3 ms·

> GIMP will never be mainstream, because it's made for specifically trained "expert-users" only, without any easy path to glide into for new users. I don't ent

> GIMP will never be mainstream, because it's made for specifically trained "expert-users" only, without any easy path to glide into for new users. I don't entirely disagree with this criticism, but it's interesting to note that in the past years the GIMP project has received significant contributions from ZeMarmot project so the artist-developer feedback loop is shortening. There's been major advances lately and given more time/resources i believe the actual team (and new contributors?) could really make GIMP even better.

hilbert42 4y ago
Whether GIMP becomes mainstream or not is moot but from my own experience and those of colleagues it is definitely harder to use than Photoshop - perhaps more awkward and clumsy would be a more apt description. For years, GIMP was much slower than Photoshop especially so when loading and processing large 100MB-plus .tif files and such, so much so that I considered it unusable on all but the very fastest machines. To be fair perfomance has improved in recent versions but it's still significantly slower than PS in many functions (e.g: when making edits waiting for the screen to refresh throws one's workflow out and makes it harder to accurately compare 'before' and 'after' edits). Similarly, adjustment controls are slower to react and their ergonomics are significantly inferior to PS (that said, PS's aren't perfect either but they are better). Then there's the removal of the 'fade' feature from the menu - probably one of the most used features in both GIMP and PS (one really has to wonder what's going on in the minds of its developers). Talk about shooting one's self in the foot then this has to be the quintessential example! I know and understand the reason for this change but if GIMP's developers deliberately wanted to alienate a very large percentage of its users then they couldn't have chosen a better way. For me, the removal of the 'fade' feature was the last straw, I simply no longer use GIMP other than to test new versions as they arise. Yes, I know about the alternative way of getting around this now-missing 'fade' feature but that's not the point. Forcing users to use a (seemingly) better approach at the expense of convenience and or for ideological reaons is not the correct way to go about the problem. Forcing users to adopt new ways of working for questionable reasons - as Microsoft does with its GUI in every new version of Windows - is, unfortunately, typical of the hide and arrogance all too often seen in the software industry. (BTW, I am aware that removing 'fade' solved some problems and supposedly quickened development but nevertheless that's no excuse.) Simply: GIMP's developers are good programmers and image experts but they've stuff-all knowledge about user ergonomics - one has to wonder if they ever use GIMP to do any realworld image editing at all - that is other than to tweak multiple instances of Lenna! If GIMP's developers are serious about making the program anything more significant than their playtoy to test image algorithms then first and foremost they need to employ an ergonomics expert on their team. I've lots more instances of GIMP problems but this is not the place to raise them. In my opinion, GIMP won't ever become mainstream until its developers change their high-minded attitude and become more flexible in their approach to users' needs. This is harsh criticism I know but I'm only stating the facts. Few would be more keen than me to see GIMP succeed in a big way but many others and I have aged quite noticably whilst waiting for it to do so. Many of us have waited years to shed finally the yoke of Photoshop especially so since Adobe introduced its extortionate subscription/rental model and we cannot do so until we have viable alteratives. The problem is made all the worse for people like me who have refused to upgrade PS to its subscription version. As it has been in place for quite some while we're now left with dated and ageing software. Nowadays, GIMP is needed more than ever as a strong and viable alterative to Photoshop but having watched its glacial progress over decades I reckon the only effective way to bring it up to speed is for users to pay some nomimal fee, perhaps $20 or so. Paying develops and greatly expanding its development team seems the only practical way to make it happen.
- southerntofu 4y ago
  > one has to wonder if they ever use GIMP to do any realworld image editing at all Like i said, the feedback loop with actual artists has tightened in the past years, especially with ZeMarmot project becoming real active in development. > first and foremost they need to employ an ergonomics expert on their team. Well "employ" may be the problem. I believe there's two or three contributors who will accept donations, but nobody is actually employed to work on GIMP full-time. If you know of ergonomics experts who'd like to contribute some time to a free-software project, or can produce a full-fledged UX audit for a few bucks, i'm sure that will be of interest to GIMP people. > I've lots more instances of GIMP problems but this is not the place to raise them. Maybe not, but thanks for taking the time to point out two downsides (slowness, and removal of a feature that's key to your workflow). Hopefully you can find time to contribute to the project: identifying hot/slow code paths doesn't have to be very complex but is very workflow-dependent so a report of yours can be very useful for optimization purposes. As for the fade option, i have no idea what this debate was about. Please don't hesitate to post links to blogposts or tickets in the future.

