this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
13 points (100.0% liked)
linuxmemes
20688 readers
1024 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These people who hate GIMP didn't really practice with it all that much. I use for my day job, editing photos and making content for marketplaces. It works very well. The workflow may be different to PS, yes, but that does not make GIMP bad. Also, for those who hate the UI, two things. First, why don't you help the dev team? And second, we'll have GTK3 support soon (finally).
I tried. I really tried to like GIMP. The main reason I don't like it is because it's trying so hard to be a professional picture editor and the UI.
Why can't I deselect things? Why does something need to be selected at all times? Let me just click a button and remove the selection outline and deselect things.
No. I won't help the dev team because I can't code to save my ass. I turn wrenchs and fix things for a living.
I use other, simpler pic editors. Why should I learn to fly a Boeing 747 when a Cessna 172 will get me where I need to go? I'm making a shit post once every three months, not professional art.
You can deselect all with CTRL + SHIFT + A and deselect a specific part by changing the selection mode from replace or additive to subtract.
imagine locking deselection behind a keybind nobody will know about
It's literally at the top of the select menu
When I was learning about GIMP key shortcuts I was like "Ctrl+A selects everything, Ctrl+Shift+A deselects everything. Makes sense."
And then I went to most of the other apps. "Ctrl+D? Well it's one less keypress, but... WHY?"
To be fair, I get it now, I've used plenty of image editors and I remember the keybinds wherever I am. Just that I sometimes find it annoying that The Other Software hasn't adopted logical keybindings.
(I find it particularly annoying that a lot of image editors try to be fancy and sophisticated and Photoshop-compatible and think it's at all appropriate to use Ctrl+NumpadPlus and Ctrl+NumpadMinus for zooming. Just use what GIMP uses! NumpadPlus and NumpadMinus. It's not hard! What are you using the plain plus and minus for, anyway? Absolutely nothing! I just checked, I need to use Ctrl in Affinity Photo. Plain plus and minus are useless. I see you. ...oh I can just rebind these. Done.)
I just change certain keybinds to be GIMP-like whenever I switch drawing programs.
N is the pencil, CTRL-SHIFT-A is deselect. There's something else, but I can't remember right now.
GIMP is bad. If the problem was simply that it was "different to PS" then other apps like Krita and Affinity Photo would have the same reputation.
If a user goes looking for a tool or feature and it's not in the first place they look, that's a problem of "didn't really practice that much". If experienced people need to look up how to do basic operations and their reaction is "that's fucking stupid", then the software is bad.
To then say "well why don't you help the Dev team then" is insane. I'm not spending hundreds of hours digging GIMP out of bad design decisions when I could just use better software and I haven't seen any evidence that my PR would even be accepted.
Nobody needs excuses and apologism, they need Blender for image editing and GIMP just isn't that.
I mean, I've been using GIMP as my primary photo editor for...over a decade. When I use other programs, nothing is where I expect it to be and I think "well, that's fucking stupid"
So you open any other image editor, click the rectangle select button, draw a rectangle, then select a move button beside the rectangle select tool, then it moves the rectangle you just selected and you think "That's fucking stupid, it should've moved the entire image, not the rectangle I just selected!"
Really?
Yes, really. If my move tool is set to layer move, dont change it just because I used the select tool for something completely unrelated. That is the typical dumbed down big colorful button approach that I hate in modern corporate software.
Look, that you're used to the garbage UI doesn't change that it's garbage and in dire need of a fundamental revamp. If almost everyone here (and everywhere else) says that it sucks or is intransparent, then YOU may be the odd one out here ;)
Imagine hating usable software you don't need a PhD for. It's kinda pathetic to make this your point of pride.
Have you thought about applying for a job at Adobe and fixing it?
Getting a job at Adobe is not helping GIMP
No, but "fix it yourself" is apparently a completely acceptable response if someone criticizes GIMP.
Anyway, I don't care how bad the tools you use are, but it's time to stop acting shocked when industry professionals have no interest in GIMP and don't take anyone who advocates it as a Photoshop alternative seriously.
Nobody is acting shocked. Least the people who learned to use GIMP.
The problem is people like you who are outraged, when asking for a free Photoshop alternative, that the next best thing is not to their likening.
And yes "consider fixing it yourself" is absolutely a valid response for GIMP issues because GIMP is made by volunteers For Photoshop it a bullshit response because it's made by a billion dollar company which charges you for the development and use.
So the people who learn GIMP are fully aware why it gets zero industry use? Thanks, that was my point.
I'm not outraged in the slightest, nor am I asking for a free Photoshop alternative. But I've seen people claiming GIMP is a viable alternative to Photoshop for 20 years and for anything past the most basic use cases, it isn't. You may as well be telling people to use Nano instead of Visual Studio and when they complain about the experience, tell them to code the features themselves.
