7 ms·

> Photoshop. Illustrator. Why are these the first applications used for image editing and creation? Because they're bloody good (well, Photoshop is). And Gimp

by tgv 4y ago

> Photoshop. Illustrator. Why are these the first applications used for image editing and creation? Because they're bloody good (well, Photoshop is). And Gimp isn't. > Coding IDE (optional) ===> vim That's not out of touch, that's beyond the pale.

hirako2000 4y ago
Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter. On adobe, I prefer using photopea than ever having to touch photoshop again, that's a tell that it isn't all that great to since a free to use replias fits all my needs. I would concede photoshop has a better UX, on Windows and OSX that is true, but on its native linux home, it blends rather well with gtk approach to UIs and flow. IDE wise, plenty of OSS solutions on par with commercial products now, at least for tooling education needs.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Yes, but being able to use Gimp isn't going to help your career and being able to use Photoshop is.
  - seclorum_wien 4y ago
    Both programs are easy to use, though. If a company has Photoshop installed, use it, sure. But there is also no reason not to use GIMP if that is preferred, and .. you know .. gets the job done anyway. I get art from artists to integrate into apps all the time that wasn't made in photoshop. Most important is they know what they're doing, whatever they're using...
- w4rh4wk5 4y ago
  > Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter. No, Gimp is quite bad when it comes to non-destructive editing. Even the FAQ mentions that [1]. As someone who works in game development, non-destructive editing, specifically layer effects are used everywhere. Especially for UI elements and stylizing text. [1]: 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...
  - hirako2000 4y ago
    Sure. I tried to answer contextually. If some kids get to a certain level, they will be using adequate tools for the job. I think the critic is about standard bulk licenses bought for kids training on multi disciplinary activities. In the context i would say destructive vs non destructive or that gimp has filters that are not gpu optimised while adobe does are secondary concerns. + don't have me dig to find a non destructive photo editor that is open source :)
- tgv 4y ago
  The UX totally kills Gimp, like it hinders LibreOffice, especially in comparison to Excel. Let's not forget many pupils have little affinity with corporate IT and no interest in learning text editing for the heck of it. If you have to teach it anyway, best give them easy tools that they can recognize later in life, and with which they can help their grandparents. Given the fact that IT teachers are scarce (at least here; teachers for programming aren't available at all below advanced educational levels), I do think that simply foregoing teaching these skills might even be better.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    > no interest in learning text editing Why is this relevant to the use of gimp ot libreoffice? I never had to open a text editor to use gimp or libreoffice (well apart than writer itself duh).
- na85 4y ago
  >Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter. It's not about the features. I agree there's more or less feature parity for the 90% of use cases, but gimp has bad UX. It's just clunky and frustrating to use, and there's no sugar coating that fact. I hate using gimp.
  - hirako2000 4y ago
    I don't argue the UX is lacking, i still hate using Photoshop even more, and would have liked, as a kid, to be told how to use open tools even if not as good. It surely would have been better than what i got: Windows 98 which only had MS paint in it at my high school computer room, and that wouldn't be the only productivity tool missing on any Windows machine we may find at schools even today, while some linux package manager is 1 click and 1 command away to install literally whater, for free, probably better security reviewed than the next commercial product.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    > It's just clunky and frustrating to use, and there's no sugar coating that fact. Having used both as well as alternatives (like paint shop pro and some others), this is mostly resistance to change. You are used to photoshop so anything with a different paradigm will feel unituitive. Same with libreoffice and office if you don't care to understand the concepts. Resistance to change is a strong thing. Objectively, macos and windows desktop are slow and clunky interfaces compared to say, gnome3. Yet many people even among linux users hate the later because they have been used to slow and clunky and don't understand smooth.
