I was contemplating switching from Cinema4d to Blender for a long time, but the UX of C4d was so nice and Blender’s frankly sucked. Then 2.8 came out with a UI overhaul that changed all that and now I’d never dream of switching to another 3d package when Blender is so easy to use, extensible with Python, and has a huge community around it. Blender’s popularity soared after the UX changes. Sometimes, a UI overhaul can make all the difference.
No everything in Linux has to be used through the terminal, how else will I feel elite. If there has to be a gui let’s make sure it looks like it was designed in 1995, so everyone hates it and just uses the terminal instead
Just use the terminal to send keyboard and mouse events, you hopeless noob!
wtype -M shift "A" -m shift wtype -k enter swaymsg seat seat0 cursor set_position 100 200 ydotool mousemove -100 50 ydotool click 0`In fact it’s even more efficient!
Ewww Xorg
I’m sorry, wayland lacks this functionality. You have to use X if you want shit that works.
The power of Linux, in the palm of my hand
Blender is great after a decade of pro maya use. Ux is nowhere near as good but man, its like stepping into the contemporary times from the middle ages.
I haven’t used Maya since the early 2000s when they had the Personal Learning Edition. I remember being put off by the 3 mouse button requirement and the weirdness of the UI at the time, but found C4D drastically more intuitive. Maybe the Maya UX has improved a lot since then, but I found Blender 2.8 slightly less intuitive than C4d when I first started, but not bad overall, compared to being completely put off by earlier versions of Blender’s UI as I had been with Maya. The expensive subscriptions for both Maya and C4D are definitely more off-putting than anything else, though.
I have no experience in c4d or maya back then as back then I was experimenting with milkshape.
Maya used a clever rose menu where you hold down a modifier key and right mouse button and you can navigate all but the more uncommon commands without moving any of your hands. A complex command requiring a hotkey or multiple menus ends up being a sub 1cm movement engrained in your muscle memory and maybe a modifier key.
And that movement is very easy to learn and memorize thanks to the design. I have to this day never seen an ui done better than maya.
To give a specific example of how powerful Blender is, in geology there are very very very very expensive 3d modelling programs and then there is like… Sketchup which I guess Google hasn’t abandoned? idk… even the basic GIS software for geologic mapping from ESRI is expensive AF, especially if you want to do any fancy 3d rendering or map making.
Enter this guy
You already know this guy is cool as fuck just from that photo, but let me tell you how exactly how lowkey cool Marcus Schwander is.
(btw I have zero connection to this guy, I know next to nothing about him, I literally just found his videos from searching “Blender Geology” on youtube randomly)
His video series shows quite clearly and exhaustively how to do extremely complicated geologic mapping of complex fold belts with lots of faults using Blender. What I can’t stress enough is that the workflow he is detailing in the proprietary software world would be EXTREMELY niche, require exhaustive licensing and setting up payment and getting software keys… blah blah blah and ultimately it would be a very expensive workflow, possibly requiring software licenses that cost thousands of dollars or more (I am not kidding). On top of the prohibitive cost, any kind of documentation, additional plugin development, or content creators who make tutorials about how to use the tools is an order of magnitude rarer for those tools because access to the tools in the first place is so prohibitive (and is usually only along narrow circumstances, not the kind of situation someone would organically decide to make a youtube tutorial channel about a software that costs $30,000 a license necessarily). In contrast, try searching for “Blender tutorial” in youtube and just take a cursory glance and the absurdly exhaustive amount of resources out there about learning Blender.
I have been teaching myself Blender because I want to make similar tutorial videos because it is ridiculous to me idea that in 2025 geologists don’t have an open format to visualize geologic structures and map them in a natural 3d environment that can be then shared with other geologists, in a established non-proprietary format that a geologist can ensure that any other geologist can open and view the model/data themselves, because again if you have a computer you can get Blender…
I am firmly of the belief that Blender should be taught as a basic part of a Geology curriculum along with a GIS class, not a primary focus or anything, but the tool is so general and so broadly useful that I think we owe it to future scientists to teach everybody we can how to use Blender.
