it doesn't have a few features that I find incredibly invaluable as an Evernote user: [list of features snipped out] As an Octave developer, I frequently hear exactly the same things about Octave vs Matlab, and if I listen too closely, I fin…
Instead of the GIMP limping along behind PhotoShop, both dragging their decades-old legacy baggage, monolithic architectures, 1990s pricing models, etc., into the foreseeable future, I wish we had something more like Octave, SQLite, or Python: a powerful, faceless dev platform on which to build graphics-processing apps. Basically, a runtime that holds a GPU-optimal image model (raster layers, vector layers, non-destr…
You would be surprised at what can be done in code. You would also be surprised at how much of the stuff that can be done in code is done the time consuming way by people with expensive Photoshop rigs.
So, to a certain extend a lot of what you desire can already be done with code. However there is not one single 'graphic artist' degree where such possibilities could be entertained, plus programmers are not allowed to touch images under any circumstances whatsoever. There is a rift valley between programmers and graphic artists, a deep cultural one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of the GIMP limping along behind PhotoShop, both dragging their decades-old legacy baggage, monolithic architectures, 1990s pricing models, etc., into the foreseeable future, I wish we had something more like Octave, SQLite, or Python: a powerful, faceless dev platform on which to build graphics-processing apps. Basically, a runtime that holds a GPU-optimal image model (raster layers, vector layers, non-destr…
> I'd so much rather have a platform like this, where the hardest part--the image engine--would be done by experts, and the apps themselves, the feature sets, the UIs, could then be built by hordes of amateurs. The naïveté of a budding hacker. Great UIs are done by experts too, young padawan.
Yes, they are, but that doesn't preclude building the underlying data model and functionality as a common platform with shared tools. It also doesn't mean that building that platform and implementing a comprehensive range of functionality isn't a much more demanding task than building a UI on top if you've already got a good foundation.
No doubt there is plenty of hard work to go around, but I think the idea of building more software with this kind of strategy has a lot of potential. It could save on the donkey work for everyone, leaving different developers to focus on the interesting/useful/distinctive aspects for different projects, while retaining some degree of compatibility and robust basic functionality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Usability" never seems to mean anything specific, but rather whatever the speaker has in mind as a personal taste. In this case, my best guess is that you mean "UI works exactly like Photoshop"
I use Gimp professionally for UI and web work, and it does have some UI difficulties. The biggest for me is the haphazard arrangement of tool icons. It sometimes takes me ages to find the right icon because they aren't categorized and don't have a coherent style.
Edit -> Preferences -> Toolbox -> Tools Configuration
And also learn key shortcuts.
This was posted to reddit a couple weeks back, and I'll repeat the same comment I made there. "I spend about 90% of my time in Lightroom and only 10% in Photoshop." This is why he was able to do this. He isn't using the functionality that Photoshop provides, he's using the functionality that Photoshop Essentials provides. Look at his parity instructions - every feature is found in Photoshop Essentials. If that's all…
>He isn't using the functionality that Photoshop provides And since that is the same for the vast majority of photoshop users, he provided a super helpful guide for them. It does not say "how everyone can switch to gimp".
I do very straightforward digital art and manipulation and I'd put my head in an oven before trying to do it in GIMP, and I am not using anything complex.