3 ms·

Fully agree. I was playing in the early 90ies with warez CDs and played with most photo editing packages at the time as a poor teenager. Photoshop for me was a

Fully agree. I was playing in the early 90ies with warez CDs and played with most photo editing packages at the time as a poor teenager. Photoshop for me was actually the worst software package of the bunch from a casual user, and never understood why it was so popular. My impression was that without plugins it was next to worthless. As I migrated to full-time linux early, gimp wasn't perfect to what I was used to, but it was pretty ok. The ui is a bit different, but nothing extreme. I really don't see the parallel with blender: blender today still requires a minimum of RTFM to get going, while you can do almost everything with gimp just by trial and error. I assume there are nuances you encounter as you get more deep into photo editing. But as a newcomer, and my experience with greenfield colleagues to both, is that this is just an internet trope. You get used to one, and complain about that "the other is not the same". This is the dumbest form of complaining ever. I've attempted multiple times to use krita for example after reading HN and seeing the praise, and while I agree it has a somewhat more intuitive ui, for actual photo editing (that is, not drawing), I still prefer gimp.

Clamchop 3y ago
Blender's peers are products like Maya, 3ds Max, Modo. Go give them a spin and tell me about Blender. The domain is much deeper than photo editing and it appears to defeat an entirely accessible UI. Blender has kept pace _with its peers_ as a world-class 3D package. I don't think GIMP comes anywhere near to passing the same test. But, Blender has been showered with money and other support. What surprises me the most is that there has been no big rally for a real FOSS answer to Photoshop. Animosity toward Adobe is _strong_ and has been for a long time. There's no reason there couldn't be a convergence of moneyed interests in a competitor.
- aifarts 3y ago
  I've been using blender as soon as the first OSS release, and I never considered the UI to be "bad". Learning curve was much steeper than it is today, but it was very efficient after being learned. And that's the main point: I'm not pitting blender's UI choices against another product just on the merit of being accessible from the uninitiated or looking at another product. That's the kind of comparison you make if you want to make a clone of another product. It would be the programmer's equivalent of saying "I don't understand why vi is not more like vscode".

Clamchop 3y ago

Blender's peers are products like Maya, 3ds Max, Modo. Go give them a spin and tell me about Blender. The domain is much deeper than photo editing and it appears to defeat an entirely accessible UI. Blender has kept pace _with its peers_ as a world-class 3D package. I don't think GIMP comes anywhere near to passing the same test. But, Blender has been showered with money and other support. What surprises me the most is that there has been no big rally for a real FOSS answer to Photoshop. Animosity toward Adobe is _strong_ and has been for a long time. There's no reason there couldn't be a convergence of moneyed interests in a competitor.

aifarts 3y ago
I've been using blender as soon as the first OSS release, and I never considered the UI to be "bad". Learning curve was much steeper than it is today, but it was very efficient after being learned. And that's the main point: I'm not pitting blender's UI choices against another product just on the merit of being accessible from the uninitiated or looking at another product. That's the kind of comparison you make if you want to make a clone of another product. It would be the programmer's equivalent of saying "I don't understand why vi is not more like vscode".