3 ms·
There's little content to this article. Basically it boils down to "I want Smart Objects and Gimp doesn't have them and I don't like the solution they are work
by genezeta 2y ago
There's little content to this article.
Basically it boils down to "I want Smart Objects and Gimp doesn't have them and I don't like the solution they are working on".
The rest is about the discussion he had on Twitter and someone said and someone else argued and there was a link and I read it and... It feels like one of those stupid reaction videos but in written form.
- giancarlostoro 2y agoBut also hasn't it always been argued by Photoshop people that "Gimp isn't good enough" compared to Photoshop since the dawn of this debates origin? I feel like I've always heard this. Look, use whatever tool you want, but stop pretending like you get to decide if others get to recommend tools or not. I would personally prefer to just use Gimp, but I'm not really a graphic designer by any means, which also makes justifying the costs of Photoshop for me silly. Sidenote: Aren't there other pieces of software that match more things that Photoshop is better at than GIMP? I have heard praises for Krita, but I assume it depends on use case.
- binkethy 2y agoThose of us who aren't Adobe salespeople have less incentive to care about keeping feature parity with a predatory cloud-subscription-pushing entity. Some of us see decadence driving many features on mature graphics applications, coupled with rentseeking on 30 year old code. If it's NOT 30 year old code, why is it seeking to replace funcioning code? Rentseeking. I find GIMP satisfactory for my remaining raster graphic needs. I prefer vector graphics applications for anything that is not a photograph...