31–40 of 98 posts
GIMP is an icon of open-source software, but do any professional designers use it full-time over Photoshop? Compare with Sketch, which has taken scores of users from Illustrator.
unlikely, while a certainly poewrful piece of software that can do much of what photoshop can (in the 2D realm), it has no support for 3D work, real vector support, active filters (this is a huge one in traditional 2D work, esp icons/logos)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
unlikely, while a certainly poewrful piece of software that can do much of what photoshop can (in the 2D realm), it has no support for 3D work, real vector support, active filters (this is a huge one in traditional 2D work, esp icons/logos)
The one feature that breaks it for me for professional work is that filters happen to a layer instead of being attached to them an are able to be changed on a whim. It's impossible to do any real work if you have to render and re-render every shadow on every text and object when its size changes. I think I could do without everything else but that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get aoloe 's reaction though. Whenever someone posts something cool about Gimp, invariably a bunch of “yeah it's free, but it's not Adobe Photoshop is it?” comments pop up. Why should we care? Why not judge it on its own merits? This reminds me of how a lot of people used to respond to the notion of using GNU/Linux distributions as free operating systems suitable for day-to-day desktop use. Sure, I get why not ever…
> why does every bit of positive news or cool achievement have to get accompanied by dozens of comments by authors directly comparing it to a commercially available alternative, stating that they'd use it if only it did this and if only it looked more like that? In this case, it's because Gimp is frequently claimed to be a Photoshop alternative. For most Photoshop users, that isn't really true, and it's very reasonab…
Gimp 2.8 frustrated me: I could no longer open a .png, edit it and easily resave it back to .png. The Gimp developers knew better and made the UI strongly favor saving as .xcf, which makes sense in some use-cases, but not mine. I found this fix, which made quick uses of GIMP less painful for me: http://shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/ I'm assuming the new save behavior persists in Gimp 2.9.x, but I don't know.
I realize that this is common UX jargon, but is it literally "painful" to click "File->Export" rather than "File->Save"?
I frequently hear front-end developer peers arguing that it's "painful" to read 10 or 20 lines of XML. Back-end peers retort that it's more "painful" to look at large complex structures in JSON.
There's a hundred other cases in which this comes up. Are people really walking around in crippling pain, due to various software having trivial differences from their ideal preference?
Gimp 2.8 frustrated me: I could no longer open a .png, edit it and easily resave it back to .png. The Gimp developers knew better and made the UI strongly favor saving as .xcf, which makes sense in some use-cases, but not mine. I found this fix, which made quick uses of GIMP less painful for me: http://shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/ I'm assuming the new save behavior persists in Gimp 2.9.x, but I don't know.
> less painful for me I realize that this is common UX jargon, but is it literally "painful" to click "File->Export" rather than "File->Save"? I frequently hear front-end developer peers arguing that it's "painful" to read 10 or 20 lines of XML. Back-end peers retort that it's more "painful" to look at large complex structures in JSON. There's a hundred other cases in which this comes up. Are people really walking ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> less painful for me I realize that this is common UX jargon, but is it literally "painful" to click "File->Export" rather than "File->Save"? I frequently hear front-end developer peers arguing that it's "painful" to read 10 or 20 lines of XML. Back-end peers retort that it's more "painful" to look at large complex structures in JSON. There's a hundred other cases in which this comes up. Are people really walking ar…
Possibly, the more clicking needed to achieve a task does put more strain on your hands which can cause pain. I believe this is why for example VI key bindings are designed to reduce the distance your hands must extend for most common tasks. Reading extra text, XML or JSON can also cause additional eye strain... I think that is why it's okay to describe UX in terms of less or more pain...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly, the more clicking needed to achieve a task does put more strain on your hands which can cause pain. I believe this is why for example VI key bindings are designed to reduce the distance your hands must extend for most common tasks. Reading extra text, XML or JSON can also cause additional eye strain... I think that is why it's okay to describe UX in terms of less or more pain...
It's the same amount of clicking, just that 'save' and 'export' do different things.
No it wasn't literally painful. But frustrating. Nearly as frustrating as people not accepting that people legitimately use software in different ways.
Gimp 2.8 frustrated me: I could no longer open a .png, edit it and easily resave it back to .png. The Gimp developers knew better and made the UI strongly favor saving as .xcf, which makes sense in some use-cases, but not mine. I found this fix, which made quick uses of GIMP less painful for me: http://shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/ I'm assuming the new save behavior persists in Gimp 2.9.x, but I don't know.
> less painful for me I realize that this is common UX jargon, but is it literally "painful" to click "File->Export" rather than "File->Save"? I frequently hear front-end developer peers arguing that it's "painful" to read 10 or 20 lines of XML. Back-end peers retort that it's more "painful" to look at large complex structures in JSON. There's a hundred other cases in which this comes up. Are people really walking ar…
there are plugins to turn it back
GIMP is an icon of open-source software, but do any professional designers use it full-time over Photoshop? Compare with Sketch, which has taken scores of users from Illustrator.
PS allows moving around a few sliders while looking at the screen to see how things change and nail it when the results look visually good. I bet that is critical for most PS users. It is for me. I paid for an (educational) PS license just so I can edit my photos before I print them and hang them on a wall.
One example: doing levels. One slider move back and forth to see which areas are overblown in each channel. One extra keypress to switch between final result and overblown only. That, to me, is so powerful. I can decide on the fly, "well, I lost detail in yellow channel here, but extra detail there is clearly worth it".
I am sure GIMP is great in many ways, but I guess their target user group is different. Their interface just does not work well for me (and I did try), they focus at different things, etc.
I hate Adobe (both their licensing and privacy policies), but CS is just so good. It is one of the three programs for which I still have a Windows partition on my computer (I do most of my work in Linux).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, you want the longer answer? I know several professional designers who only (or mostly) use free software. Gimp inclusive. They do this as a matter of choice. And there are many more professional designers, who use free software for parts of their workflow. They do it, for many different reasons, but mostly because it just happens to fit their needs. Some of them use Gimp. If you would have read the article linked…
Well, only a shoddy craftsman blames his tools, but if you work in a design or ad agency everyone uses the Adobe monoculture because no one wants to deal with potential asset pipeline hickups when under tight deadlines. I'm sure there's freelancers who prefer gimp, but in the industry it's far from accepted, most designers will only know it exists but won't bother trying because they've been cosy with PS for over a d…