Lemmy faces the same expectations problems as every free/libre software
It's the same as with Linux, GIMP, LibreOffice or OnlyOffice. Some people are so used to their routines that they expect everything to work the same and get easily pissed when not.
You're viewing a single thread.
Somewhat agree, but don't get me started on a Gimp. To think that gimp was build to be a tool analogous to Photoshop (PS) is naive. It was born to demonstrate GTK GUI widgets and to check boxes on feature list (of supposedly paint program analogous to PS) from programmers perspective at most. Ok, they did the thing, checked the boxes, used all widgets, demonstrated that it works and from that day on it had and still has totaly inneficient workflow compared to PS and nobody cares about that. Answer to sugestions is almost always half assed, apple soused - you are holding it wrong, we are not PS. :)
My 2 cents, you can learn Gimp, you can adjust yourself to it, but if you have ever worked on PS and were good at it (with all its workflow, shortcuts, up to the level where you work one hand on keyboard, having most toolboxes hiden out of your view, etc..) you'll still feel gimpy. It's like comparing of giving commands to the gnome with an axe versus to an elf with a whole bunch of efficient specialised tools, spells and workflows – both trying to create art. I don't use PS daily for how much, maybe >8 years and use Gimp weekly for about 12years – I say, it is still gimpy as f.. And I'm programmer not a designer, designers usualy just hate it. I on another hand understant it (and it's history) and take it as it is, as an inferior gimpy cousin of PS :)
why does no one ever mention krita
There's the answer I was looking for!
I watched a 3-hour Krita beginner's tutorial (can't remember the exact video but the narrator had a strong French accent) and he explained so many tricks and tips - hold down Ctrl to do this, hold down Shift to do another thing - that might not be intuitive from just poking around. But Krita really is the "built by artists, for artists" program once you have a keyboard & tablet config that fits one's personal workflow.
I would have if you hadn't already.
Though TBH if you're a mouse user gimp might actually be better... but practically noone doing serious graphics work is using a mouse. And it's not like in Blender where you might switch back and forth: Krita is tablet zen, make sure to read at least a bit of the manual.
There's a plugin called PhotoGIMP to make it look like PS.
And there's also Photopea, I used it to make my community icon.
Thanks for trying to help or give hints. I'm good as it is with what tools I use for work. Having in mind nessesity, licence or ownership costs for bussines, hardships with new team mates expectations of using or not using particular tool, learning, etc... Acceptance, it is just a last stage :)
As for PhotoGIMP – I thank for the effort the team (I cheer for them), but the pig with a lipstick is still a pig, or in this case a gimp is a gimp :) I've personaly been on this path for the first 2-4 years of using gimp, during the denial-anger-bargaining stages. Then decided, or just naturaly learned and arrived to accepting Gimp for as it is, as an inferiour workflow tool, partialy usefull and replaceable as soon as there is a beter tool at hand for the task. E.g. I use ImageMagic directly from bash command line (generating icons, resizing, converting formats, filling backgrounds, etc..) using my own oneliners or scripts from notes.
As for Photopea – it gives a surprisingly good online photoshoplike editor feeling. Have used it several times this year. Looks like it was made thinking about usability and workflows sanity.
I second this. Not all tools are equal. Some are even better open source. Others are worse. OP overgeneralize.
To think that gimp was build to be a tool analogous to Photoshop (PS) is naive. It was born to demonstrate GTK GUI widgets and to check boxes on feature list
GTK literally means "gimp tool-kit" GTK exists because of gimp and not the other way around. Also. Take a look at what Photoshop looked like in 1996 (around Gimp initial release), and tell me that's nothing like the gimp. They used to be pretty similar, but their evolutions diverged. Gimp just choosed to stick with the familiar interface, even in the light of PS' changes. Also PS had tens of millions invested in developing it. Had gimp got a tenth of those resources things would be pretty different for both projects.
You are reasoning with your own conclusion that in the context of the question about workflow efectivenes, acceptance by users, tool usefullness it does somehow matter much or in any way – was it the library created as an afterthought or a tool created as a try to use library, or both where born at the same time. :) Who cares. It demoes everything GTK has/had, it was/is clone of photohop idea and they lost it long long ago, as it is now much less efective in it's workflows. If it was otherwise, the industry standard would be Gimp, but it is just a gimmics of it.
P.S. I'm 100% linux user, my servers linux, my desktop linux, my phone android (ok, that is halfassed linux :) ), my tools and software used, if and then possible, all are opensource and/or free. And still, after many years beeing totaly in FOSS enviroment, I just can't deny the worfly earned pedestal to Photoshop in its area of expertise. That is not to say that Gimp is somehow bad, by me it's just a remote next, and it doesn't even try to run to the same direction :) and it is his choise.
I feel also that gimp as a default for linux sucks. As someone that does not edit photos and just wants to edit some screenshot or make a shitty meme I want a default paint alternative. I'm amazed that it was only when I used mint that the void left by paint was filled with "drawing"
I prefer a halfling with an Uzi myself, but whatever floats your boat
I've always used gimp and never found it confusing or very irritating. Not necessarily pretty. Whenever I checked out alternatives I went back to gimp.
GIMP has a super confusing interface. Even just resizing an image is more steps than it is in paint 3D. And I use GIMP to modify images all the time.