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.
I was with you until GIMP. If one more person lists it as an alternative to Photoshop I’m gonna lose it. It’s UI is terrible, you have to watch a guide just to get started. Can’t read PSDs in any viable way. I’m sure people use it just fine but to call it an alternative to Photoshop is just plain lying.
Edit: the other thing I dislike about it being suggested as a replacement is that it assumes you work alone. Anyone on a team with people in PS will not be able to even attempt to use GIMP to get work done.
I 100% agree, I actually hate GIMP almost as much as I hate Photoshop.
Paint.net is a significantly better software for light to medium image manipulation, and Affinity is what I’d say is an actual replacement for Photoshop. Affinity isn’t by any means FOSS but you can’t win them all.
You also need a guide to get going in PS, its just a different App but fulfills the same tasks
You wretched Photoshop enthusiast. How dare you defile the sacred realm of pixelated beauty with your blasphemous tools of the Adobe empire! You, who bathe in the deceptive allure of layers and filters, know nothing of the humble struggle of a true purist.
While you revel in your so-called “advanced” software, I, a virtuous wielder of MS Paint, have embarked on an arduous journey. Armed only with a pixelated brush and limited color palette, I navigate the treacherous seas of artistry. Each stroke, deliberate and purposeful, carries the weight of my soul, for I am a master of simplicity.
Do you not understand the profound joy that arises from conquering the challenge of transforming mere pixels into a masterpiece? With each painstaking click, I breathe life into my creations, shaping reality with the precision of a pixel whisperer. Your Photoshop may grant you an abundance of tools, but it lacks the purity and authenticity that flows through the veins of my MS Paint.
Gimp, you say? Ah, a mere imitation of the great MS Paint, seeking validation in the realm of Photoshop. It too shall crumble beneath the weight of its pretentious ambitions. For true artistry lies not in the abundance of options, but in the mastery of limitations.
So, my misguided foe, before you spew your haughty words, remember the legacy of MS Paint. It has endured the test of time, witnessed the rise and fall of software giants, and remained steadfast in its simplistic grandeur. While your Photoshop may dazzle the masses with its flashy tricks, it is MS Paint that stands as the guardian of true artistic purity.
The better alternative to Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign is Affinity. And yeah, while it’s not actually free, you only have to pay once and everything is yours.
Or for quick free edits, Photopea.
The thing is if they want people to migrate they should do something about it
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 :)
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’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.
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”
Paint.NET is lovely, I used to use it a lot for simple image editing tasks, but it’s windows-only and by no means a replacement for Photoshop.
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 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 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 don’t think that’s going to be the case.
The fediverse instances are just lacking a few things here and there to be Twitter/Reddit clones.
Most open source software sans few exceptions like Blender are like 15 years behind the curve in terms of features, workflows, and design.
Open source software is quite far from behind the curve.
There is almost no-one in my field in academia not using R and Latex. Combining it with Linux makes my life much easier.
Wikipedia is open source. Firefox. Chromium. WebKit. Android. Immagine your digital life without any of those.
Whenever I’m forced to use proprietary software I feel like I’m being held back. I know it’s mostly just a question of what you’re used to, but saying that open source is behind the curve is just not accurate.
Yes and no, most of the free/open software has the problem of being very not-user-friendly (even if it’s only for the first time set-up) and the documentation (even the youtube tutorials) are written in a “you should know all this already” way, which is cool if you do, but if this is the first time you are doing this or if it’s the only time you are gonna use that knowledge then it’s absurd to expected someone to learn it only for one time.
It is normal for someone to complain that the thing that steals all their data or needs a subscription is better because it’s easier to use (install, pay/register and use, done), compared with how different and difficult usually it’s to install and get to work a FOSS option (download this, install these, run command lines, configure all these, now get all these plugins, etc).
If we want bigger numbers, then it should be at least as easy as the thing we want them to stop using, otherwise we are barking at the wrong tree.
You are missing a point. Closed sourced solutions pay developers a lot… And they focus on the ux. Think about the most famous example, all apple OSes are just like a customized collection of open source stuff, similar to a linux distro, with a user friendly, closed sourced GUI.
Open source solutions that are not user friendly, is just because no one is paid, or there is not enough budget to pay for a high level UX design and implementation
I’m not missing anything, OP complained about people not easily ditching closed/centralized software and I gave an answer.
