71–80 of 220 posts
Gimp is shit. It has always been shit and likely will always be shit. The UI is made by Satan himself and it is much closer to Paint than to Photoshop in terms of feature coverage. There's absolutely no reason to use Gimp when https://www.photopea.com/ exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a lot of very confident assertions. > you do decide to actively go against it for decades because you like doing things your way Perhaps there's a good reason why a developer or a group of developers decide to do things a certain way. > This is why Krita is sweeping the floor with gimp Aside from the fact that these programs are intended for pretty different things, the impression I have is that GIMP has a mu…
Oh wow, I wasn't aware how small the share of GNOME usage is on Arch. The trend is clear too. Case in point, it seems.
Krita is so much more accessible than GIMP. Only Gimp devs would love Gimps interface. Just the existence of Gimp seems like so much effort flushed down the toilet because of someone's bad, bad taste and incredibly poor user interface design
Gimp is shit. It has always been shit and likely will always be shit. The UI is made by Satan himself and it is much closer to Paint than to Photoshop in terms of feature coverage. There's absolutely no reason to use Gimp when https://www.photopea.com/ exists.
GIMP gets the work done. I've never had an issue I couldn't address with its tools, but it's clear the UI was crafted by coders. I'm glad for this approach.
1. GIMP needs a total UX overhaul 2. GIMP needs RAW support, precision support, and a better data backbone 3. GIMP needs a rename. It's both a sex kink term [1] (not to yuck anyone's yums) and a slur term for disabled people [2] 4. Gen AI will probably disrupt all of this anyway. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I8S3ZHQ [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gimp
People use Photoshop for sheer capability, not for the layout, naming conventions and shortcuts.
Time to bring back again the (true) story of when I was working at uni and they were looking for another graphic designer to join our team. Boss told us one of the candidates refused to do the test because the computer didn't have Photoshop installed. All they needed to do with an image editor was to crop an image. I really think most people use Photoshop for the same reason they use Windows - they don't really know/…
The argument over the UI in GIMP and Photoshop is actually based on the kind of "false" premise that Photoshop has a "superior" UI. It reminds of my first experience using macOS, as a long time Windows user. The first few months on macOS was a totally frustrating and negative experience for me - "What the ...? why does the ENTER key not open files or folders? Why is it going to 'rename' mode? Why doesn't double-click…
For example, let's say I added a text block to an image. I then select the text layer, there's a box drawn around the text, and I try moving the text around with the move tool. In every other image editor I've used, this will move the text around, but in GIMP this will move the background layer around unless you specifically click on the text and not just inside the box (which can be difficult depending on the font you used). Every aspect of using GIMP works like this. Everything is implemented in a counterintuitive manner. The closest analogue I can think of is it's like figuring out how to play old versions of Dwarf Fortress from before they overhauled the UI for the Steam release.