- blagie 4y ago
  Sorry. gimp is crap compared to Photoshop. Gimp was on-par with Photoshop when it came out in the nineties. It hasn't improved much since. That said, gimp is free. Adobe Creative Suite is over half a grand a year. For most people, knowing gimp is a useful life / workspace skill. Only the very elite will have access to Photoshop. Learning Adobe tools is simply not helpful for 98% of the population, as a life skill (beyond the general skills learned with any tool).
- moralestapia 4y ago
  Good products sell themselves. If GIMP were better AND free people would be all over it. "B-b-ut Photoshop cornered the market", wrong, plenty of new apps like Procreate have found success just by being a tiny bit innovative and delivering a quality experience. I really like OSS (and have contributed to several projects) but what matters in the end is the UX. There's a reason why Apple is a trillion dollar company. Some projects are just mediocre and stagnant while trying to save face by saying they are OSS, at the end of the day no one cares, people just move along. Other projects are so poisoned now that they barely resemble what they once were in their best times, i.e. Firefox and their self-imposed race to the bottom.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    If firefox is the bottom, I don't really understand where do you put chrome or edge. Abysses? There is a lot to say about Mozilla management but Firefox the browser is really good.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway742 4y ago
  Photoshop's AI features are light years ahead of GIMP.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  >Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter. This is just a lie. My hatred of Adobe borders on the unhinged but to compare GIMP to photoshop is a joke, it’s not even the pro features just the basic requirements that were completely expected 15+ years ago are missing and the attitude of the team to the userbase when they ask for these features is extremely poor. Honestly it’s time to start comparing GIMP to its real competitor, MSPaint. It’s not just UX, it’s the basic features they’d need to do a job with the tool are not there.
iliketrains 4y ago
To be honest, I find Photoshop to be not so good for many use cases. Gimp is not ideal, but I use it much more often. Like alpha channel editing? Absolute nightmare in Photoshop. In gimp it is just another channel and I can apply curves or other effects directly to alpha channel. How about ability to save/not save color info for pixels with 100% transparency? Or saving image where Photoshop often does not remember from where the file was opened, or that I have to manually select a file type from a drop down. In gimp, just type the extension. I also like scripting and automating using python. On the other hand, Photoshop excels in layer effects. In gimp, these effects are applied and you cannot mutate the underlying layer (like change text with shadow and bevel).
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  >In gimp it is just another channel and I can apply curves or other effects directly to alpha channel. You can do this in photoshop. It’s in the channels tab, select it and filters will work on it. Although I do agree 2022 photoshop is a janky slow pile of trash compared to CS5 photoshop.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