As a last point, I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting using Blender to make cool fancy cinematic visualizations of Geology because it looks cool, or suggesting trying to do lots of complex modelling and computation in Blender instead of a GIS software, those are both awesome uses of Blender but what I am suggesting is that by simply teaching the next generation of Geologists how to use a 3d modelling software just for the simple purposes of giving them a tool to sketch out ideas or explore a geologic map from a 3d perspective (which can be useful ESPECIALLY when talking to other people about specific geologic structures that are difficult to explain without a 3d perspective to point to) Blender is going to forever change how Geologists use computers to do Geology.
It is a cool moment because on the flip side… there is a LOT of money in Geology and I think the Blender community could and will absolutely find serious, sustainable long term funding from Geology companies and academia associated entities that could massively bolster development capability and funding security.
I haven’t used photoshop or any other “industry standard” in more than a decade.
Still, everytime I open Gimp I have to look up for the “increase/decrease brush size” shortcut, because it’s so dawn counter intuitive.
The UI was overhauled in the 3.0 update on March. The new documentation says changing brush size is fairly easy: https://testing.docs.gimp.org/3.0/tr/gimp-using-variable-size-brush.html
All brushes have a variable size that can be changed.
You can change the brush size in several ways:
-
By using the default shortcut keys for changing a tool’s size:
-
Decrease size by 1: [
-
Increase size by 1: ]
-
Decrease size by 10: {
-
Increase size by 10: }
-
-
By using the default mouse scrollwheel actions for changing a tool’s size:
-
Decrease size by 1: Ctrl+Alt+Scrollwheel Down
-
Increase size by 1: Ctrl+Alt+Scrollwheel Up
-
-
Gimp is genuinely awful and is maybe the worst example you could have given
Leagues above whatever the fuck adobe photoshop is doing.
this is extreme coping
In the future maybe they’ll reduce it down to one button and force you to yell your intentions into a USB microphone that costs $23.99 a month to rent and needs 20 minutes of downtime to update every few days and bricks itself if there is no internet connection.
and it’d still work better than gimp lmao
this is extreme coping
The only thing awful about GIMP is its name.
At least the name gives you a really good idea of the philosophy driving their UX…
I get where you’re coming from, but maybe you haven’t heard the news! GIMP 3.0 just got released in March including an overhaul of the UI. While I haven’t checked it out myself, reviewers are saying it’s now really good.
Spoiler alert: It’s way better than it was, but it’s still not very good.
You can make circles in Krita
It’s possible in Ligma, too.
what is ligma
ligma balls
Ligma balls ha ha ha (gets fired)
Seriously, Ligma’s one of the most unfortunate names for a professional product since Cockroach Database or Coq.
Ligma is a top class ux mock up and raster editor with a wide array of features. Current version is Ligma.84115
wait actually? 💀💀
Look at the version number
Good meme. Thank you for your service
Thanks! 🤗
Eli5?
It’s an thing people used to say when they wanted to justify not using the software gimp
You mean a common user experience that leaves many new users frustrated.
Yup and honestly the hostility those users get when mentioning it is the same reason Linux doesn’t get more traction in the mainstream.
When a lot of users expect software to work in a particular way and it doesn’t, you change the software - if you insult, belittle or otherwise expect the user to change their working habits then you’re going to have a bad time and be all shocked Pikachu when the user doesn’t use the software.
Apple is (was lol) the most valuable company on the planet because they understood that the user experience is the absolute most important thing. They are the textbook example of vendor lock in and yet people flock to them because “it just works”.
the hostility
“Hey, why this free software I tried once IS SO SHIT AND UNINTUITIVE AND EVERYONE WHO MADE IT IS PLAIN STUPID AND WRONG, NOW HELP ME IMMEDIATELY YOU FUCKING NERDS. Man, nobody fixed my problem immediately, what a hostile envoroment”.
you change the software
Oh, so that’s what big corpos were doing this whole time? Damn, what a cool environment that should be, you buy software and it behaves like you want it to be, and if it doesn’t, you complain to the corpo and it fixes it for you immediately.
Apple is (was lol) the most valuable company on the planet because they understood
that you don’t need to sell software or hardware, you need to sell brand recognition, feel of premium exclusivity, and smug satisfaction of being better than the plebs. And as long as your shit doesn’t crap out tremendous amount, you can ruse the rubes.
I think your response is unintentionally proving my point lol
Maybe, but people who demand volunteers to provide more labor than they are willing to also are the problem. You don’t seem to grasp the nature of volunteering. It isn’t meant to serve you—volunteers do what they want when they want to because you won’t do what they want. They have your same frustrations: I want it to do X! So they do it.
