Not saying you are necessarily wrong about Gimp possibly being able to copy some of the good ideas from Photoshop. However, you basically confirmed what the GP said. If you suggest to put your usual Photoshop user in front of Gimp, without prior experience, then they are bound to walk into unexpected design decisions. Just like a Gimp user would, trying to find things in Photoshop.
Confirming what the GP said? This is all misdirection. Bottom line the GIMP UI/UX is garbage. There are extremely few people that have used a variety of image editing tools and claim GIMP is actually better. That’s all that matters really. This isn’t some rhetorical exercise.
I don't do graphic design any more, but I started with GIMP - when I was first able to try Photoshop (pre GIMP redesign) it was awful, nothing made sense, nothing was where it should be. In contrast, when I first used Corel Draw it seemed intuitive.
Just like using a Mac after having been a PC user; or being forced back to MS Windows after using Linux/KDE for a couple of decades.
I used to use Inkscape heavily, but having not used it for a few years, I go back and the UI has changed, similar experience; I feel lost when I should feel capable.
Photoshop was one of the first applications that I noticed using the 'give it free to college students to capture the market' technique. That works so well because it takes a couple of years for for you to adopt the software as an extension of your way of thinking - changing application means a productivity loss, and a feeling of incompetence, and no professional wants that unless they can clearly see an ultimate gain.
The previous poster was talking about Krita (and the one before that Krita and Gimp) and while I agree with some of the criticism of gimps UI, I stand by my comment a lot of that criticism is based around "it is not like program X, that I'm used to".
I mentioned it in a different post, blender is the prime exhibit for this, its UI received even more criticism than gimps. Now that it has become the (or one of the) most popular 3d modelling tool, most of these voices disappeared, because it has become the first entry point and people are not used to some other way of working anymore.
Blender and Krita fit the different-but-not-bad workflow defense, but GIMP's is outright terrible. Instead of the specific buttons, compare how many steps it takes do something in GIMP vs PS. For almost anything, it's either >2x as long, or simply can't be done.
Wat? Blenders UI was revamped. Even so, prior to the rewrite it wasn’t such a sorry mess as Gimp, it already had some professional adoption.
And my point is, regardless of those claiming gimp sucks because it’s not what they’re used to: it absolutely does not matter an iota because there is near universal acceptance that it’s terrible for anything but toy work. UI aside, internally it isn’t fantastic either, a problem that blender didn’t have.
Blender underwent a huge UI overhaul that brought it closer in line with software like Maya. They even made left-click to select the default which was a huge turn off to newcomers.
If anything Blender proves that paying close attention to UI and making it mostly align with user expectations matters.
There are extremely few people who work in image editing who didn't learn on Photoshop, and aren't required to use it on a daily basis because of industry standards (or differences in capability.)
It's like people who speak English talking about how everything in Spanish is in the wrong place. It's the cheapest way to bikeshed: make it more like the thing I know already!
> Just like a Gimp user would, trying to find things in Photoshop.
I'm double commenting in this conversation but I was a GIMP user in high school and college before switching to photoshop. I specifically remember thinking how much nicer it was that everything in photoshop was where I expected it and worked how I expected.
