4 ms·

I am very impressed. More featured than Gimp and Krita in some ways.

johnchristopher 6y ago
For me it's about how it comes closer to how I used Photoshop than I can with Krita or Gimp. But neither Krita nor Gimp are supposed to be drop-in replacements for Photoshop anyway so that's okay.
tomcooks 6y ago
Not having to install Gimp nor Krita is great, given all the disk space they occupy. As an added bonus with Photopea I have to relearn GUI patterns nor shortcuts, I can apply what I've learned in years of PS usage. This is an opportunity for FOSS, if the objective is to increase adoption from casual users. I wonder if the GIMP version that was made to look like PS is still a thing
- rijoja 6y ago
  The deb package for GIMP is like what 20MB? I won't count dependencies such as GTK here since they really wouldn't exist without the GIMP project.
  - seba_dos1 6y ago
    When uncompressed and unpacked, GIMP is 112.25 MiB and Krita is 189.45 MiB on Arch. Which doesn't seem like a lot to me these days given their feature set, bundled stuff etc.
    - tomcooks 6y ago
      Meanwhile I can do without, by using my browser. What doesn't seem a lot to you in terms of resources and space is a blessing to those with more limited means.
      - rijoja 6y ago
        For the vast majority globally speaking, wouldn't bandwidth be the limiting factor? Also if you have a slower computer wouldn't running everything in Javascript be the last thing that you would want to do. Furthermore if you where to measure RAM usage between the apps I bet GIMP would be far more conservative with the same load. Also if you are editing images for a living 100 megabyte really isn't that much? Lets say you have RGB images of a resolution of 1920x1080. Sixteen or seventeen of this would be 100 MB already? If you are using layers you quite quickly reach this amount of storage. So the size of GIMP is really negligible. The only definition of someone with more "limited means", where this would be better is someone who is using a chromebook but still has a 1st world tier internet connection. I'd be happy to be corrected if I am wrong however.
nothis 6y ago
Feature counts are meaningless. There’s only like a dozen things in Photoshop you actually need. What counts is a smart, efficient UI with a good hierarchy and consistent arrangement. Gimp fails entirely at this, not any feature issues. I’d happily strip 80% of its features for an interface that doesn’t awkwardly overlap buttons at the least convenient moment. Photopea instead copies Photoshop’s interface, which is its real asset.
- aahortwwy 6y ago
  The trick is that everyone needs a slightly different dozen features.
rijoja 6y ago
Such as?
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  In Photoshop / Photopea you can select a layer and add an effect such as stroke, shadow, etc. In Gimp, you can do the same with filters... The inconvenience to me is that filters are immediately rasterized, so the effect becomes harder to change.

For me it's about how it comes closer to how I used Photoshop than I can with Krita or Gimp. But neither Krita nor Gimp are supposed to be drop-in replacements for Photoshop anyway so that's okay.

tomcooks 6y ago

Not having to install Gimp nor Krita is great, given all the disk space they occupy. As an added bonus with Photopea I have to relearn GUI patterns nor shortcuts, I can apply what I've learned in years of PS usage. This is an opportunity for FOSS, if the objective is to increase adoption from casual users. I wonder if the GIMP version that was made to look like PS is still a thing

rijoja 6y ago
The deb package for GIMP is like what 20MB? I won't count dependencies such as GTK here since they really wouldn't exist without the GIMP project.
- seba_dos1 6y ago
  When uncompressed and unpacked, GIMP is 112.25 MiB and Krita is 189.45 MiB on Arch. Which doesn't seem like a lot to me these days given their feature set, bundled stuff etc.
  - tomcooks 6y ago
    Meanwhile I can do without, by using my browser. What doesn't seem a lot to you in terms of resources and space is a blessing to those with more limited means.
    - rijoja 6y ago
      For the vast majority globally speaking, wouldn't bandwidth be the limiting factor? Also if you have a slower computer wouldn't running everything in Javascript be the last thing that you would want to do. Furthermore if you where to measure RAM usage between the apps I bet GIMP would be far more conservative with the same load. Also if you are editing images for a living 100 megabyte really isn't that much? Lets say you have RGB images of a resolution of 1920x1080. Sixteen or seventeen of this would be 100 MB already? If you are using layers you quite quickly reach this amount of storage. So the size of GIMP is really negligible. The only definition of someone with more "limited means", where this would be better is someone who is using a chromebook but still has a 1st world tier internet connection. I'd be happy to be corrected if I am wrong however.

nothis 6y ago

Feature counts are meaningless. There’s only like a dozen things in Photoshop you actually need. What counts is a smart, efficient UI with a good hierarchy and consistent arrangement. Gimp fails entirely at this, not any feature issues. I’d happily strip 80% of its features for an interface that doesn’t awkwardly overlap buttons at the least convenient moment. Photopea instead copies Photoshop’s interface, which is its real asset.

aahortwwy 6y ago
The trick is that everyone needs a slightly different dozen features.

rijoja 6y ago

Such as?

29athrowaway 6y ago
In Photoshop / Photopea you can select a layer and add an effect such as stroke, shadow, etc. In Gimp, you can do the same with filters... The inconvenience to me is that filters are immediately rasterized, so the effect becomes harder to change.