For most use cases of Photoshop, GIMP is not an alternative at all.
Have you used GIMP seriously? And I don’t mean installing it, getting confused because the menu layout is different to Photoshop and giving up in disgust after 10 mins.
I will readily admit that Photoshop is currently more capable and faster in some cases but to say GIMP is not an alternative is ridiculous.
Yes I have, but GIMP simply isn’t aimed at the same type of work Photoshop and AF Photo are. GIMP feels much more of a hobbyist tool to quickly make a simple edit and that’s done. And like the other comment said, it has no non-destructive editing at all, which is an enormous dealbreaker for any kind of professional work you might do.
but GIMP simply isn’t aimed at the same type of work Photoshop and AF Photo are
Look at the home page of GIMP’s website, where it says “Whether you are a graphic designer, photographer, illustrator, or scientist, GIMP provides you with sophisticated tools to get your job done.” If it’s not aimed at the same things photoshop and affinity are then what is it aimed at? Music production? Video editing?
GIMP feels much more of a hobbyist tool to quickly make a simple edit and that’s done.
Why then are there so many transformation tools and filters and channel, selection and vector operations, icc profile management, scripting, etc etc etc? Just because you haven’t learnt how to do something in GIMP doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
And like the other comment said, it has no non-destructive editing at all
This point has been valid for a long time unfortunately, however GIMP does now have non-destructive editing. You can check it out in their development version.
I know you and me are not going to agree on this but I think it’s important to update and debunk misinformed statements, for the benefit of others.
I used to make graphic art in Paint.net myself, anyone who thinks photoshop has anything special is objectively wrong (we’re going to ignore generative AI tools)
The benefit of photoshop is that’s its more refined in what it does, not that it does anything extra that these foss tools can’t do.
The tooling has years of iteration by paid developers and there are a shitload of high quality presets and brushes and, again, refined use case specific stuff, but yeah GIMP is just as viable as a software to achieve most of what photoshop users online who shit talk it can do. The only people whose opinion even matters is professionals who require photoshop to make money for their bills. Everyone else is just blowing smoke out their ass about it because they think having a better tool automatically makes them better.
I’m not the person you replied to, I don’t use Photoshop, but I used to use GIMP exclusively and I use the Affinity suite now. What I’ve seen pop up in discussions about a major area where GIMP is lacking, going back several years at this point:
Photoshop supports nondestructive editing, and Affinity supports nondestructive RAW editing (and even outside RAW editing, it still supports things like filter layers). Heck, my understanding is Krita has support for nondestructive editing, too.
GIMP, on the other hand, has historically only had destructive editing. It looks like they finally added an initial implementation back in February. That’s great, and once GIMP 3.0 releases and that feature is fully supported, then GIMP will be a viable alternative for workflows that require it.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Have you used GIMP seriously? And I don’t mean installing it, getting confused because the menu layout is different to Photoshop and giving up in disgust after 10 mins.
I will readily admit that Photoshop is currently more capable and faster in some cases but to say GIMP is not an alternative is ridiculous.
Yes I have, but GIMP simply isn’t aimed at the same type of work Photoshop and AF Photo are. GIMP feels much more of a hobbyist tool to quickly make a simple edit and that’s done. And like the other comment said, it has no non-destructive editing at all, which is an enormous dealbreaker for any kind of professional work you might do.
Look at the home page of GIMP’s website, where it says “Whether you are a graphic designer, photographer, illustrator, or scientist, GIMP provides you with sophisticated tools to get your job done.” If it’s not aimed at the same things photoshop and affinity are then what is it aimed at? Music production? Video editing?
Why then are there so many transformation tools and filters and channel, selection and vector operations, icc profile management, scripting, etc etc etc? Just because you haven’t learnt how to do something in GIMP doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
This point has been valid for a long time unfortunately, however GIMP does now have non-destructive editing. You can check it out in their development version.
I know you and me are not going to agree on this but I think it’s important to update and debunk misinformed statements, for the benefit of others.
I used to make graphic art in Paint.net myself, anyone who thinks photoshop has anything special is objectively wrong (we’re going to ignore generative AI tools)
The benefit of photoshop is that’s its more refined in what it does, not that it does anything extra that these foss tools can’t do.
The tooling has years of iteration by paid developers and there are a shitload of high quality presets and brushes and, again, refined use case specific stuff, but yeah GIMP is just as viable as a software to achieve most of what photoshop users online who shit talk it can do. The only people whose opinion even matters is professionals who require photoshop to make money for their bills. Everyone else is just blowing smoke out their ass about it because they think having a better tool automatically makes them better.
I’m not the person you replied to, I don’t use Photoshop, but I used to use GIMP exclusively and I use the Affinity suite now. What I’ve seen pop up in discussions about a major area where GIMP is lacking, going back several years at this point:
Photoshop supports nondestructive editing, and Affinity supports nondestructive RAW editing (and even outside RAW editing, it still supports things like filter layers). Heck, my understanding is Krita has support for nondestructive editing, too.
GIMP, on the other hand, has historically only had destructive editing. It looks like they finally added an initial implementation back in February. That’s great, and once GIMP 3.0 releases and that feature is fully supported, then GIMP will be a viable alternative for workflows that require it.
Yes, bring on 3.0! I checked out the development release and layer effects are working well. Happy days for us :)
Apparently there are some major colour upgrades coming in 3.0 too, so good news for printing.