GIMP.
How do you feel about it? i know people were sometimes quite critical, it has different workflow than PS, but it seems it gets the job done.
How do you feel about it? i know people were sometimes quite critical, it has different workflow than PS, but it seems it gets the job done.
If GIMP had never existed maybe the Blender team or someone else who actually has passion for the problem would have made the Linux image editor and we'd be in such a better place.
GIMP is meets a lot of people's needs though (though we can always do that better). I'm in the process of transcribing interviews by GIMP's maintainer from professional artists who use GIMP and other free/libre software in their workflows, and it's really interesting to see what they're able to do.
This feels like it would behoove the project to pick a lane and tell the users which one of these it is supposed to be. You have a worse experience for all by trying to keep both camps happy, and also ceding one of these verticals would open up mindshare for another open-source project to step in and cover that instead
The "more like MS Paint" group tends to be longtime users who often prefer the destructive editing approach of GIMP 2. We try to respect people who currently use the software, while also trying to implement new features as intended on the roadmap.
Given the number of great open source art programs today, I don't think we're keeping anyone from doing anything. :)
Respectfully, I just re-read the gimp.org homepage, about page, and FAQ. The only relevant passage I found is the FAQ where it states that GIMP is not trying to be a photoshop replacement (but that people regularly misinterpret it as such).
That seems clear enough to me about our focus, though one thing I've learned since I've started contributing is that whatever you think is clear enough, probably isn't! (Hopefully that doesn't come across as sarcastic - I mean it sincerely. I've helped out with writing news posts and been amazed at seeing how people interpret sections I thought were perfectly clear. It's been a learning experience!)
Wow, that's a wild statement. I think you might be right. Though GIMP was responsible for GTK, which is now a critical part of most linux systems. I wonder where we'd be if not for GTK? Qt everywhere maybe?
As someone who picked the KDE side decades ago, I have to say that would be for the best.
For example, I used to use GIMP and became quite expert at it and would often swap between it and Photoshop. That changed when GIMP's developers removed the Fade feature (similar functionality as in Photoshop). The result is that they turned a perfectly functional program into a clunky mess that was ergonomically horrible to use. Using it was now like going from a modern auto gearbox back to a clunky manual.
Their rationale was that fading was better done by layers and such. Technically that's likely so (depending on what one's doing) but for the rest of us who were happy with the Photoshop-like Fade GIMP suddenly became useless.
GIMP's developers are more interested in some strange notion of technical purity than providing good ergonomic software that ordinary users can use. In short, GIMP's just a play toy for them, benefitting the opensource world isn't on their horizon.
Sure, as GIMP's developers they have the right to fuck up their software, what they don't have the right to do is fuck up bona fide users who've spent a large investment in learning the product by essentially making the product unusable.
Keep away from GIMP, as others have said there are much better alternatives now available.
If you're willing to test, is that comment correct - do the blending modes for filters work for you like Fade use to? If not, I'd be interested in learning more about what is lacking in the current version. Thanks!
I'll say that I got a lot of encouragement and help when I started working on non-destructive editing - there was definitely no one on the team dismissing it (except for some users, oddly enough)