I’ll also say this: arguments like yours have been used for decades while Linux is getting more and more popular. Maybe, just maybe, you’re wrong.
Linux is getting more popular because corporations like valve have put the effort into refining the user experience. I’m not just talking about a pretty UI either, I’m taking things like proton that makes playing games on Linux as easy as playing on windows.
I’m not saying there aren’t people out there that demand free labour from volunteers - of course there are; I maintain and have contributed to a few open source projects myself so I know all too well what that’s like.
However, I would say those folks are a very small (albeit vocal and annoying) minority. The vast, vast majority of users simply dismiss Linux/GIMP/Whatever because it’s not suitable for them. They don’t go screaming into GitHub demanding features, they don’t post on Lemmy that the software sucks or otherwise create a fuss, they just gravitate towards the stuff that works for them (usually something proprietary) with the least friction.
And I think you missed the point of my response
Yeah you’re right, it’s the users that are at fault.
This is the hostile attitude they were talking about
They didn’t came for help with their problem or whatever, they came to argue about their favourite way to organise software development, brandishing hostility and accusations from the beginning. Different situations, really.
Agree, Adobe products always leave me frustrated, and my experience is universal.
I kept seeing recommendations of gimp as a photoshop alternative, so I installed it and… I was convinced that I must’ve downloaded the wrong thing. It didn’t even look like an image editor to me. I’m sure it’s a wonderful program, maybe the UI got better since then, but I ended up much happier just using paint.NET
There is a practice where software companies will either provide their software to schools and colleges for free or will pay schools and colleges to use their software. This leads to the students using this software, learning that software’s sole paradigm, and essentially forces them to use that software going forward because of how difficult it is to shift to another software with a different paradigm. This is Vendor Lock-In. The vendor locks you into their software.
This leads to all future workers being trained in that software, so of course businesses opt to use that software instead of retraining the employee in another. This contrasts with the idea of what an ‘industry standard’ is. The name suggests that it’s used in the industry because it’s better than other software, but in reality it’s just standard because of lock-in.
This is how Windows cornered the operating system market - by partnering with vendors to ship their systems with Windows pre-installed.
My kids use Chromebooks at school. What I call “Word” they call “Docs”. It’s very clear why Google gives this operating system away for free.
Your description of vendor lock-in is obviously solvable by developers making a competing UI and workflow similar to the most popular software, and enabling new features under another menu. That said, there is obviously minimal interest in doing so.
This is UI. UI is not vendor lock-in. Lock-in costs users money to break out of, not developers.
That entire solution immediately falls apart when the paradigm is patented by the vendor, who immediately sues any competing software using UI elements even vaguely similar to theirs. This has been going on for decades, and the three things that usually happen are that the competitor either gets bought up, sued out of existence, or has to keep their UI different enough that there is little-to-no bleedover between the userbases (and usually starves to death from too little revenue).
Oh yeah, when a school receives a hundreds of computers with Windows preinstalled, they obviously consider spending hundreds of man-hours on installing a different OS, but decide against it because Windows has quantifiably superiour UI. Because that’s exactly how it works.
Have you ever heard of SAP? Salesforce? UI quality and UX workflows have never been the deciding factor for choosing a piece of software in a corpo setting. It’s money and whose friend is pocketing it. That’s all that CFO make decisions on. Windows became a standard because Microsoft literally paid schools to buy computers with it, in exchange all schools had to do was let them conduct their indoctrination workshop, disguised as a “how to use a computer” course. But of course they exclusively talked about Windows.
For decades Apple paid schools to teach on their computers. In the 80s and much of the 90s, all you’d find in computer labs was Macs.
It didn’t work because PCs were just better for businesses at the time.
PCs were just better for businesses at the time.
How so?
Software mainly. Apple made software companies pay a license to release software on the Mac, so most companies chose to release on PC exclusively.
dude if your ui is unusable you’re gonna hear about it.
you can’t make an open source car that has two joysticks instead of a steering wheel and talk about industry standards and vendor lock ins when people say it sucks.
I mean it’s cool that it exists for non drivers who sometimes want to jump on an open source car for a quick trip but if driving is your job then the joysticks being technically functional won’t cut it.
that doesn’t mean you have to copy everything 1:1, if people are looking for alternatives one reason might be that not everything about the standard car is great. affinity has some great differences in tools but they’re designed in a way that makes sense to pro users.
