Hacker News Reader

Comment by 29athrowaway | Hacker News Reader

I am very impressed. More featured than Gimp and Krita in some ways.

Feature counts are meaningless. There’s only like a dozen things in Photoshop you actually need. What counts is a smart, efficient UI with a good hierarchy and consistent arrangement. Gimp fails entirely at this, not any feature issues. I’d happily strip 80% of its features for an interface that doesn’t awkwardly overlap buttons at the least convenient moment.

Photopea instead copies Photoshop’s interface, which is its real asset.

The trick is that everyone needs a slightly different dozen features.

For me it's about how it comes closer to how I used Photoshop than I can with Krita or Gimp.

But neither Krita nor Gimp are supposed to be drop-in replacements for Photoshop anyway so that's okay.

Not having to install Gimp nor Krita is great, given all the disk space they occupy.

As an added bonus with Photopea I have to relearn GUI patterns nor shortcuts, I can apply what I've learned in years of PS usage.

This is an opportunity for FOSS, if the objective is to increase adoption from casual users. I wonder if the GIMP version that was made to look like PS is still a thing

The deb package for GIMP is like what 20MB? I won't count dependencies such as GTK here since they really wouldn't exist without the GIMP project.

When uncompressed and unpacked, GIMP is 112.25 MiB and Krita is 189.45 MiB on Arch. Which doesn't seem like a lot to me these days given their feature set, bundled stuff etc.

Meanwhile I can do without, by using my browser. What doesn't seem a lot to you in terms of resources and space is a blessing to those with more limited means.

For the vast majority globally speaking, wouldn't bandwidth be the limiting factor?

Also if you have a slower computer wouldn't running everything in Javascript be the last thing that you would want to do.

Furthermore if you where to measure RAM usage between the apps I bet GIMP would be far more conservative with the same load.

Also if you are editing images for a living 100 megabyte really isn't that much? Lets say you have RGB images of a resolution of 1920x1080. Sixteen or seventeen of this would be 100 MB already? If you are using layers you quite quickly reach this amount of storage. So the size of GIMP is really negligible.

The only definition of someone with more "limited means", where this would be better is someone who is using a chromebook but still has a 1st world tier internet connection. I'd be happy to be corrected if I am wrong however.

Such as?

In Photoshop / Photopea you can select a layer and add an effect such as stroke, shadow, etc. In Gimp, you can do the same with filters... The inconvenience to me is that filters are immediately rasterized, so the effect becomes harder to change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com