Yup. Night and day. It’s still not going to satisfy those used to Photoshop or rely on cmyk tools and support. Though 3.0 is supposed to make major strides on that as well as non destructive editing IIRC.
Either way I’d love to see something like krita or GIMP make a mark like blender is starting too. Krita will be the most likely. But it’s still way too early to count GIMP out. It’s been plodding a long steadily like blender since the 90s. But slower with more attention to the tool kit than the original program it was developed for.
These days the default interface is single window with layouts like classic Photoshop. It has excellent format support. Though they are of course behind a bit on the latest PSD support. But it’s very functional. I’ve also had some issues with JXL in GIMP. Lossy is fine. But lossless is causing my exporting to crash. Krita however does lossless fine. Native plugin-wise is where things have really stagnated a bit. But with gmic integration for both GIMP and krita it’s not the pain it could be. And with the major rewrites happening over the last decade it’s kind of understandable. Painful but understandable. Just glad they’re still at it.
I still remember the pre 1.0 versions on early Slack. Heh it was like a slightly more ambitious quirky version of MS Paint.
I’ve never found anything I needed to do difficult or not possible in gimp. The folks that rely upon proprietary photoshop only plug ins or have simply only used photoshop, they’ll never like gimp because they must relearn stuff. Has nothing to do with the abilities of the software. The folks that claim photoshop is “better designed” are simply making justifications for keeping the proprietary software costs to avoid learning the new software.
Use whatever you like but do understand it is a choice of convenience and nothing more.
Yes but no. Relearning a program is one thing but the biggest problem with GIMP is: no non destructive editing. In the professional field GIMP is basically out of the question because of that
It’s not about undoing. It means you can do things like edit something, change something else and then change the original change and then have the second change change accordingly to the change of the first change. This is something most professional or semiprofessional photoshop users I know need which GIMP doesn’t offer, that’s one of the main reasons people use photopea
So undo with layers. Just like gimp. The only thing gimp does not offer is the folks pretending to be professionals learned photoshop in school instead.
Last time I used gimp was in the late 90s I think. I gather it’s pretty much the same as when I last tried…?
I’ve found Krita to be pretty good (though I can load slowly on slow machines).
No, it is not remotely the same.
Yup. Night and day. It’s still not going to satisfy those used to Photoshop or rely on cmyk tools and support. Though 3.0 is supposed to make major strides on that as well as non destructive editing IIRC.
I’ll check it out (as soon as I need it).
Either way I’d love to see something like krita or GIMP make a mark like blender is starting too. Krita will be the most likely. But it’s still way too early to count GIMP out. It’s been plodding a long steadily like blender since the 90s. But slower with more attention to the tool kit than the original program it was developed for.
These days the default interface is single window with layouts like classic Photoshop. It has excellent format support. Though they are of course behind a bit on the latest PSD support. But it’s very functional. I’ve also had some issues with JXL in GIMP. Lossy is fine. But lossless is causing my exporting to crash. Krita however does lossless fine. Native plugin-wise is where things have really stagnated a bit. But with gmic integration for both GIMP and krita it’s not the pain it could be. And with the major rewrites happening over the last decade it’s kind of understandable. Painful but understandable. Just glad they’re still at it.
I still remember the pre 1.0 versions on early Slack. Heh it was like a slightly more ambitious quirky version of MS Paint.
I’ve never found anything I needed to do difficult or not possible in gimp. The folks that rely upon proprietary photoshop only plug ins or have simply only used photoshop, they’ll never like gimp because they must relearn stuff. Has nothing to do with the abilities of the software. The folks that claim photoshop is “better designed” are simply making justifications for keeping the proprietary software costs to avoid learning the new software.
Use whatever you like but do understand it is a choice of convenience and nothing more.
gimp sucks dick compared to photoshop and photoshop sucks dick compared to affinity photo.
source am graphic designer
Well as long as you’ve got technical reasons.
Yes but no. Relearning a program is one thing but the biggest problem with GIMP is: no non destructive editing. In the professional field GIMP is basically out of the question because of that
https://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-undo-dialog.html otherwise use layers. So, no, no problem at all.
It’s not about undoing. It means you can do things like edit something, change something else and then change the original change and then have the second change change accordingly to the change of the first change. This is something most professional or semiprofessional photoshop users I know need which GIMP doesn’t offer, that’s one of the main reasons people use photopea
So undo with layers. Just like gimp. The only thing gimp does not offer is the folks pretending to be professionals learned photoshop in school instead.