6 ms·

> it's more than 'just' a Photoshop alternative. Can you elaborate on that? With Photoshop being relatively cheap to use only when I need it, I have a hard tim

> it's more than 'just' a Photoshop alternative. Can you elaborate on that? With Photoshop being relatively cheap to use only when I need it, I have a hard time supporting an Open Source tool that never seems to meet my needs. What am I missing?

krapp 9y ago
Photoshop, along with other Adobe software, now uses a subscription based model which users may not be able to justify, unless they're a student or professional constantly using it and recouping the cost. Adobe also links all of your software and access to your data with a single account password which the company has proven incapable of managing securely. So those are two good reasons to use Gimp - no recurring fees and no worries about the cloud. Although the best reason not to use Gimp, albeit an unfair one from Gimp's point of view (but still relevant,) is the degree of lock-in to proprietary Adobe formats and tools that pervades the graphics, editing and design professions. >I have a hard time supporting an Open Source tool that never seems to meet my needs. What am I missing? Simply having a decent, free alternative to Photoshop should be worth something.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  > Adobe also links all of your software and access to your data with a single account password which the company has proven incapable of managing securely. I’m not defending the Creative Cloud model, but you don’t have to save your data in the cloud. It’s just like how Apple has iCloud and Microsoft has OneDrive. Sure, you can save your data in the cloud, but you don’t have to.
- NiveaGeForce 9y ago
  Nowadays there are great alternatives such as Affinity Photo.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
I've met a good deal of digital artists that use GIMP exclusively - I think this is in part because Photoshop has always been out of many people's budgets and even more so since they've moved to a subscription-based service. Choices are then down to illegal copies or using open-source software, of which GIMP is generally considered the Photoshop competitor. If anything, I like the program because it brings such things to a much larger portion of the population than photoshop ever can with their price model. It seems to have a larger learning curve and some things are add-ons, but a few things work differently or not as well. I think this is the main drawback, and probably what you are finding when you realize it doesn't seem to meet your needs. Most folks seem to get over this once the familiarity kicks in and they get the add-ons they need... well, added on. Additionally, GIMP can be used across platforms and this is really helpful to some folks. I don't know how it compares to Apple's artistic products as I've never used them. I personally use Paint.net for light photo processing - mostly because I've used it for years. When I started, I needed a lightweight program to make simple things since I had a crappy computer. Of course, most of my needs are lightly editing photos of physical artwork and adding borders (because the borders look nice in the digital format). I keep GIMP installed on my computers, though, and my spouse uses GIMP for his digital work on his computers.
- h1d 9y ago
  > Choices are then down to illegal copies Didn't know that was even a choice... Seriously, if you're creating something, you wouldn't think about riping off someone else's creation. If you don't like the pricing, there are plenty of alternatives, especially on Mac and Windows.
  - door 9y ago
    piracy is good. i have no qualms pirating software from a company with highly unethical business practices.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    I think you are confusing ripping off someone's creation and stealing a tool used to create. Photoshop is no different from stealing paint, paper, paintbrushes, woodworking tools, pencils, pens, and so on. People might be able to tell what tool you used to create the work, but they won't be able to tell if the copy was legal, illegal, or if you used a borrowed computer - just like the physical tools. Besides, not all the tools are good enough. Not everyone can buy tools. Hence the listing of the free tools, including the fairly common practice of having an illegal copy of photoshop (or other creative software). It is a commonly known issue to Adobe itself.
BeetleB 9y ago
It's not my place to convince you to use GIMP. Either you do power stuff and Photoshop suits your needs better than GIMP, or you are not aware of GIMP's features (or you don't do power stuff). However, I do want to point out that $120/year is not cheap. For me, personally: I prefer not having to deal with WINE. GIMP is fairly powerful, even if it is a pain. It is the only alternative to Photoshop in the open source world. And 10 years ago, I would have said the only alternative, period. Many of the commercial alternatives were worse than GIMP.
- drewbuschhorn 9y ago
  You don't like Krita? I've been pretty happy with it, and it makes me want to scream at my screen less than the GIMP.
  - jacoblambda 9y ago
    I find that Krita is better for design work while GIMP tends to be better suited for editing.
  - BeetleB 9y ago
    When I last looked at it (admittedly years ago), it was missing quite a lot of features that you can get as scripts/plugins for GIMP. As an example, does Krita have the equivalent of Liquid Rescale? Or denoising? (Actually, just looked up and Krita does now have an equivalent of Liquid Rescale) As someone already pointed out, they are apps for different intents. Krita is not trying to work in the same space as GIMP/Photoshop. Assuming the stuff in https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/66gl8h/what_can_gimp_do_that_krita_cant/?st=j8rq5bk8&sh=a81f76f1 https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/66gl8h/what_can_gimp... is still true: >There doesn't seem to be any way to work with individual color channels nor create custom channels (from selections or whatever) in Krita. Ouch! I]m not anti-Krita or anything. If it becomes good enough to do the tasks I usually do in GIMP (which frankly is not much!), then I'll happily switch.