> > Photoshop. Illustrator. Why are these the first applications used for image editing and creation? > Because they're bloody good (well, Photoshop is). And Gimp isn't. Imagine you're teaching people carpentry. There is a really nice automatic screw gun that accepts a cartridge of screws all lined up automatically so each one loads in place after the last one. It is super easy to use and people can get straight to fastening beams together. But the device is very expensive, and they cannot be repaired if they break, and the screw cartridges require a monthly plan where they will send you screws even if you still have plenty from last month, with a chip to make sure the screws won't feed from last month. Now compared to a boring battery operated drill, where the user has to gasp place each screw on the drill bit by hand, these fancy automatic screw feeding drills seem WAY BETTER! Surely the person can make better buildings with the fancy screw gun right? And we want them to make the best buildings possible right? Well the boring drill has user serviceable parts. Everything can be removed and replaced if needed. There are no control chips to stop it working. You don't have to pay every month for anything. And placing each screw on the bit by hand is fine, it's what everyone did ten years ago and those buildings are all still standing. Heck you're standing in one of those buildings right now! So maybe we should teach the students how to use tools that work without all this extra cost and nonsense. It's really a minor difference, since the point isn't to use the fanciest possible tool, but to teach them how to build buildings in a way that they can always take with them everywhere they go. And after they graduate school, they're not going to want to pay every month for one of those fancy drills!
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  Your example is only apt when using the tool is the point of the learning. More realistically, the drill is supposed to be an entirely necessary but incidental aspect of the learning. In this scenario, any amount of time or effort expended on problem solve the drill is taking time away from the primary learning objective. This is why teachers use Word and Google Docs. They do not give a shit about the tool. The tool is a means to an end. Word and Docs are familiar. Word and Docs work.
- bombcar 4y ago
  This basically exists for drywall: https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Power-Tools/Fastening/Screw-Guns/49-20-0001 https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Power-Tools/Fastening... And it’s a different skill set for sure, but highly worth it - someone who knows how do use it can hang drywall by themselves pretty easily. If that’s your job, you should definitely know how to use it (and how to use just the gun, and the simple drill).
jka 4y ago
Somewhat agreed, although to be fair, the other migration paths do seem more reasonable: > MS Office Suite ==> LibreOffice Suite > Illustrator ==> Inkscape > IE/Edge ==> Firefox
- temp8964 4y ago
  > MS Office Suite ==> LibreOffice Suite LoL. LibreOffice Suite is terrible compared to MS Office. There’s simply nothing on par with Excel, PowerPoint, or Word. Also many are forced to use Outlook because of MS exchange.
  - wtch98 4y ago
    I don't get this. My work email is on exchange, but I haven't used outlook for 15 years - I access web based exchange from firefox on my linux laptop
    - temp8964 4y ago
      Many people don’t like the web version, and Outlook can manage multiple email accounts in one place.
      - prmoustache 4y ago
        Gnome evolution too.
  - grayclhn 4y ago
    For _school_ use the extra functionality is basically irrelevant. (Excel for some college level courses is an unfortunate exception.)
    - Kwpolska 4y ago
      The user interface of LibreOffice is garbage. The ribbon is much more discoverable than toolbars and menus (and no, LibreOffice’s ribbon imitation isn’t as good as the original). And if you’re talking about Excel… LibreOffice Calc doesn’t have tables (with nice styling, automatic formula filling, and using column names in formulas), and working with PivotTables requires a separate dialog box with no simple live preview.
stoicjumbotron 4y ago
While I somewhat agree with this, another good alternative would be Affinity Photo[0] (and is 50% off as of this writing). One time buy, nice UI and UX and is also quite comparable to Photoshop. 0: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/#buy https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/#buy
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
croes 4y ago
It's pretty useless if they are pretty good if can't afford them afterwards Like driving lessons in a Porsche
- npteljes 4y ago
  Not really because businesses have to license it properly, and Adobe just lets go of the rest. Meanwhile piracy leads to great adoption.
robertlagrant 4y ago
Inkscape actually getting pretty good, though. That'd be a good start.