GIMP has had literally decades of development and even with Photoshop in the worst state it's ever been in, it isn't competitive. There are clearly systemic issues with the project and I'm certain this "head in the sand" mentality is at least partly to blame.
It is the next best completely free alternative. Whether people like it or not.
How is that an argument? How do you get the idea that GIMP is basically required to be competitive, just because it's old? Completely disregarding the fact it's made by volunteers vs a billion dollar company. And also completely disregarding the fact that Photoshop is even older than GIMP. By your own logic, just going by age, how can they be competitive when they are half a decade younger than PS?
Rewriting the whole thing would sure help. But not with the "I'm not going to help, fuck off" community.
And if that was how people actually presented it, I wouldn't be objecting. Instead, people pretend it's as good as Photoshop and anyone who disagrees is blamed for not programming it themselves and attacked for suggesting that commercial tools are far better.
Looks like you're more interested in defending Linux software than actually seeing my point.
So why isn't it competitive? It's not because it's new and hasn't had time to mature. It's not because developers haven't put time into it (despite the ridiculous "fix it yourself" bullshit that people keep pushing). It's not because the problem it aimed to solve has been solved.
It's because the people involved with GIMP have the usual Linux community resentment about what "good software" actually is. It's fuck ugly, but they don't think that should matter, so it doesn't get addressed. It doesn't follow patterns that similar software follows, because they're used to it, so everyone else should be too.
It's the same pervasive "good software is good code and nothing else" mentality the plagues the OSS community.
But who cares? Use your shit software. Defend it to your dying breath. It's not going to fix systemic problems with the project nor fool anyone who actually tries it.
Because it's made by volunteers, in their free time, who either don't have the time or skill or goal to make it competitive. But I wrote that a couple of times already and you continue to ignore it. So much for 'not seeing my point'.
If someone is not able or willing to learn their way around something new, that's literally their problem. Why would it need to be similar? If you want Photoshop, well then use Photoshop. Sometimes doing something different might also end up being the better idea. Won't know until you tried.
And yes, good software is good code. That's just a fact. Because otherwise you inevitably end up stuck and need to refractor the whole thing, instead of adding new features. And then angry people start complaining how you're not competitive, and oh my.
Have a nice day.
Didn't stop Blender. Didn't stop Firefox. Didn't stop Linux itself.
I've already covered in this comment chain. Krita and Affinity Photo do things differently and nobody complains because they can see actual value in the change. Being "different" isn't the source of GIMPs reputation, being shit is.
I moved to Affinity Photo over a year ago, despite it being different. I don't even keep a token pirated version of Photoshop around for compatibility anymore.
I tried multiple times and it simply isn't. That's been their most common feedback for 20 years but people like you still refuse to acknowledge that people might have a point.
Yet somehow, no matter how good the code might be, ugly software with shit UX just never seems to gain widespread popularity. Don't worry, I'm sure it's not because "good software" is holistic, it's because the entire world is wrong about GIMP except for you.
'help the dev team' is a lunatics response. I use Linux but fuck the users man.
It's a bit lunatic, but it's arguably the only way forward. GIMP doesn't have a multi billion dollar company behind - only volunteers.
Expecting the developers to have the capacity and skill to emulate the features and looks of Photoshop (and quickly, please) - in their free time - is even more lunatic.
I'm not expecting anything. But if your response to genuine criticism is "fix it urself in the code lol" then fuck off
Ok
Please teach to how draw good circles and eclipse And how to resize sollection by corner
I assume "eclipse" is a typo of ellipse? Anyway, just use the ellipse select tool (keybind:
e) to make a selection in the shape that you want, then fill it in with the bucket tool (b). Hold shift while using the bucket tool to fill in the entire selection, ignoring anything that's drawn inside it. If you want to draw a ring rather than a completely filled circle, use the "border" command from the "select" dropdown menu to replace the ellipse/circle selection with its border.I'm curious, what is your usecase for this? I've never had to do it myself. But if I had to, here's how I would do it: first, convert the seleciton to a path. Make sure the path is visible from the "Paths" dialog (you have to explicitly show the paths dialog using the "window > dockable dialogs" option. From then on, you can use any of the usual transform tools (perspective, resize, roate, etc) on the path. You just have to select the path icon under "Transform: " in the "tool properties" dialog to make sure you're transforming the path, not a pixel layer. Once you've transformed the path to your liking, you can turn it back to a selection, fill it with color, or stroke it with a brush by right-clicking on it in the "layers" dialog.
Also, bonus tip: never use the dropdown menus, it's a huge waste of time. Just press
/to pull up for the command palette and search for the tool you need.EDIT: I love lovingly ranting about gimp, I can do it four hours on end. I'm not some sort of gimp guru, but I know a thing or two. If anyone has any more questions, feel free to reply to this comment and I'll do my best to give advice.