I’ve said this before but there’s a severe lack of designers in the open source space. there should be a platform that enables designers to relatively easily contribute to open source projects without learning git or whatever the fuck.
Legendary comment, my friend!
Git is what is used for software development. It isn’t crazy hard to learn and is fairly simple to work with.
git is fine. girhub sucks ass and if a I am ever directed to it then that project is dead to me.
ok then tell me how I can fix GIMP’s UI without coding.
submit a feature request
thanks, the UI is better now
which feature request is yours?
the one you recommended
a platform that enables designers to relatively easily contribute to open source projects without learning git
Reading this made me a bit sad.
On the one hand, I understand how tools like this could be a hurdle for someone who isn’t heavily invested in their use. And on the other, as someone who has tinkered with open source projects, I know that as hurdles go, git is the first of very many hurdles that must be cleared when contributing to a large, mature GUI program like this, and it’s a pretty low one at that.It would be great if more people could contribute to and help develop open-source versions of tools they themselves use, but I can certainly see how tough it can be starting out
Not low at all. After you contribute the maintainer be like “can you rebase it all to one commit”
And then you end up force pushing and ping 4000 people
Or you accidentally close your pull request
If no conflict, GitHub has a button to squash all commits in a pull request.
Honestly just copying everything from 10 years ago 1:1 would be an improvement on most big applications.
I think there’s been lots of improvements to various small things to make that accurate. but adobe does love to regress in lots of different little ways as well.
I need to muster the energy to make a video about the affinity lineup. they have a number of new tools and features that didn’t exist before but are certainly improvements.
Not only a lack of designers, but the very concept of them is held in contempt among way too many in the open-source world (like this thread even).
here should be a platform that enables designers to relatively easily contribute to open source projects without learning git or whatever the fuck.
Make it then.
Do you know how difficult it is to make software that runs, let alone runs well? Do you know how difficult it is to stay on top of the constant messages, issues, PRs, and just churn that comes alone when that particular software gets popular? And on top of that devs are supposed to be design gods too?
If you think you have the solution: build it. Be a part of the solution. The developers of GIMP can’t do everything.
If we can’t criticize because we can’t make it, might as well shut up for life.
There’s constructive criticism and then there’s just yapping.
“Ermagerd GIMP devs are so shit at design” = yapping
“Just build a platform for designers” = supposed solution + it’s so easy, people are stupid for not having built this yet = yapping
Had it been, something like
I’m not a fan of GIMP’s design. It would be cool if had a way to help them. Maybe a platform to connect devs and designers? It could work like …
That would’ve been a completely different discussion.
I feel like they gave good reasons as to what the problem is and why it exists, and potentially how to solve it (making git easier to use, which I’m all for, or use something else)
You’re the only one insulting the project/devs. They were really respectful in their comment. You’re just misquoting them and making them say something they didn’t.
You’re just too entitled. Some opinions can be direct and harsh, and still be valid and constructive criticism. Grow some thick skin and get over it.
“Just build a platform for designers”
did it feel weird when you emphasized a word that I specifically didn’t say in your quote? there’s strawman, and there’s straight up lying. and your suggestion for how I should have worded it is pretty much what I said. it’s so funny, is the issue that I didn’t use enough uwus and 👉👈 emojis? lol.
that’s not what they were saying.
They were saying there wish there was a way for designers to contribute. Git is a pain in the ass. lets be real. Important, but a pain. Its a bad UI.
Design isn’t the same as code, so the same process and repos aren’t necessarily going to help. that’s all they didn’t say anything insulting. Only that they wish there was a away for designers to contribute. Why is that hurting peoples feelings?
genius reply. i love that in the same comment where you say devs can’t be design gods you say designers should make an entire software platform.
and no, they’re not supposed to be design gods, which is why I said there should be a platform that enables designers to contribute, which would take the burden off the devs. words must be hard.
I know very little about GIMP or other OS design software, but does this software have a plugin system that designers could use to extend the software so they can use it how they want?
That would be another thing to look intoAlright making this really simple.
These are the interpretations of you and your words:
- you are a dev
- you think GIMP’s design is shit
- you think GIMP devs should be better at design and are worth shitting on
- you purport to have a solution
My words:
- stop shitting on devs for design
- build the solution you purport to have
Nowhere do I say “designers should write code”.