hilbert42 4y ago

Whether GIMP becomes mainstream or not is moot but from my own experience and those of colleagues it is definitely harder to use than Photoshop - perhaps more awkward and clumsy would be a more apt description. For years, GIMP was much slower than Photoshop especially so when loading and processing large 100MB-plus .tif files and such, so much so that I considered it unusable on all but the very fastest machines. To be fair perfomance has improved in recent versions but it's still significantly slower than PS in many functions (e.g: when making edits waiting for the screen to refresh throws one's workflow out and makes it harder to accurately compare 'before' and 'after' edits). Similarly, adjustment controls are slower to react and their ergonomics are significantly inferior to PS (that said, PS's aren't perfect either but they are better). Then there's the removal of the 'fade' feature from the menu - probably one of the most used features in both GIMP and PS (one really has to wonder what's going on in the minds of its developers). Talk about shooting one's self in the foot then this has to be the quintessential example! I know and understand the reason for this change but if GIMP's developers deliberately wanted to alienate a very large percentage of its users then they couldn't have chosen a better way. For me, the removal of the 'fade' feature was the last straw, I simply no longer use GIMP other than to test new versions as they arise. Yes, I know about the alternative way of getting around this now-missing 'fade' feature but that's not the point. Forcing users to use a (seemingly) better approach at the expense of convenience and or for ideological reaons is not the correct way to go about the problem. Forcing users to adopt new ways of working for questionable reasons - as Microsoft does with its GUI in every new version of Windows - is, unfortunately, typical of the hide and arrogance all too often seen in the software industry. (BTW, I am aware that removing 'fade' solved some problems and supposedly quickened development but nevertheless that's no excuse.) Simply: GIMP's developers are good programmers and image experts but they've stuff-all knowledge about user ergonomics - one has to wonder if they ever use GIMP to do any realworld image editing at all - that is other than to tweak multiple instances of Lenna! If GIMP's developers are serious about making the program anything more significant than their playtoy to test image algorithms then first and foremost they need to employ an ergonomics expert on their team. I've lots more instances of GIMP problems but this is not the place to raise them. In my opinion, GIMP won't ever become mainstream until its developers change their high-minded attitude and become more flexible in their approach to users' needs. This is harsh criticism I know but I'm only stating the facts. Few would be more keen than me to see GIMP succeed in a big way but many others and I have aged quite noticably whilst waiting for it to do so. Many of us have waited years to shed finally the yoke of Photoshop especially so since Adobe introduced its extortionate subscription/rental model and we cannot do so until we have viable alteratives. The problem is made all the worse for people like me who have refused to upgrade PS to its subscription version. As it has been in place for quite some while we're now left with dated and ageing software. Nowadays, GIMP is needed more than ever as a strong and viable alterative to Photoshop but having watched its glacial progress over decades I reckon the only effective way to bring it up to speed is for users to pay some nomimal fee, perhaps $20 or so. Paying develops and greatly expanding its development team seems the only practical way to make it happen.

southerntofu 4y ago
> one has to wonder if they ever use GIMP to do any realworld image editing at all Like i said, the feedback loop with actual artists has tightened in the past years, especially with ZeMarmot project becoming real active in development. > first and foremost they need to employ an ergonomics expert on their team. Well "employ" may be the problem. I believe there's two or three contributors who will accept donations, but nobody is actually employed to work on GIMP full-time. If you know of ergonomics experts who'd like to contribute some time to a free-software project, or can produce a full-fledged UX audit for a few bucks, i'm sure that will be of interest to GIMP people. > I've lots more instances of GIMP problems but this is not the place to raise them. Maybe not, but thanks for taking the time to point out two downsides (slowness, and removal of a feature that's key to your workflow). Hopefully you can find time to contribute to the project: identifying hot/slow code paths doesn't have to be very complex but is very workflow-dependent so a report of yours can be very useful for optimization purposes. As for the fade option, i have no idea what this debate was about. Please don't hesitate to post links to blogposts or tickets in the future.