For how relatively well known it is (it’s probably like the next most well known piece of FOSS after Linux and Blender) I can’t believe how bad a piece of software GIMP is.
I hope you mean the UX. I think attacking it’s functionality would be unfair. It does everything good and right … technically.
If the UX is objectively bad or “just” subjectively might be hard to find out. I would assume if there are objective UX mistakes, some contributor might have been able to deal with that by now. But of course it doesn’t change anything if a majority doesn’t like it for subjectice reasons. It’s part of UX design to deal with subjective aspects.
Or color spasecs other than sRGB (8 bits/channel). I’ve a camera that takes 10 bits/channel photos, a monitor that displays 10 bits/channel, etc. But GIMP will just distort the colors because they hard-coded the color space! Can’t edit for print either, no CMYK. GIMP is an image editor for the noughties, not the 2020s.
Then again, we’re talking about MS Paint here. If Paint fills your needs, GIMP will be fine.
I’ve been waiting for years for “non-destructive edition” (AKA smart objects). It’s a fundamental feature that I use (almost?) always as a first step. IMHO a lof of professional work is not practical without it.
They had it on the roadmap (see 2020 archive) for years marked as “No[t started]”. The current roadmap looks more promising with “link layers” marked as WIP and saying it could be available on GIMP 3.0.2.
As it should, I’ve tried twice to use GIMP, always gone back to Photoshop.
For how relatively well known it is (it’s probably like the next most well known piece of FOSS after Linux and Blender) I can’t believe how bad a piece of software GIMP is.
I hope you mean the UX. I think attacking it’s functionality would be unfair. It does everything good and right … technically.
If the UX is objectively bad or “just” subjectively might be hard to find out. I would assume if there are objective UX mistakes, some contributor might have been able to deal with that by now. But of course it doesn’t change anything if a majority doesn’t like it for subjectice reasons. It’s part of UX design to deal with subjective aspects.
Not having adjustment layers is a pretty big deal
Or you know, being able to rearrange layers.
That one time I had to use GIMP, I found that simply dragging worked fine.
Or color spasecs other than sRGB (8 bits/channel). I’ve a camera that takes 10 bits/channel photos, a monitor that displays 10 bits/channel, etc. But GIMP will just distort the colors because they hard-coded the color space! Can’t edit for print either, no CMYK. GIMP is an image editor for the noughties, not the 2020s.
Then again, we’re talking about MS Paint here. If Paint fills your needs, GIMP will be fine.
Not just 10bit. The Linux version still makes 8bit images more purple after saving.
Disagree. Paint’s function is to be the Notepad of images, something not very powerful but quick and dead simple.
GIMP is needlessly hard to use.
Good news for you, if they ever get around to releasing gimp 3
I’ve been waiting for years for “non-destructive edition” (AKA smart objects). It’s a fundamental feature that I use (almost?) always as a first step. IMHO a lof of professional work is not practical without it.
They had it on the roadmap (see 2020 archive) for years marked as “No[t started]”. The current roadmap looks more promising with “link layers” marked as WIP and saying it could be available on GIMP 3.0.2.
I use Gimp a lot.
It does its job very well, but that job is not to be an alternative to photoshop.
I used GIMP before Photoshop and I still massively prefer GIMP.
I really think its a case of what you got used to first.
Then all the defenders go “But it’s free and open-source!” and you can tell they are just paying lipservice.
deleted by creator