Are we on the same page now?
that’s a bad interpretation.
- no I’m a designer, which is why I’m talking about design
- yes it is
- no, devs are devs and designers are designers. I think it would be nice for designers to have more opportunity to contribute to open source projects
- having a solution is a bit generous. I just said having an easy to use platform for designers would make open source projects more approachable.
and to your words:
- I’m shitting on the design, not the devs. stop personalizing criticism it’s a terrible way to live and work.
- if I could I would
Nowhere do I say “designers should write code”.
except for literally the very previous sentence. of course you don’t realize that because you somehow assumed I’m a dev despite my comments being entirely about design and even implying that I don’t even know how the fuck git works
Are we on the same page now?
clearly not
dude it’s not my fault you’re on an entirely different book, let alone the same page
They’d didn’t say they were a dev so your whole analysis is off.
So, benefit of the doubt time.
That’s some mental gymnastics in there but let’s see if we can get it.
So the reply isn’t actually suggesting you create the platform for designers, they are pointing out that there is a lot more to competent platform/software design than it seems, so try it yourself and find out.
If it turns out you do in fact have the answers, great, we now have the platform you described.
Chances are you’ll find out just how difficult it is to do what you are suggesting and realise that implying someone could “just” create a platform for designers isn’t particularly realistic.
so the comment is about how I might not realize that creating such a platform is hard when my comment says I don’t even understand how git works. weird. nowhere in the history of language has “there should be such a thing” meant or even implied “making such a thing is easy”, if anything it implies the opposite.
nowhere in the history of language has “there should be such a thing” meant or even implied “making such a thing is easy”
I know its hyperbole but you can’t possible back that statement up.
if anything it implies the opposite.
It doesn’t, but i agree it didn’t really imply the difficulty was high either.
I wasn’t saying the reply was correct, i was stating the intended meaning (at least as i see it).
To answer to your original post, design platforms with version control exist.
Some use git under the hood, some don’t, most don’t require you to understand git to use them.
Hopefully that saves you some time as now you don’t have to build the platform from scratch.
I loved my Ricochet RC car that drove with twin sticks…
I would totally drive an actual car that handled that way!
I knew someone would make this comment but that’s kind of the point. rc cars are toys after all, and it’s fine as a hobby but if professional driving would be better with twin sticks I feel like motorsports would have already adopted it.
Open source software design sucks because they don’t have desginers (who know git) because they can’t attract designers (who know git) because they don’t have money (free and open source) because they don’t have big userbase (which can lead to more people donating) because oss software design sucks.
Downsides for sure, but it does work.
The problem is even if a designer contributes (say they open an issue with design feedback or even wireframes and such) developers seldom see as much value in a redesign as there is in working on features they care about, because open source is driven by developers making apps that they would use firstly.
that’s fine but there should be less defensiveness about people criticizing the design then
deleted by creator
Docker Engine, without the Docker Desktop licensing and VM overhead
Docker is a great example because podman basically is a drop in replacement.
Vendor lock-in is bad and Adobe’s business practices are bad, no matter how you cook it. There are so many viable alternatives to Adobe stuff.
Problem is, Photoshop power users don’t often want to hear about any alternatives. GIMP is just one of the most popular culprits in this regard. That’s exactly the kind of mindset that the vendor lock-in creates.
I’m kind of happy that I stuck with GIMP when I was younger. Now, I have absolutely no fear of trying out any software that comes my way. I do most of my photo work in Affinity Photo. Don’t have problems with GIMP either, use it for some other stuff.
The only way to get people to switch from Adobe is to wait for Adobe to make the life unbearable for their own customers. Some time ago there was a huge movement for people to switch from Premiere to DaVinci Resolve because Premiere really is pretty horrible these days.
The only way to get people to switch from Adobe is to wait for Adobe to make the life unbearable for their own customers
Completely agree with this! The big opportunities to get mindshare will come completely out of the blue, and likely as a result of massive blunders on Adobe’s side.
We never know when the blunders will come, we just have to be ready and provide the next best user experience so that the free software is the “obvious” place to switch to.
As we saw from the twitter/reddit migrations, the fediverse did get a large amount of traction, but bluesky became the obvious alternative because its UI was basically the same.
