4 ms·

I've tried to use GIMP over several years but never got used to it. Things like resizing and transforming layers, applying filters, etc. are too cumbersome. Man

I've tried to use GIMP over several years but never got used to it. Things like resizing and transforming layers, applying filters, etc. are too cumbersome. Many tools also don't have a live preview, which means there's many attempts before getting the needed result. Now I'm back to Photoshop CS3 from 11 years ago, yet many years ahead of today's GIMP. It has smart objects and filters, layer effects, live previews and the very good UI means I can get things done much faster.

zzzcpan 9y ago
Well, Gimp was never a replacement for photoshop.
- Joeboy 9y ago
  I googled "Photoshop alternative" and GIMP was suggested in the first five hits (I stopped checking after that). There's this annoying FLOSS motte-and-bailey conversation that you see over and over again that starts with "X is a Free replacement for Y!" and ends with "Why don't you fix it yourself then?", via "Nobody ever said X was a replacement for Y".
  - pavs 9y ago
    An alternative option for PS is not same as being feature parity replacement of PS. PS is a commercial image editor owned by a company with billions of dollars and many years worth of commercial development and improvements - it is used by a very specific group of users with specific needs and specific skills. And they don't mind paying a hefty fee for it. GIMP (and other similar OS projects) is for everyone else, who wants to do light image editing in an amateur setting without having to pay a large amount for it. Having said that - GIMP has some very powerful features that are as good as PS, but not a feature parity replacement of it. Nor do I think GIMP has the funding or the development mind-share to achieve that.
    - dagw 9y ago
      GIMP (and other similar OS projects) is for everyone else, who wants to do light image editing in an amateur setting without having to pay a large amount for it Except that isn't really true either. If you want to do "light image editing in an amateur setting" GIMP is massive overkill, and there are plenty of easier to use tools. GIMP lives in a strange limbo between not 'light' enough for light work and not heavy enough for 'heavy' work.
      - pavs 9y ago
        Yes, there are a lot of lighter image editing options out there, and most of them are even free. But at least my understanding is that GIMP is still predominantly used by amateurs. I didn't say it's the only option, it's one of the more powerful image editing options for amateurs.
- emidln 9y ago
  It was for me. I'm not a professional photographer and I learned GIMP first (because it was free and worked on Linux). GIMP was never lacking anything I needed for some light amateur work or web dev work. Photoshop might be easier to use from 0, but anything that was moderately complicated or repetitive I simply scripted away. I have almost 18 years of script-fu plugins written in Scheme and Python.
seba_dos1 9y ago
On the other side, I learned GIMP as my first graphics editor quite easily, while I got lost every time I sat with Photoshop to do even the simplest things. I work in a team of two on a game with an artist that uses Photoshop and as I sometimes look behind their arm, I see lots of UI conventions that GIMP just does so much better and easier, especially when it comes to selecting and placing stuff around. However, I do envy some of the features like live effects on layers that would actually make my life as GIMP user so much easier; and using effects in GIMP generally isn't as pleasant as it should be. For me it looks like both come with their own strengths and weaknesses and both would benefit from copying some ideas from each other.

zzzcpan 9y ago

Well, Gimp was never a replacement for photoshop.

Joeboy 9y ago
I googled "Photoshop alternative" and GIMP was suggested in the first five hits (I stopped checking after that). There's this annoying FLOSS motte-and-bailey conversation that you see over and over again that starts with "X is a Free replacement for Y!" and ends with "Why don't you fix it yourself then?", via "Nobody ever said X was a replacement for Y".
- pavs 9y ago
  An alternative option for PS is not same as being feature parity replacement of PS. PS is a commercial image editor owned by a company with billions of dollars and many years worth of commercial development and improvements - it is used by a very specific group of users with specific needs and specific skills. And they don't mind paying a hefty fee for it. GIMP (and other similar OS projects) is for everyone else, who wants to do light image editing in an amateur setting without having to pay a large amount for it. Having said that - GIMP has some very powerful features that are as good as PS, but not a feature parity replacement of it. Nor do I think GIMP has the funding or the development mind-share to achieve that.
  - dagw 9y ago
    GIMP (and other similar OS projects) is for everyone else, who wants to do light image editing in an amateur setting without having to pay a large amount for it Except that isn't really true either. If you want to do "light image editing in an amateur setting" GIMP is massive overkill, and there are plenty of easier to use tools. GIMP lives in a strange limbo between not 'light' enough for light work and not heavy enough for 'heavy' work.
    - pavs 9y ago
      Yes, there are a lot of lighter image editing options out there, and most of them are even free. But at least my understanding is that GIMP is still predominantly used by amateurs. I didn't say it's the only option, it's one of the more powerful image editing options for amateurs.
emidln 9y ago
It was for me. I'm not a professional photographer and I learned GIMP first (because it was free and worked on Linux). GIMP was never lacking anything I needed for some light amateur work or web dev work. Photoshop might be easier to use from 0, but anything that was moderately complicated or repetitive I simply scripted away. I have almost 18 years of script-fu plugins written in Scheme and Python.

seba_dos1 9y ago

On the other side, I learned GIMP as my first graphics editor quite easily, while I got lost every time I sat with Photoshop to do even the simplest things. I work in a team of two on a game with an artist that uses Photoshop and as I sometimes look behind their arm, I see lots of UI conventions that GIMP just does so much better and easier, especially when it comes to selecting and placing stuff around. However, I do envy some of the features like live effects on layers that would actually make my life as GIMP user so much easier; and using effects in GIMP generally isn't as pleasant as it should be. For me it looks like both come with their own strengths and weaknesses and both would benefit from copying some ideas from each other.