I agree that it's a bit underrated, but I disagree about the complaints. People don't complain about it not being a Photoshop clone. People complain about the UX/ergonomics of gimp being decades behind compared to Adobe's tools.
It doesn't need the same workflows as Photoshop, but it definitely needs to improve them
I will add that copying Photoshop would be an easy all-around win because Photoshop has engineered their UX. I'd say it would be pretty hard to come up with better alternates than what Photoshop has probably.
There are cheaper alternatives to Photoshop that get their UX much better than Gimp. To name two: Gravit (£3/m) or Krita (FOSS), but they're not exactly photo manipulation, though.
Gimp is FreeSoftware (FLOSS), this puts the word "need" in a context where it does not really work like that.
> because Photoshop [in contrast to Gimp] has engineered their UX
This is straight up condescending to the Gimp devs. Sure PS has put more money in UX design, but your saying Gimp dev did not (or cannot) do any of that.
> This is straight up condescending to the Gimp devs.
No, it isn't. There is literally years worth of user feedback and it still hasn't been addressed. It's a common complaint and to say they haven't "engineered" their UX is putting it lightly.
> Please be kind when you get something for free.
Something being free doesn't mean it can't be criticized. Nothing said was unkind.
Every UX is engineered. Maybe not by someone with a lot of experience in it. Maybe not by a team. Maybe not up to your standards. But it _is_ engineered. Basically, saying Gimp did not is not very nice then, especially know the engineer produce it for you for free.
I didn't mean to sound condescending, and if I hurt any gimp devs, I'd like to apologise.
I... Partially agree with you that every UX is "engineered" but that depends on how far we're willing to stretch that definition in the design domain.
I'd hardly call any workflow I design an engineered one (even if I like this field), when compared to something produced by an UX designer (or a team of them) who specialises in the field. Maybe someone put a lot of thought into the gimp UX, but it seems like a wasted effort (or maybe it was just inexperience). I don't know how to phrase this without it sounding insensitive, though. I'm not criticising the people, just this instance of their work, so I hope it inspires them to improve. I'd like to see Gimp become as successful as krita or inkscape (which had UX issues for years, too)
I realise gimp is free, but there also seems to be a general attitude amongst gimp contributors that they think the UX is fine, while most people (in my circles, at least) disagree with that view
I'm a little strict online when I find people just the slightest bit rude to FLOSS teams. It's hard enough doing all that for free. And for me it worked very well: i dont need to know PS, as I know Gimp.
Gratitude and praise it all I have for them. I only criticize in actual places where change is made (issues discussions, etc), and even then I try to be VERY polite.
> People don't complain about it not being a Photoshop clone.
Actually, no. As the person doing tech support for GIMP, I can tell you with 100% assurance that people do complain about GIMP not cloning Photoshop's UI. Quite a lot, in fact.
> It doesn't need the same workflows as Photoshop, but it definitely needs to improve them
Agreed.
> I will add that copying Photoshop would be an easy all-around win
It wouldn't be easy. Nor would it be a win. You would be stuck in the cycle of always following whatever changes Photoshop developers make. And dealing with the same criticism Photoshop devs get. Why would you want that?
And why would you, in your spare time, continuously copy someone else's work? There's no money in this. And it's not fun for sure. So why? Low self-esteem?
> cheaper alternatives to Photoshop... Gravit ... not exactly photo manipulation
Mhm, how about... Not photo manipulation at all and not alternative to Photoshop at all? :)
The alternates I liked aren't complete Photoshop replacements. but then again neither is Gimp? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
My general workflow is to use Krita and Inkscape (I used Gravit for a while because Inkscape was having some bugs I couldn't cope with), and maybe do some minor final colour correction/grading in Gimp on the final output. I could do all of this without leaving Photoshop. I'm not complaining though, since I much prefer Krita's brush engine than Photoshop, and I've gotten used to Inkscape's quirks. And they're both free!
It's not a matter of self esteem or confidence. If someone does it better, do it even better, or settled for living in their shadow.
The way to doing better is learning from the ones that are good at it already, right?
So why not learn from Adobe, which probably has the largest team of the smartest UX engineers working for them. They're not dominating such a complex market with smoke and mirrors.
And maybe Gimp can learne from Photoshop's mistakes too.
Blender is an excellent example of the process I described above. Their UI/UX was a joke for years, but they tried switching things upe and learned from the competitors. I'd say right now they're better than some (if not all) with of most features in terms of UX, especially for newcomers to the industry. Blender went form the steepest learning curve to one that's easy to get into, and from one of the worst UX/UI designs to one of the most polished in the industry.
It's not about low self esteem at all, it's about bettering yourself (or your project). If anything, that's how you build confidence, in my opinion.
It doesn't need the same workflows as Photoshop, but it definitely needs to improve them
I will add that copying Photoshop would be an easy all-around win because Photoshop has engineered their UX. I'd say it would be pretty hard to come up with better alternates than what Photoshop has probably.
There are cheaper alternatives to Photoshop that get their UX much better than Gimp. To name two: Gravit (£3/m) or Krita (FOSS), but they're not exactly photo manipulation, though.