by tgv 4y ago

hirako2000 4y ago

Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter. On adobe, I prefer using photopea than ever having to touch photoshop again, that's a tell that it isn't all that great to since a free to use replias fits all my needs. I would concede photoshop has a better UX, on Windows and OSX that is true, but on its native linux home, it blends rather well with gtk approach to UIs and flow. IDE wise, plenty of OSS solutions on par with commercial products now, at least for tooling education needs.

jacquesm 4y ago
Yes, but being able to use Gimp isn't going to help your career and being able to use Photoshop is.
- seclorum_wien 4y ago
  Both programs are easy to use, though. If a company has Photoshop installed, use it, sure. But there is also no reason not to use GIMP if that is preferred, and .. you know .. gets the job done anyway. I get art from artists to integrate into apps all the time that wasn't made in photoshop. Most important is they know what they're doing, whatever they're using...
w4rh4wk5 4y ago
> Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter. No, Gimp is quite bad when it comes to non-destructive editing. Even the FAQ mentions that [1]. As someone who works in game development, non-destructive editing, specifically layer effects are used everywhere. Especially for UI elements and stylizing text. [1]: 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...
- hirako2000 4y ago
  Sure. I tried to answer contextually. If some kids get to a certain level, they will be using adequate tools for the job. I think the critic is about standard bulk licenses bought for kids training on multi disciplinary activities. In the context i would say destructive vs non destructive or that gimp has filters that are not gpu optimised while adobe does are secondary concerns. + don't have me dig to find a non destructive photo editor that is open source :)
tgv 4y ago
The UX totally kills Gimp, like it hinders LibreOffice, especially in comparison to Excel. Let's not forget many pupils have little affinity with corporate IT and no interest in learning text editing for the heck of it. If you have to teach it anyway, best give them easy tools that they can recognize later in life, and with which they can help their grandparents. Given the fact that IT teachers are scarce (at least here; teachers for programming aren't available at all below advanced educational levels), I do think that simply foregoing teaching these skills might even be better.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  > no interest in learning text editing Why is this relevant to the use of gimp ot libreoffice? I never had to open a text editor to use gimp or libreoffice (well apart than writer itself duh).
na85 4y ago
>Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter. It's not about the features. I agree there's more or less feature parity for the 90% of use cases, but gimp has bad UX. It's just clunky and frustrating to use, and there's no sugar coating that fact. I hate using gimp.
- hirako2000 4y ago
  I don't argue the UX is lacking, i still hate using Photoshop even more, and would have liked, as a kid, to be told how to use open tools even if not as good. It surely would have been better than what i got: Windows 98 which only had MS paint in it at my high school computer room, and that wouldn't be the only productivity tool missing on any Windows machine we may find at schools even today, while some linux package manager is 1 click and 1 command away to install literally whater, for free, probably better security reviewed than the next commercial product.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  > It's just clunky and frustrating to use, and there's no sugar coating that fact. Having used both as well as alternatives (like paint shop pro and some others), this is mostly resistance to change. You are used to photoshop so anything with a different paradigm will feel unituitive. Same with libreoffice and office if you don't care to understand the concepts. Resistance to change is a strong thing. Objectively, macos and windows desktop are slow and clunky interfaces compared to say, gnome3. Yet many people even among linux users hate the later because they have been used to slow and clunky and don't understand smooth.
blagie 4y ago
Sorry. gimp is crap compared to Photoshop. Gimp was on-par with Photoshop when it came out in the nineties. It hasn't improved much since. That said, gimp is free. Adobe Creative Suite is over half a grand a year. For most people, knowing gimp is a useful life / workspace skill. Only the very elite will have access to Photoshop. Learning Adobe tools is simply not helpful for 98% of the population, as a life skill (beyond the general skills learned with any tool).
moralestapia 4y ago
Good products sell themselves. If GIMP were better AND free people would be all over it. "B-b-ut Photoshop cornered the market", wrong, plenty of new apps like Procreate have found success just by being a tiny bit innovative and delivering a quality experience. I really like OSS (and have contributed to several projects) but what matters in the end is the UX. There's a reason why Apple is a trillion dollar company. Some projects are just mediocre and stagnant while trying to save face by saying they are OSS, at the end of the day no one cares, people just move along. Other projects are so poisoned now that they barely resemble what they once were in their best times, i.e. Firefox and their self-imposed race to the bottom.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  If firefox is the bottom, I don't really understand where do you put chrome or edge. Abysses? There is a lot to say about Mozilla management but Firefox the browser is really good.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway742 4y ago
Photoshop's AI features are light years ahead of GIMP.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
>Gimp is quite on par with photoshop, and unless you are a pro, the difference of feature set doesn't matter. This is just a lie. My hatred of Adobe borders on the unhinged but to compare GIMP to photoshop is a joke, it’s not even the pro features just the basic requirements that were completely expected 15+ years ago are missing and the attitude of the team to the userbase when they ask for these features is extremely poor. Honestly it’s time to start comparing GIMP to its real competitor, MSPaint. It’s not just UX, it’s the basic features they’d need to do a job with the tool are not there.

iliketrains 4y ago

To be honest, I find Photoshop to be not so good for many use cases. Gimp is not ideal, but I use it much more often. Like alpha channel editing? Absolute nightmare in Photoshop. In gimp it is just another channel and I can apply curves or other effects directly to alpha channel. How about ability to save/not save color info for pixels with 100% transparency? Or saving image where Photoshop often does not remember from where the file was opened, or that I have to manually select a file type from a drop down. In gimp, just type the extension. I also like scripting and automating using python. On the other hand, Photoshop excels in layer effects. In gimp, these effects are applied and you cannot mutate the underlying layer (like change text with shadow and bevel).

whywhywhywhy 4y ago
>In gimp it is just another channel and I can apply curves or other effects directly to alpha channel. You can do this in photoshop. It’s in the channels tab, select it and filters will work on it. Although I do agree 2022 photoshop is a janky slow pile of trash compared to CS5 photoshop.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

