5 ms·

Daily GIMP user here, pretty much the only thing you can't do is print CMYK.

by indlebe 12y ago

sillysaurus3 12y ago
The problem with GIMP isn't its featureset, but its interface. It's so foreign to anyone who works with graphics that whatever UI metaphors it uses fail to resonate with people, so they just end up confused. What GIMP probably needs is an overhaul that copies what Photoshop does. People understand Photoshop, and it's the industry standard.
- leni536 12y ago
  It's so foreign to anyone It's foreign to photoshop users, GIMP is just different. I really don't like those open source software that want to copy some proprietary one. They tend to copy the mistakes of the other software too. Maybe GIMP doesn't have all the features that photoshop has but copying photoshop is not the way to go.
- unhammer 12y ago
  I've never understood the problem with the GIMP UI, what is it about it that is so foreign? From what I can tell the UI's look fairly similar too: https://gtchan1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/5-gui-photoshop.jpg https://gtchan1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/5-gui-photoshop.... http://www.gimpchat.com/files/196_2012-05-12_214936.jpg http://www.gimpchat.com/files/196_2012-05-12_214936.jpg There's various widgets that contain e.g. tools, layers, history, fonts, tool options; and of course each tool might have its own options. (Also, the team itself have said in various ways that they'll never have as their goal to be a "Photoshop clone", as I understand it that's an unreachable and thus depressing goal. It's a lot more motivating to simply try to make something that works well than trying to cater to every whim of those who don't want to pay for Photoshop.)
  - dagw 12y ago
    From what I can tell the UI's look fairly similar They may look superficially similar, and at a high level have the same tools, but from a fundamental workflow point of view there are too many things that are just very different (non-destructive editing, smart objects etc). the team itself have said in various ways that they'll never have as their goal to be a "Photoshop clone" And that would be fine and if they'd done something unique or innovative with the UI and really made it their own. Unfortunately they didn't and they're stuck looking kind of like a half-baked Photoshop clone. And as long as that is kind of what they look like, then that is how they'll be judged.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      > they're stuck looking kind of like a half-baked Photoshop clone So does the GIMP look like Photoshop, or does it not?
      - dagw 12y ago
        It looks like Photoshop at a glance, but doesn't really behave like Photoshop once you get close.
- luch 12y ago
  Agreed, GIMP is a horrendous piece of software. I know it is extremely powerful (for example combined with G'MIC) but the fact you can't do the most simple transformations (rescale, move, strech and rotate) on the freehand tool speaks a lot about its usability. Inkscape on the other hand really is a viable alternative to Illustrator.
  - orkoden 12y ago
    Every time I try Inkscape it has been a big disappointment. It doesn't come close to old versions of Freehand, not even speaking of current Illustrator. Even indie devs like http://bohemiancoding.com/sketch/ http://bohemiancoding.com/sketch/ do a lot better job at illustrating.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Photoshop's interface is awful, and the reason you like it is because you're used to it. GIMP should spend absolutely no time in imitating its mistakes. Of course, we're offering zero evidence that either position is true, just bald assed assertions. That I vastly prefer multi-window is my only evidence. >People understand Photoshop, and it's the industry standard. They've been trained to. It's as intuitive to you as the way home from work. It's as intuitive to me as the way to your house from your job.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > That I vastly prefer multi-window is my only evidence. That's ironic, given that the latest Gimp (2.8) defaults to a single-window interface. I'm having a hard time adjusting, but this doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  Not sure if you know or not, but GIMPshop (GIMP with the Photoshop interface) has been around for a long, long time: http://www.gimpshop.com/ http://www.gimpshop.com/ Still not sure why Adobe hasn't gone after the Linux market. They could completely dominate.
stan_rogers 12y ago
...or use most classes of non-destructive adjustment layers. Or use many of the more desirable and time-saving (read: cost-effective, even when compared to "free as in beer" plugins. Gimp isn't useless by any means, but it's not a Photoshop replacement yet, any more than Corel's Paint Shop Pro is. (But it will be soon, right? It's been "going to be" for a very long time.)

