Photo Pea is where it’s at. Browser based Photoshop clone. Unless you’re doing art, then go with Krita.
Gimp is needlessly unintuitive. I’ve used a ton of programs since I was 10 - I’ve ran Paint Shop Pro (JASC days), Corel Painter, Photoshop (all versions since 7), Krita, Inkscape, a tiny program called Paintstorm Studio, various Oekakis when those were a thing, paint tool SAI, and now Procreate. I have NEVER seen a program weirder than GIMP. People defend GIMP with the old “just because it’s not Photoshop doesn’t mean it’s bad”. My dude I’ve used programs that were entirely in Japanese and they made more sense than GIMP. The way the tools function and where they’re located makes no sense.
And now Krita does 99% of everything you’d need GIMP for as the average person (cropping, filters, a bit of editing). There’s not a good reason to get GIMP. I’m genuinely confused because the features are there, I’m not sure why they don’t reskin the damn thing already.
Thing is.
I’ve used GIMP for the better part of the last 15 years…
Now everything else makes no sense. I tried Kita multiple times already and it never works out and I go back to GIMP.
GIMP broke me, rebuilt me and made into one of their own.
Gimp’s brushes leave a lot to be desired. Photoshop has had vector like brushes for years, Krita has them as well these days, but it still feels like Gimp has rastery pixels on the edge of brushes.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I do know that GIMP is not the best, but I rarely ever use it anyways and then never have the time to really dig into something else.
If it works for you, I’m happy. I’m just frustrated when GIMP is recommended to newbies looking into FOSS art programs. I think a lot of people have the wrong idea about FOSS art programs because thier first introduction was GIMP. As a result I feel like we have a lot more people who are in the apple ecosystem, when in reality being artistic shouldn’t necessarily come paired with really expensive products. I mean most artists are broke and creative, and a lot of them have very left leaning ideals. FOSS art programs and cheaper hardware should be a natural fit, IMO.
If I remember correctly, that unintuitiveness is by design. From what I saw they seem really perturbed by the notion that it should function how most people use similar programs.
Gimpshop was a thing (where they moved the tools to make it look more like Photoshop) but the Gimp people got upset.
You can still set up PhotoGIMP but it’s not good IMO. Making something unintuitive on purpose is strange and oddly elitist. Procreate is totally different than Photoshop but both programs have designs that make sense. Hell, I prefer Inkscapes interface to Illustrator. Nobody says you have to copy the paid product as long as your interface actually makes sense.
Photo Pea is where it’s at. Browser based Photoshop clone. Unless you’re doing art, then go with Krita.
Gimp is needlessly unintuitive. I’ve used a ton of programs since I was 10 - I’ve ran Paint Shop Pro (JASC days), Corel Painter, Photoshop (all versions since 7), Krita, Inkscape, a tiny program called Paintstorm Studio, various Oekakis when those were a thing, paint tool SAI, and now Procreate. I have NEVER seen a program weirder than GIMP. People defend GIMP with the old “just because it’s not Photoshop doesn’t mean it’s bad”. My dude I’ve used programs that were entirely in Japanese and they made more sense than GIMP. The way the tools function and where they’re located makes no sense.
And now Krita does 99% of everything you’d need GIMP for as the average person (cropping, filters, a bit of editing). There’s not a good reason to get GIMP. I’m genuinely confused because the features are there, I’m not sure why they don’t reskin the damn thing already.
Thing is.
I’ve used GIMP for the better part of the last 15 years…
Now everything else makes no sense. I tried Kita multiple times already and it never works out and I go back to GIMP.
GIMP broke me, rebuilt me and made into one of their own.
Gimp’s brushes leave a lot to be desired. Photoshop has had vector like brushes for years, Krita has them as well these days, but it still feels like Gimp has rastery pixels on the edge of brushes.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I do know that GIMP is not the best, but I rarely ever use it anyways and then never have the time to really dig into something else.
If it works for you, I’m happy. I’m just frustrated when GIMP is recommended to newbies looking into FOSS art programs. I think a lot of people have the wrong idea about FOSS art programs because thier first introduction was GIMP. As a result I feel like we have a lot more people who are in the apple ecosystem, when in reality being artistic shouldn’t necessarily come paired with really expensive products. I mean most artists are broke and creative, and a lot of them have very left leaning ideals. FOSS art programs and cheaper hardware should be a natural fit, IMO.
Don’t you worry then, I will never ever recommended GIMP. When asked today, I recommended Krita and Inkscape (for Vectors)
If I remember correctly, that unintuitiveness is by design. From what I saw they seem really perturbed by the notion that it should function how most people use similar programs.
Gimpshop was a thing (where they moved the tools to make it look more like Photoshop) but the Gimp people got upset.
You can still set up PhotoGIMP but it’s not good IMO. Making something unintuitive on purpose is strange and oddly elitist. Procreate is totally different than Photoshop but both programs have designs that make sense. Hell, I prefer Inkscapes interface to Illustrator. Nobody says you have to copy the paid product as long as your interface actually makes sense.