krapp 9y ago

Photoshop, along with other Adobe software, now uses a subscription based model which users may not be able to justify, unless they're a student or professional constantly using it and recouping the cost. Adobe also links all of your software and access to your data with a single account password which the company has proven incapable of managing securely. So those are two good reasons to use Gimp - no recurring fees and no worries about the cloud. Although the best reason not to use Gimp, albeit an unfair one from Gimp's point of view (but still relevant,) is the degree of lock-in to proprietary Adobe formats and tools that pervades the graphics, editing and design professions. >I have a hard time supporting an Open Source tool that never seems to meet my needs. What am I missing? Simply having a decent, free alternative to Photoshop should be worth something.

colejohnson66 9y ago
> Adobe also links all of your software and access to your data with a single account password which the company has proven incapable of managing securely. I’m not defending the Creative Cloud model, but you don’t have to save your data in the cloud. It’s just like how Apple has iCloud and Microsoft has OneDrive. Sure, you can save your data in the cloud, but you don’t have to.
NiveaGeForce 9y ago
Nowadays there are great alternatives such as Affinity Photo.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

I've met a good deal of digital artists that use GIMP exclusively - I think this is in part because Photoshop has always been out of many people's budgets and even more so since they've moved to a subscription-based service. Choices are then down to illegal copies or using open-source software, of which GIMP is generally considered the Photoshop competitor. If anything, I like the program because it brings such things to a much larger portion of the population than photoshop ever can with their price model. It seems to have a larger learning curve and some things are add-ons, but a few things work differently or not as well. I think this is the main drawback, and probably what you are finding when you realize it doesn't seem to meet your needs. Most folks seem to get over this once the familiarity kicks in and they get the add-ons they need... well, added on. Additionally, GIMP can be used across platforms and this is really helpful to some folks. I don't know how it compares to Apple's artistic products as I've never used them. I personally use Paint.net for light photo processing - mostly because I've used it for years. When I started, I needed a lightweight program to make simple things since I had a crappy computer. Of course, most of my needs are lightly editing photos of physical artwork and adding borders (because the borders look nice in the digital format). I keep GIMP installed on my computers, though, and my spouse uses GIMP for his digital work on his computers.

h1d 9y ago
> Choices are then down to illegal copies Didn't know that was even a choice... Seriously, if you're creating something, you wouldn't think about riping off someone else's creation. If you don't like the pricing, there are plenty of alternatives, especially on Mac and Windows.
- door 9y ago
  piracy is good. i have no qualms pirating software from a company with highly unethical business practices.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  I think you are confusing ripping off someone's creation and stealing a tool used to create. Photoshop is no different from stealing paint, paper, paintbrushes, woodworking tools, pencils, pens, and so on. People might be able to tell what tool you used to create the work, but they won't be able to tell if the copy was legal, illegal, or if you used a borrowed computer - just like the physical tools. Besides, not all the tools are good enough. Not everyone can buy tools. Hence the listing of the free tools, including the fairly common practice of having an illegal copy of photoshop (or other creative software). It is a commonly known issue to Adobe itself.

BeetleB 9y ago

It's not my place to convince you to use GIMP. Either you do power stuff and Photoshop suits your needs better than GIMP, or you are not aware of GIMP's features (or you don't do power stuff). However, I do want to point out that $120/year is not cheap. For me, personally: I prefer not having to deal with WINE. GIMP is fairly powerful, even if it is a pain. It is the only alternative to Photoshop in the open source world. And 10 years ago, I would have said the only alternative, period. Many of the commercial alternatives were worse than GIMP.

drewbuschhorn 9y ago
You don't like Krita? I've been pretty happy with it, and it makes me want to scream at my screen less than the GIMP.
- jacoblambda 9y ago
  I find that Krita is better for design work while GIMP tends to be better suited for editing.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  When I last looked at it (admittedly years ago), it was missing quite a lot of features that you can get as scripts/plugins for GIMP. As an example, does Krita have the equivalent of Liquid Rescale? Or denoising? (Actually, just looked up and Krita does now have an equivalent of Liquid Rescale) As someone already pointed out, they are apps for different intents. Krita is not trying to work in the same space as GIMP/Photoshop. Assuming the stuff in https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/66gl8h/what_can_gimp_do_that_krita_cant/?st=j8rq5bk8&sh=a81f76f1 https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/66gl8h/what_can_gimp... is still true: >There doesn't seem to be any way to work with individual color channels nor create custom channels (from selections or whatever) in Krita. Ouch! I]m not anti-Krita or anything. If it becomes good enough to do the tasks I usually do in GIMP (which frankly is not much!), then I'll happily switch.