> > Photoshop. Illustrator. Why are these the first applications used for image editing and creation? > Because they're bloody good (well, Photoshop is). And Gimp isn't. Imagine you're teaching people carpentry. There is a really nice automatic screw gun that accepts a cartridge of screws all lined up automatically so each one loads in place after the last one. It is super easy to use and people can get straight to fastening beams together. But the device is very expensive, and they cannot be repaired if they break, and the screw cartridges require a monthly plan where they will send you screws even if you still have plenty from last month, with a chip to make sure the screws won't feed from last month. Now compared to a boring battery operated drill, where the user has to gasp place each screw on the drill bit by hand, these fancy automatic screw feeding drills seem WAY BETTER! Surely the person can make better buildings with the fancy screw gun right? And we want them to make the best buildings possible right? Well the boring drill has user serviceable parts. Everything can be removed and replaced if needed. There are no control chips to stop it working. You don't have to pay every month for anything. And placing each screw on the bit by hand is fine, it's what everyone did ten years ago and those buildings are all still standing. Heck you're standing in one of those buildings right now! So maybe we should teach the students how to use tools that work without all this extra cost and nonsense. It's really a minor difference, since the point isn't to use the fanciest possible tool, but to teach them how to build buildings in a way that they can always take with them everywhere they go. And after they graduate school, they're not going to want to pay every month for one of those fancy drills!

germinalphrase 4y ago
Your example is only apt when using the tool is the point of the learning. More realistically, the drill is supposed to be an entirely necessary but incidental aspect of the learning. In this scenario, any amount of time or effort expended on problem solve the drill is taking time away from the primary learning objective. This is why teachers use Word and Google Docs. They do not give a shit about the tool. The tool is a means to an end. Word and Docs are familiar. Word and Docs work.
bombcar 4y ago
This basically exists for drywall: https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Power-Tools/Fastening/Screw-Guns/49-20-0001 https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Power-Tools/Fastening... And it’s a different skill set for sure, but highly worth it - someone who knows how do use it can hang drywall by themselves pretty easily. If that’s your job, you should definitely know how to use it (and how to use just the gun, and the simple drill).

jka 4y ago

Somewhat agreed, although to be fair, the other migration paths do seem more reasonable: > MS Office Suite ==> LibreOffice Suite > Illustrator ==> Inkscape > IE/Edge ==> Firefox

temp8964 4y ago
> MS Office Suite ==> LibreOffice Suite LoL. LibreOffice Suite is terrible compared to MS Office. There’s simply nothing on par with Excel, PowerPoint, or Word. Also many are forced to use Outlook because of MS exchange.
- wtch98 4y ago
  I don't get this. My work email is on exchange, but I haven't used outlook for 15 years - I access web based exchange from firefox on my linux laptop
  - temp8964 4y ago
    Many people don’t like the web version, and Outlook can manage multiple email accounts in one place.
    - prmoustache 4y ago
      Gnome evolution too.
- grayclhn 4y ago
  For _school_ use the extra functionality is basically irrelevant. (Excel for some college level courses is an unfortunate exception.)
  - Kwpolska 4y ago
    The user interface of LibreOffice is garbage. The ribbon is much more discoverable than toolbars and menus (and no, LibreOffice’s ribbon imitation isn’t as good as the original). And if you’re talking about Excel… LibreOffice Calc doesn’t have tables (with nice styling, automatic formula filling, and using column names in formulas), and working with PivotTables requires a separate dialog box with no simple live preview.

stoicjumbotron 4y ago

While I somewhat agree with this, another good alternative would be Affinity Photo[0] (and is 50% off as of this writing). One time buy, nice UI and UX and is also quite comparable to Photoshop. 0: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/#buy https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/#buy

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

croes 4y ago

It's pretty useless if they are pretty good if can't afford them afterwards Like driving lessons in a Porsche

npteljes 4y ago
Not really because businesses have to license it properly, and Adobe just lets go of the rest. Meanwhile piracy leads to great adoption.

robertlagrant 4y ago

Inkscape actually getting pretty good, though. That'd be a good start.