3 ms·
> 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-destr
by 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 agoSure. 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 :)