And that’s fine - the fediverse is it’s own thing and many people (myself included) don’t want “adoption at all costs” - but I think it’s worth pointing out that it does hinder adoption in these big moments.
I have a lot of respect for free software projects that deliberately replicate the UI of an existing proprietary project. They make it so easy to recommend for people to switch when those moments come.
What I have seen is that once people get a taste of free software that really easily solves their problem, it makes the benefits “real” to them and they start to look for other alternatives on their own.
deleted by creator
I don’t do graphic design and only use GIMP for making memes. Could you give a few pointers, why GIMP is not usable compared to photoshop?
deleted by creator
If you wanted to give counterexamples to your point, you couldn’t come up with a better one.
deleted by creator
So far hundreds of people are saying exactly what you do. “It’s just better, OK, shut up, I will not elaborate”.
And yeah, obviously, it’s not your job to do anything for an anonymous commenter on the internet, but you have spent the same amount of time telling us that you don’t want to provide examples, than you could just giving us two or three, and that’s not not saying something.
I doubt that to be a serious concern for companies. Especially with how marketing regularly revolves around sexualizing their messages and how things like hostesses are a thing at many trade-fairs. The CEO of NVIDIA signed a boob ffs.
Also the only time i came across the term gimp was in Pulp Fiction. If it wasn’t for that movie i wouldn’t know that it has something to do with BDSM.
But really, what are things why GIMP is rationally not suitable for industry work? Is it a lack of certain features? Is it performance? Is it an impossible to learn UI? Because in your other reply all i read was that people who are used to PS just stick with it, because that is what they are used to. Which then brings us to exactly what the meme is criticizing.
And at the monthly pricing of Adobe that switching costs only justify themselves for so long. Also a friend of mine who does photo and video stuff for weddings and events as a side-gig has been furious how having to have Win11 to use Adobe cost him 5k because his old computer was not compatible anymore.
So i am curious to understand, if there is rational reasons, why taking the shit from Adobe is worth it. Of course if certain standard workflows take 1 minute in PS and 2 minutes in GIMP that adds up over a full time job. On the other hand if professional users were to support the open source development, these issues could be addressed, creating value for everyone except Adobe.
Damn this might be the fakest reason I’ve ever heard to not support GIMP
there was a case to be made in the past [nondestructive editing, cmyk etc], but as of 3.0(.2) the divide is steadily narrowing
Wait, you can’t make circles in GIMP? This has to be false. If my memory serves me well, I remember using GIMP for a school project back in the day and I’m pretty sure it could make circle.
You can, it’s just not as simple as click on circle shape maker. You have to make a circle with the circle selection tool than turn it into a path. It’s only difficult when you’re first figuring it out. Once you do, it’s not a big deal.
It’s only difficult when you’re first figuring it out. Once you do, it’s not a big deal.
I’ve been using Photoshop and Gimp a lot over the last decade. There are a few things I like better in Photoshop and nothing I really like more in Gimp, but they’re both absolutely serviceable.
I wish content-aware patch came by default in Gimp and I wish Gimp had more user-friendly macroing, but if I’m drawing circles in my photo editor, my first thought is why the hell am I not using a vector editor.
It doesn’t have basic shape tools. You have to fill a selection
Have you tried squares, mate?
I enjoyed that movie way more than I should have 😂.
Keycloak is a industry standard and is very much not vendor locked. Same with Auth0. As far as oauth goes.
Yeah I feel like “industry standard” and “vendor locked” are kinda opposites?
Not really. “Industry standard” just means it’s commonly used in the industry. “Open specification” is the opposite of “vendor locked”, e.g. OAuth for authentication.
Industry standard is generally an open standard. Proprietary is what you and meme/op are thinking.
No, sorry, you’re just wrong. An “industry standard” can be anything that’s normal in an industry, e.g. a particular tool. Photoshop for example is an industry standard, but it’s not an open standard in any way.
What it means is context driven. I didn’t see this was an “industry standard” vs an alternative/gimp.
Okay, but we’re in the context of “tools being industry standards”, as GP mentioned KeyCloak. That’s not a standard/specification, it’s a tool.
And of course Photoshop is an industry standard.
Circle select + Shift-PaintBucket
People really love making storms out of water glasses.
Not an actual shape tools, as shape created should be editable (usually as vector layer).
That method resulting an rasterized circle.
…and GIMP dev actually planning to add shape tool.
and GIMP dev actually planning to add shape tool.
