3 ms·
For some simple photo manipulation Gimp works - but it seems a lot harder to use. Plus it's missing non-destructive adjustment layers, and the brush engine is n
by ctrl-j 7y ago
For some simple photo manipulation Gimp works - but it seems a lot harder to use. Plus it's missing non-destructive adjustment layers, and the brush engine is nowhere near as advanced as photoshop.
Inkscape is similar - everything is a little harder to do - and there's some basic things that don't seem to be in the application at all. Does Inkscape support multiple artboards yet? What about exporting multiple resolutions without duplicating the assets? The symbol support also was very lackluster when I used it last.
Krita lags horribly every time I've tried to use it.
I like the notion that there are open source replacements for these systems.. and I'd love to drop my $50+ per month subscription - but the alternatives aren't yet equivalents.
- komali2 7y agoYou're not wrong, but we all know why it's not better: nobody's paying to make it better, so the only way to get it better is via adoption and a larger community actively trying to make it better. Basically, yes, it hurts, but maybe try using it more? It's certainly better than nothing, which is what we may have if, I dunno, Adobe collapses or something crazy and all our Photoshop licenses suddenly stop working.
- Avamander 7y agoYou can use such stuff more if you don't want to be productive, and this is coming from a 100% Linux user for nearly half of my life. Unless you write code then the contributions are basically useless.
- yellowapple 7y ago> but it seems a lot harder to use I actually feel the exact opposite - it's easier to use than Photoshop - but that's probably because I used GIMP before I ever had access to Photoshop. 100% agree about Inkscape, though.