I dunno if it was you asking the question or not but ^^;; if you want some decent replacements for gimp I recommend krita, it’s more Photoshop like and honestly it’s my go-to however there is also photopea which is a browser editor that I heard is actually pretty good, and if you’re on Mac or Windows (if so I dunno why you’d post here XD) I recommend the Affinity suit, it’s cheaper than Photoshop and it’s a one time payment instead of a subscription.
honest, lads. imagine the forum culture would change to be friendly and welcoming. wouldn’t you feel like you lost a little bit of home? 🥲
Krita is great.
I feel like Krita is more focused on digital painting, rather than image editing
I mean, what exactly does gimp or photoshop do (besides the RAW editing tools–but if you’re using those you’re already a professional) that Krita doesn’t?
Right now I’m in a bit of a bind because part of my workflow relies on exporting particular layers and layer groups as separate images. GIMP has a plugin for it, but it uses Python 2, no longer developed, and likely won’t work in GIMP 3. If Krita can do this, I’m switching immediately.
Gimp isn’t perfect. But neither is Photoshop. In fact Lightroom users grizzle that Photoshop is so much harder to use than Lightroom. It’s a different animal.
I use Pinta or Paint.Net when I want a quick edit. But Gimp has the tools for serious editing. More tools, more hard to use.
Some Gimp things, yes! should be improved. And other things are being improved as we speak. And some things can be done on a photo much easier in Inkscape.
I hope the whiners donated to Gimp development? No? Then just please step back, and think for a bit. If thinking is too hard, then just take a deep breath.
anyone who has ever used image editing software professionally knows gimp’s ui sucks very much.
we could have had an opensource photoshop killer if the developers werent adamant to keep the 90s workflow holding it back for so damn long.
“you are using it wrong!!” my ass.
I feel like the issue is that people expect a “Photoshop killer” to be Photoshop verbatim. Instead of focusing on making a good tool, people just constantly compare it to the commercial pack leader.
Most of the complaints I hear about GIMP are just “x isn’t like Photoshop”. I would take the complaints more seriously if any of the people voicing them could actually articulate what should be improved.
we saw a similar thing with blender, everyone kept shitting their pants over blender, until studios started actually using it, and then nobody cared.
Most of the complaints are just people mad that they have to learn something. As is true for most things in life.
I mean, there’s something to be said about adhering to an industry standard. Of course no project has to do so if they don’t want to, but people trying to get on with their work don’t want to spend a bunch of time relearning everything. I think Blender really thrived when they loosened up a little on their ideas of what a workflow should be and gave people industry standard options out of the gate.
Whether we like it or not, GIMP isn’t going to be most people’s first experience with image manipulation. Whether they had a free PS license through school/work, had a subscription at some point, or once got it through ahem alternative means, people will be coming into GIMP with certain expectation of what the workflow should look like and will get frustrated pretty quickly.