Daily GIMP user here, pretty much the only thing you can't do is print CMYK.

by indlebe 12y ago

Daily GIMP user here, pretty much the only thing you can't do is print CMYK.

The problem with GIMP isn't its featureset, but its interface. It's so foreign to anyone who works with graphics that whatever UI metaphors it uses fail to resonate with people, so they just end up confused. What GIMP probably needs is an overhaul that copies what Photoshop does. People understand Photoshop, and it's the industry standard.

leni536 12y ago
It's so foreign to anyone It's foreign to photoshop users, GIMP is just different. I really don't like those open source software that want to copy some proprietary one. They tend to copy the mistakes of the other software too. Maybe GIMP doesn't have all the features that photoshop has but copying photoshop is not the way to go.
unhammer 12y ago
I've never understood the problem with the GIMP UI, what is it about it that is so foreign? From what I can tell the UI's look fairly similar too: https://gtchan1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/5-gui-photoshop.jpg https://gtchan1.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/5-gui-photoshop.... http://www.gimpchat.com/files/196_2012-05-12_214936.jpg http://www.gimpchat.com/files/196_2012-05-12_214936.jpg There's various widgets that contain e.g. tools, layers, history, fonts, tool options; and of course each tool might have its own options. (Also, the team itself have said in various ways that they'll never have as their goal to be a "Photoshop clone", as I understand it that's an unreachable and thus depressing goal. It's a lot more motivating to simply try to make something that works well than trying to cater to every whim of those who don't want to pay for Photoshop.)
- dagw 12y ago
  From what I can tell the UI's look fairly similar They may look superficially similar, and at a high level have the same tools, but from a fundamental workflow point of view there are too many things that are just very different (non-destructive editing, smart objects etc). the team itself have said in various ways that they'll never have as their goal to be a "Photoshop clone" And that would be fine and if they'd done something unique or innovative with the UI and really made it their own. Unfortunately they didn't and they're stuck looking kind of like a half-baked Photoshop clone. And as long as that is kind of what they look like, then that is how they'll be judged.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    > they're stuck looking kind of like a half-baked Photoshop clone So does the GIMP look like Photoshop, or does it not?
    - dagw 12y ago
      It looks like Photoshop at a glance, but doesn't really behave like Photoshop once you get close.
luch 12y ago
Agreed, GIMP is a horrendous piece of software. I know it is extremely powerful (for example combined with G'MIC) but the fact you can't do the most simple transformations (rescale, move, strech and rotate) on the freehand tool speaks a lot about its usability. Inkscape on the other hand really is a viable alternative to Illustrator.
- orkoden 12y ago
  Every time I try Inkscape it has been a big disappointment. It doesn't come close to old versions of Freehand, not even speaking of current Illustrator. Even indie devs like http://bohemiancoding.com/sketch/ http://bohemiancoding.com/sketch/ do a lot better job at illustrating.
pessimizer 12y ago
Photoshop's interface is awful, and the reason you like it is because you're used to it. GIMP should spend absolutely no time in imitating its mistakes. Of course, we're offering zero evidence that either position is true, just bald assed assertions. That I vastly prefer multi-window is my only evidence. >People understand Photoshop, and it's the industry standard. They've been trained to. It's as intuitive to you as the way home from work. It's as intuitive to me as the way to your house from your job.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > That I vastly prefer multi-window is my only evidence. That's ironic, given that the latest Gimp (2.8) defaults to a single-window interface. I'm having a hard time adjusting, but this doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
at-fates-hands 12y ago
Not sure if you know or not, but GIMPshop (GIMP with the Photoshop interface) has been around for a long, long time: http://www.gimpshop.com/ http://www.gimpshop.com/ Still not sure why Adobe hasn't gone after the Linux market. They could completely dominate.

stan_rogers 12y ago

...or use most classes of non-destructive adjustment layers. Or use many of the more desirable and time-saving (read: cost-effective, even when compared to "free as in beer" plugins. Gimp isn't useless by any means, but it's not a Photoshop replacement yet, any more than Corel's Paint Shop Pro is. (But it will be soon, right? It's been "going to be" for a very long time.)