Lol, all these GIMP haters who don’t seem to understand the goal was being on par with Photoshop when it was a desktop application. It works exactly like Photoshop always did. And I agree, selection makes sense. There were many apps that worked the same… Paint Shop Pro as well.
I guess the kids have all grown up with some other tools and would rather call things they don’t understand stupid than try to grasp where the tool came from.
I’m not sure how Krita is different but then again I haven’t used it. I installed it, saw it looked like a fork of GIMP, and stuck with what I knew. Which is probably what anyone who hates GIMP should do.
I was using Mac OS 9 at the time! But PS 7’s workflow was already pretty similar to what it is today, and far more intuitive than GIMP which I tried for the first time in 2006-ish.
Interesting. I remember trying a copy of newer Photoshop a few years and being genuinely confused by how layers worked as they’ve always been part of my flow.
The old versions of photoshop and paint shop pro were heavily layer based and selections were automatically a mask of the current layer as in GIMP so GIMP was easy for me to transfer too at the time.
I also find that intuitive is a relative term. Relative based on your own experience.
I also find that intuitive is a relative term. Relative based on your own experience.
That’s a very good point. As a counterpoint though, pretty much every other app (Affinity Photo, Photopea, even Krita to a certain extent) emulates the PS workflow, which makes GIMP feel even more odd. Its paradigm was probably OK in the early 00s but the world has moved on.
Yeah that’s fair. I’d have to figure out how people are getting on without layers, probably take myself back to basics and pretend I know nothing and see how the ‘learn from scratch’ track teaches these skills today.
OTOH, I also getting to the old dog point, not because I can’t learn new tricks, but because I have so many responsibilities I have little time to do so, which is another reason ideological camps like this form. Which frankly is the wrong reason for them to exist.
I should go figure out how the new apps work, but when I do need to do graphics (since its not my main bread and butter but usually an additional skill I need to help develop something) I habitually pull out the familiar to save time.
To add to this, it’s not like other apps have just blindly copied Photoshop. Affinity Photo has shape tools that are far less convoluted than Photoshop but they still feel instantly familiar.
Even when they couldn’t stick to common patterns (such as the eyedropper tool) they still manage to communicate how the feature works just by designing intelligently, no Googling required.
But every time I’ve used gimp, common tasks feels like a collection of workarounds for missing features. Someone elsewhere in this thread asked how to place an ellipse and got told that wasn’t something commonly needed but to make a selection and fill it using the paint bucket tool (and a modifier key).
That solution is jankier than MS Paint, which at least offers you an actual tool and a short period where you can make non-destructive modifications to the stroke, fill, size and position.
But since you’ve technically got the circle you asked for, it’s treated as “people who don’t like GIMP are just haters” rather than “people don’t want to use bad tools for their job”
I mean, even if that was what they said, that would make it and things that function like it more intuitive to them, wouldn’t it? And someone who’s used to a different workflow would find it unintuitive.
I have no idea how selection works anywhere else, since I only ever used gimp.
For me, I don’t understand this meme, selection seems to work very intuitively, it seems to do what I expect it to do.
Lol, all these GIMP haters who don’t seem to understand the goal was being on par with Photoshop when it was a desktop application. It works exactly like Photoshop always did. And I agree, selection makes sense. There were many apps that worked the same… Paint Shop Pro as well.
I guess the kids have all grown up with some other tools and would rather call things they don’t understand stupid than try to grasp where the tool came from.
I’m not sure how Krita is different but then again I haven’t used it. I installed it, saw it looked like a fork of GIMP, and stuck with what I knew. Which is probably what anyone who hates GIMP should do.
Unequivocally false (source: been a PS user since version 7)
I haven’t used Photoshop since version 4 so we can’t really compare notes here. I dropped Windows during the Blaster Worm attack in the early 2000s
I was using Mac OS 9 at the time! But PS 7’s workflow was already pretty similar to what it is today, and far more intuitive than GIMP which I tried for the first time in 2006-ish.
Interesting. I remember trying a copy of newer Photoshop a few years and being genuinely confused by how layers worked as they’ve always been part of my flow.
The old versions of photoshop and paint shop pro were heavily layer based and selections were automatically a mask of the current layer as in GIMP so GIMP was easy for me to transfer too at the time.
I also find that intuitive is a relative term. Relative based on your own experience.
That’s a very good point. As a counterpoint though, pretty much every other app (Affinity Photo, Photopea, even Krita to a certain extent) emulates the PS workflow, which makes GIMP feel even more odd. Its paradigm was probably OK in the early 00s but the world has moved on.
Yeah that’s fair. I’d have to figure out how people are getting on without layers, probably take myself back to basics and pretend I know nothing and see how the ‘learn from scratch’ track teaches these skills today.
OTOH, I also getting to the old dog point, not because I can’t learn new tricks, but because I have so many responsibilities I have little time to do so, which is another reason ideological camps like this form. Which frankly is the wrong reason for them to exist.
I should go figure out how the new apps work, but when I do need to do graphics (since its not my main bread and butter but usually an additional skill I need to help develop something) I habitually pull out the familiar to save time.
To add to this, it’s not like other apps have just blindly copied Photoshop. Affinity Photo has shape tools that are far less convoluted than Photoshop but they still feel instantly familiar.
Even when they couldn’t stick to common patterns (such as the eyedropper tool) they still manage to communicate how the feature works just by designing intelligently, no Googling required.
But every time I’ve used gimp, common tasks feels like a collection of workarounds for missing features. Someone elsewhere in this thread asked how to place an ellipse and got told that wasn’t something commonly needed but to make a selection and fill it using the paint bucket tool (and a modifier key).
That solution is jankier than MS Paint, which at least offers you an actual tool and a short period where you can make non-destructive modifications to the stroke, fill, size and position.
But since you’ve technically got the circle you asked for, it’s treated as “people who don’t like GIMP are just haters” rather than “people don’t want to use bad tools for their job”
Relative to what? You admitted you only ever tried GIMP fucking lmao.
I talked about using older versions of Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro. Not sure where you grokked any admission that I’ve only used GIMP.
I mean, even if that was what they said, that would make it and things that function like it more intuitive to them, wouldn’t it? And someone who’s used to a different workflow would find it unintuitive.
So yeah… Intuitive is relative
Photoshop 4
Wrong user
I’ve used other stuff almost daily and I still don’t understand this meme.