I know devs are doing it as a hobby or with donations, that’s on them and they know who their target will be and how much effort is it worth to do it user-friendly or not or how big of a scope they aim for.
We’re talking about the normal user and why they decide to stick to centralized or move to FOSS and why it’s so hard for them to do it.
UX in open source software is mostly fine for those who built it for them selves or people in the same environment.
As soon as stuff gets built for others with other requirements empathy declines, and I don’t mean this disrespectful. Good professional UX sources are needed, indeed to fill this gap. But will they be able to convince the open source devs who often were Initiator of the projects?
That’s not contrary to what he said at all, it’s just another layer of why things are the way they are.
If you want the average joes, you need good ux. If you don’t have it, you won’t get/keep them.
Maybe there are good reasons why you don’t have decent ux. Maybe other people only do because they spend money. Maybe you can find a way around that, maybe you can’t.
Doesn’t matter. Good user experience means you keep users, bad user experience means you don’t.
The main reason is that ux design is difficult, complex but not always rewarding. Few people do it “as hobby”. Companies make money out of UX design. As in the example of Apple, they could find a lot of open source good quality software, but they needed the ui to seel it in macs, iPhones and ipads.
Another example is steam deck. Its OS is just arch linux, with an incredible UI (built by valve), and it is currently more popular than windows handhelds.
Many open source solutions are of greater quality than corresponding proprietary stuff (anyone who has ever worked in a corporate environment also knows why, corporates are elephants trying to create a swiss watch). What open source solutions are missing are companies paying to create user experience.
I think you’re vastly overgeneralizing the world of software here. Before I make my point here’s two facts:
- There’s vastly more FOSS software than there is commercial software.
- Nearly all commercial software is made for a specific use case or customer.
Just about everyone reading this comment is using FOSS software to do so (Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, or even Edge which is really just customized Chromium). Lemmy itself is FOSS and the majority of websites you visit every day are using FOSS on the back end. Do you feel all this software is “not-user-friendly”?
Let me take a step back from that though and assume you’re not really talking about software in general but are actually referring to software with a GUI that runs on a desktop computer. Someone elsewhere in this thread compared to GIMP to Photoshop so let’s look at that…
Photoshop is not an easy, just-use-it application. To get started most people recommend watching a YouTube tutorial and, having watched a few they definitely start from a place where, “you should know all this already”. For example, if you don’t understand the difference between a JPEG and a PNG file you’re going to have a bad time.
GIMP is also not an easy, just-use-it application. To get started most people recommend watching a YouTube tutorial and, having watched a few they definitely start from a similar, “you should know all this already” place. Except there’s one great big difference: You don’t have to pay anything to obtain or use the GIMP. That’s the biggest difference!
They’re both image editing tools but they were designed with different use cases in mind. Photoshop was made for professional photographers and digital artists working for business. This is why Adobe put great efforts into making sure that certain “workflows” go very smoothly… Because they’re the most common in business.
If you try to use Photoshop with a different workflow than what it was designed for you’re going to have a bad time! For example, let’s say you wanted to perform a series of manipulations and add some text to tens of thousands of photos; a great big directory of .jpeg files. You might search up how to do this in Photoshop (using macros) and you’ll quickly come to realize that it was definitely not made for this task!
However, if you searched for how to do the same thing in GIMP well, it actually was made to support that! It’s another one of those things where you’ll have to learn a new skill but it’s doable. It’s a use case the GIMP developers had in mind when they made it.
From the perspective of batch editing Photoshop is basically useless. Anyone who tries would find it, “very not-user-friendly” because it was made for a specific purpose and that’s not it.
The GIMP was made as a much more general-purpose graphics editing tool. So much so that it can be completely re-skinned to make it look like Photoshop or even operated entirely from the command line. You can even automate very sophisticated workflows with GIMP using Python!
This same sort of argument can be made for nearly every open source tool that is commonly bitched about, LOL! They generalize that FOSS isn’t user friendly, completely forgetting or ignoring 7zip, Firefox, VLC, LibreOffice, Notepad++, OBS, Keepass, Greenshot, Ditto, Audacity, etc or any of the many thousands of very popular/common FOSS packages that get used on people’s desktops every day.
