4 ms·
Even if you only use Photoshop as a raster editor, it can be very hard to find a replacement, depending on your workflow. Even the latest versions of GIMP and
by klodolph 6y ago
Even if you only use Photoshop as a raster editor, it can be very hard to find a replacement, depending on your workflow.
Even the latest versions of GIMP and Krita are nowhere near capable of doing the things that I did in Photoshop 2.5 back in the early 1990s. I am not sure what the priorities are of the GIMP devs, but it seems like they aren’t at all serious about making a Photoshop alternative.
- COGlory 6y agoWhat features did Photoshop 2.5 have that GIMP doesn't?
- klodolph 6y agoColor spaces is the big one—such as Lab and CMYK. I’d also count 16-bit support, since GIMP’s 16-bit support isn’t very good. The list gets much, much longer when you compare GIMP to newer versions of Photoshop, like Photoshop 5 from 1998. Photoshop 5 completely blows GIMP out of the water in terms of both features and usability, it’s a complete joke. I don’t use Photoshop any more, and I’ve exited the Adobe ecosystem, but once you’ve used tools like Photoshop, using GIMP feels like swapping your nice DSLR for an old point-and-shoot. Sure, you’re saving a lot of money, but you are constantly reminded that you developed a bunch of skills that you can’t use any more.