5 ms·

gIMP isn't remotely at the same power as Photoshop. Photoshop's non destructive editing layers, layer effects, smart layers, and 100s of other features are no w

gIMP isn't remotely at the same power as Photoshop. Photoshop's non destructive editing layers, layer effects, smart layers, and 100s of other features are no where to be seen in gIMP. It's almost like comparing Notepad to VSCode or MS Word. gIMP's FAQ says they are trying to add that stuff to gIMP in gIMP 3.2 but it's been part of Photoshop since like 2003 https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#when-will-gimp-support-any-kind-of-non-destructive-editing-like-adjustment-layers-layer-filters-andor-full-blown-node-based-editing https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#when-will-gimp-suppor... I don't know what other analogy to make but it's a hugely powerful feature and arguably essential feature which basically puts Photoshop in a separate category from gIMP, at least until they add it to gIMP

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
boogies 6y ago
> It's almost like comparing Notepad to VSCode or MS Word That's pretty hyperbolic. It's not like GIMP doesn't have basic layers, blend modes, etc. And Krita seems to have better non-destructive editing than GIMP. I don't think GIMP is going to blow Photoshop out of the water anytime soon, or is even too close to as competitive in its area as Blender is in 3D, but I've used Photoshop and Illustrator for maybe 50 hours and Photoshop wasn't drastically better than GIMP for basic stuff, composing a simple photoreal scene from individual photos, simple graphic design, etc.
- gfxgirl 6y ago
  To be blunt, if that's your impression then you don't know how to use photoshop. If you did you'd understand the vast and extreme differences in capabilities. I don't have a good easy analogy to make but the two pieces of software, Photoshop and gIMP are not remotely in the same league.
  - boogies 6y ago
    If that’s your impression you either can’t understand my comment or won’t / are trolling. I took a high school class taught by a professional graphic designer, using PS and Illustrator. I’m not claiming that’s my career now, but not everyone uses Photoshop as a fulltime job, and GIMP's good enough for plenty of use cases (eg. a one-person team indie game with art made entirely with it) (and can do stuff PS can't easily do with better scripting).
    - GrammarCommie 6y ago
      Simply put, a FLOSS alternative to professional software isn't an alternative if it's unable to be used professionally. The barrier for freelance and hobbyist work isn't people's concerns with dethroning these proprietary applications. Can you get hired at a large studio with Blender on your resume? Absolutely. And Krita is slowly heading down a similar path. GIMP, on the other hand, is dead-set on being relegated to a corner for FLOSS purists. It still doesn't have a complete CMYK workflow. It can't compete with Photoshop, and its authors have stated they don't want to compete. And until something comes along that can, people will continue to learn and use the proprietary option first and foremost.
      - boogies 6y ago
        This seems mostly true, but on “a FLOSS alternative to professional software isn't an alternative if it's unable to be used professionally”: Photoshop is not exclusively professional software. Last I knew, it costed $10 a month. That's a serious barrier to entry to exceptionally poor residents of slums within developing countries, like the disabled boy who lifted himself out of poverty with GIMP and other FLOSS (https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-software-gimp.html#content https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-software-gimp.html#content), but it's basically pocket change to privileged people in the first world like plenty of YouTubers I've seen use PS as part of hobbies like tiny indie gamedev. This seems like an OK niche for GIMP to target while Krita gets more professional. It's tempting to want them to unite and make one raster editor to rule them all, but it doesn't seem necessary. GIMP doesn't seem to need dedicated full time devs and effort comparable to 3D software, which is more inherently complex and in proprietary form is licensed for orders of magnitude more money than PS.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

boogies 6y ago

> It's almost like comparing Notepad to VSCode or MS Word That's pretty hyperbolic. It's not like GIMP doesn't have basic layers, blend modes, etc. And Krita seems to have better non-destructive editing than GIMP. I don't think GIMP is going to blow Photoshop out of the water anytime soon, or is even too close to as competitive in its area as Blender is in 3D, but I've used Photoshop and Illustrator for maybe 50 hours and Photoshop wasn't drastically better than GIMP for basic stuff, composing a simple photoreal scene from individual photos, simple graphic design, etc.

gfxgirl 6y ago
To be blunt, if that's your impression then you don't know how to use photoshop. If you did you'd understand the vast and extreme differences in capabilities. I don't have a good easy analogy to make but the two pieces of software, Photoshop and gIMP are not remotely in the same league.
- boogies 6y ago
  If that’s your impression you either can’t understand my comment or won’t / are trolling. I took a high school class taught by a professional graphic designer, using PS and Illustrator. I’m not claiming that’s my career now, but not everyone uses Photoshop as a fulltime job, and GIMP's good enough for plenty of use cases (eg. a one-person team indie game with art made entirely with it) (and can do stuff PS can't easily do with better scripting).
  - GrammarCommie 6y ago
    Simply put, a FLOSS alternative to professional software isn't an alternative if it's unable to be used professionally. The barrier for freelance and hobbyist work isn't people's concerns with dethroning these proprietary applications. Can you get hired at a large studio with Blender on your resume? Absolutely. And Krita is slowly heading down a similar path. GIMP, on the other hand, is dead-set on being relegated to a corner for FLOSS purists. It still doesn't have a complete CMYK workflow. It can't compete with Photoshop, and its authors have stated they don't want to compete. And until something comes along that can, people will continue to learn and use the proprietary option first and foremost.
    - boogies 6y ago
      This seems mostly true, but on “a FLOSS alternative to professional software isn't an alternative if it's unable to be used professionally”: Photoshop is not exclusively professional software. Last I knew, it costed $10 a month. That's a serious barrier to entry to exceptionally poor residents of slums within developing countries, like the disabled boy who lifted himself out of poverty with GIMP and other FLOSS (https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-software-gimp.html#content https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-software-gimp.html#content), but it's basically pocket change to privileged people in the first world like plenty of YouTubers I've seen use PS as part of hobbies like tiny indie gamedev. This seems like an OK niche for GIMP to target while Krita gets more professional. It's tempting to want them to unite and make one raster editor to rule them all, but it doesn't seem necessary. GIMP doesn't seem to need dedicated full time devs and effort comparable to 3D software, which is more inherently complex and in proprietary form is licensed for orders of magnitude more money than PS.