3 ms·
I use Photopea a lot and the amount of Photoshop features it has is astounding. Like adjustment layers, smart objects etc. The PSDs it exports work nicely with
by shajid 5y ago
I use Photopea a lot and the amount of Photoshop features it has is astounding. Like adjustment layers, smart objects etc. The PSDs it exports work nicely with the Photoshop I have in my Windows PC. This is just mind-blowing.
That brings me to a question I have. GIMP has been in development for longer time. And supposedly it has a bigger team behind it. So how come GIMP is missing a lot of nice features like non-destructive editing, layer styles etc? I saw some of these features in its roadmap, but why is its development so slow? Is it only because working on GIMP doesn't generate any money?
Edit: rephrase
- jokethrowaway 5y agoGIMP is OSS and doesn't pay the bills. I'm sure much more man-hours went into Photopea (even with a single contributor) than in GIMP and the [ad revenue / promise of passive income] is what allowed that.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y agoI suspect a lot more work went into GIMP, but a) the overhead of many small contributors ate a lot of it, b) the overhead of an ancient code base, having to interface with OS level GUI libraries etc. ate a lot more c) GIMP got a lot of development for features but not enough UX work. Totally agree that the ads paying the bills is what enabled Photopea to become so good in the end.
- cblconfederate 5y agoHighly unlikely. Just the work on upgrades to newer versions of libraries should be more man-hours than what a single guy can achieve