I will no longer be able to assist with development nor debugging actual issues with the software… Quite juvenile behavior from the devs. It stemmed from this issue where the devs continuously argued in public by opening and closing an issue. Anyway, thought I would keep y’all apprised of the situation, since these are the people maintaining the software you are currently using.
I have GIMP and Photoshop installed and have at all times for well over a decade. I literally only use GIMP and I use it nearly every single day. Photoshop does some fancy stuff that GIMP isn’t as good at, but as far as basic image editing? Give me the lightweight FOSS client with a sleek minimalist UI that’s been the same for ages over some bulky corporate offering that loves to move things around and change its appearance just to look new.
I agree that Lemmy is a mess, but GIMP is the wrong target for this post. It’s fantastic.
Don’t kid the userbase here.
GIMP does not have a nondestructive workflow. There are no nondestructive adjustment layers, like Ps has had since 1997. It just implemented multiselect for layers in the BETA, which Ps has done since Photoshop 3.0 in 1993. There are no nondestructive layer styles for text. Therefore, it is impossible to properly composite an image in GIMP. One must rasterize every composite, making it impossible to create and rearrange adjustment stacks for image compositing. Something that has been industry standard for over twenty-five years. On the layer styles front, one must rasterize text before any kind of effect can be added. Which is the same problem with forcing the rasterization of adjustments. If it doesn’t look the way you intended, you’re fucked.
No other commercial app works this way.
In fact, the FOSS painting program Krita has nondestructive adjustments and layer styles.
And it is THIS which angers me even more than the pathetic failure of GIMP: FOSS advocates continuing to defend this nonsense.
I’m not kidding anyone. I might not have the same needs or standards as you do, but I absolutely do prefer GIMP and use it over Photoshop. Yeah, there are limitations. I didn’t say it was a better program. Yes, it can be kind of annoying to have to make changes to text. And yes, if your work flow requires you to have these tools it probably isn’t a solution for you.
But frankly, people don’t all need to do things the same way. I’m sure you’re capable of producing something that looks better than much of my output in half the time and have a much more efficient workflow. Cool. But that doesn’t mean I’m some kind of imaginary non-person because I actually enjoy using GIMP.
Why on Earth does that make you angry? It’s literally not even any of your business.
If I used a different kind of paintbrush than you, would that matter? Literally who cares?
Krita sounds cool and I’ll probably check it out, but chances are very good that I continue to use GIMP in addition to whatever else I might find useful simply because I like it and I’m comfortable with it.
Why in the world should that make anyone angry? It’s okay for people to like different things.
By all means, if you prefer GIMP to Ps, that’s on you.
But this tool is not viable for any kind of commercial work. Forcing rasterization before applying adjustments or effects means you can’t remove or rearrange adjustments and effects if it isn’t what was intended. And the GIMP approach of just copying a layer and reverting back is completely b0rked, because adjustments are applied in stacks. Meaning, one doesn’t just apply one adjustment, one must apply several. And the order of those adjustments, along with their blending modes, affects the outcome. Therefore, compositing quickly becomes a task with vast potential orderings in the stack. Never mind each change to an adjustment when tweaking an image. A nondestructive workflow makes this possible. GIMP’s rasterization “workstoppage” means it’s literally impossible to properly composite in that tool.
I don’t know how you use GIMP. If it works for you, by all means, enjoy. But for serious work, GIMP cannot be relied upon.
I edit photography and for serious work, I agree with you. The FOSS lover in me really, really wanted to like GIMP but I find myself just having it there, taking space most of the time. For light work and simple touch up work GIMP is fine, but if I already have Ps or hell, even Lightroom fired up, then I might as well used those for quick fixes as they exist closer or are part of my regular workflow. Guess the issue seems to come down to if you are willing to pay for the software. If one wants to spend $0, or one has light-use needs, then the use case for GIMP increases. But if you need more professional software, then you are likely to just pay for the industry standard for the extra features.
That is not to say that GIMP is useless, which is what I think some people may be thinking. I have been meaning to look at Krita, if only due to curiosity for a while. So thanks for reminding me.
I love the Adobe suite. I just hate Adobe, the company. Lol
I’m running Linux now and there’s no choice but the free tools. My workaround is to do cutouts and background recreation in GIMP. I prefer how it handles transparency masks and clipping over Krita. And the ability to use a saved path as a guideline with snapping is useful. Then all layers are exported and imported to Krita for composite with adjustment layers. Any text is done there for layer styles. Or, stuff from GIMP goes straight into Blender or Resolve.
But if a client demands Adobe, and they’re willing to pay, no worries. I’ll fire up win and run Adobe. But I have completely moved off Maya to Blender for a variety of reasons. Mostly because none of my clients require it anymore. Corporate clients tend to prefer Adobe still. The mom and pops tend to like the entire tool chain being free.
But without a doubt Ps blows away GIMP and Krita together, never mind separately. Frankly, I’d prefer Ae to Fusion too. But Blender has made up for most of the limitations of Fusion. And the rest of Resolve is fantastic.