Gimp’s first version released in 1998. Do you find it surprising that people aren’t impressed by plans to add basic tools after nearly 30 years when the competition has stuff like content-aware filling and automatic layer separation?
There are many valid arguments against using Adobe products, or for using open source editing software. Productivity and ease of use are not one of them.
content-aware filling
For what it’s worth, GIMP has had the resynthesizer plugin since the mid or late 2000’s, and at the time it was significantly ahead of Adobe’s Content Aware Fill.
It’s a free open source project, which means you’ve had just as long implement shapes.
Don’t like it then don’t use it, but you can hardly complain about something which is free.
Again with this tired excuse. “It’s free therefore everybody should just accept subpar software”.
You know what else is free? Gonorrhea. Doesn’t mean I should want it.
Just to be clear, I don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone uses to do their editing. Suit yourself. Just don’t expect others to follow suit and sing the praises of a thing just because it’s FOSS.
I would agree with this, but the whining about a missing feature and how long it’s been missing helps no one.
Either implement it yourself or move along ffs.
Who is whining though?
This is another one of those echo chamber memes complaining about “those people” where “those people” don’t really exist in reality.
Remember that one posted in this very community a week or so ago complaining about “Microsoft evangelists” as if that’s even a thing? I do.
Basic tools? Drawing in a photo editing tool? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Use krita and draw all you want.
Gimp works great for editing images. Krita works great for drawing on them.
Whether you are a graphic designer, photographer, illustrator, or scientist, GIMP provides you with sophisticated tools to get your job done. You can further enhance your productivity with GIMP thanks to many customization options and 3rd party plugins.
Right off their front page.
Yeah illustrator is a huge stretch there, you are right.
And as a graphic designer, I am shaking my head.
That really is never the way I looked at gimp since the beginning.
Regarding Shape Tool: this feature is dependant on Vector Layer. The earliest attempt to implement this is back in 2006: https://web.archive.org/web/20061219233008/http://lunarcrisis.pooq.com/wiki/Gimp/SoC2006Log
I recommend to check the discussion for Shape tool and Better vector Tool here: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/11190
If you check Gitlab repository of GIMP, they’re actually rewriting some old-codebase to be more future-proof. And that works really takes time. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/commits/master
A lot of major design software are actually doing this. For example:
- Manga Studio -> Clip Studio Paint. CSP is now “de-facto” software standard of comic industry, including webtoon. Hugely popular in Asia.
- Serif PhotoPlus -> Affinity Photo. It was regarding as the best Photoshop alternative with arguably easier interface and better performance.
You cannot just slap new feature continuously. The software will end bloated and slow like Photoshop.
All of that is irrelevant to an end user. They have the choice between tool A which is free but developing very slowly, or tool B which is paid but has all of the stuff they need.
99.99% will choose tool B and rightfully so.
Case in point: Serif isn’t currently rewriting their old stuff, they already did 10 years ago. Affinity photo/designer/etc have been out for a decade.
My point is that if you want a future-proof software, you need a solid code base. Affinity already fix that. Clip Studio Paint done that. GIMP dev is currently working on it.
For anyone thinking this is the solution, it’s not. This technique produces a rasterized circle in a destructive editing workflow. What people that are complaining actually want, is a non-destructive tool, like the planned shape tool that will let everyone easily make vector shapes, like circles. It is part of the ongoing plan to add non-destructive workflows to GIMP, it’s a game changer and the gimp team is doing great progress, so kudos to them.
With this logic, why have a rectangular selection tool, when the grid and freehand selection achieve the same result?
Cue the 20-minute alley fight!
It’s not a standard until there’s an ISO, RFC, IEEE or IEC number to go with it.
W3C
Or ABNT or DIN or (…)
We should make just one more standards agency! To include all the standards for everything!
It feels like your making a semantic argument to downplay how tight grip these softwares have on their respective industry markets.
If you are only ever considered for a job if you have Photoshop experience, and that is the normal treatment across the majority of the industry, that’s a standard that the industry is now holding you to - an industry standard if you will. It does not need to be backed by a governing body for it to still count.
My current understanding is that you will not get a job at a major CGI company by knowing Blender (though the film ‘Flow’ shows that might change going forward). You have to know softwares like Houdini, 3ds Max, Maya, etc…, if you want to be treated seriously.
