Hacker News Reader

Comment by bb88 | Hacker News Reader

I think the photoshop vs gimp is a bad comparison, mostly because throwing money at gimp to make it better is a bad idea. It would be better to start from scratch.

Now if you wanted to throw $400 for a photoshop like system to start from the ground up and work across all three platforms, I think you've got a great idea. You'd avoid the cruft, you could do subscription/pay-per-use cloud based filters, you could start with 32bits per channel from the start, instead of the slow transition to GEGL...

View on HN

What's wrong with GIMP? I use it every day and find it pretty good. On the MAC now it has lots of weird glitches but they seem pretty fixable...

There was nothing wrong with Windows 95.

GIMP is perfectly fine (for many use-cases), but its not what you or I think that matters.

Perhaps the best person to ask is a photoshop user who actually paid for it?

I pay for creative suite. GIMP is very far behind. There are many significant core features missing, and many tools missing that make it difficult and time consuming to use. It would be more accurate to call it 'advanced paint' than photoshop.

CS is expensive and I use a small part of its features... if GIMP covered just 25% of what photoshop could do, I would use it. But I think the only people who think GIMP is close to replacing it are those that have never used/learned photoshop.

Do you really use GIMP? Because I don't think you use it very much if you think that it is a quarter of Photoshop.

Adobe regularly copies features from the GIMP, like content-aware fill

I'm well aware of the status of GIMP. I first used it 15+ years ago. I used it for many years before buying PS. I last used it maybe 6 months ago. I like to check it out occasionally when my CS subscription is up for renewal.

I actually pay, not just for CS, but an entire Windows computer to run it. The rest of my computers run Linux, and I use open source software everywhere.

I would absolutely love to switch to GIMP, if it were at all possible.

Well, GIMP's interface is definitely different from PS. And I wouldn't argue better...

But PS is the only program I have ever had to take a class in to be productive in, as it was clearly built to be familiar to people with very clearly-formed ideas about workflow, e.g. old-school photography and design folks.

And switching to GIMP is possible methinks, you just have to learn the interface. Just like Photoshop...

GIMP does not even have a circle tool, and I don't think working around pointless limitations like that counts as "learning the interface."

The commenter above you used the software for 15+ years and specifically cited that lack of feature parity is the only criticism keeping them on CC. I have used both as well and do not follow your opinion about Photoshop, maybe because I never used those old school design tools. To me it looks like an Adobe UI.

Overall I just don't understand how you read the comments above and determined the solution is to learn the interface - honestly, the most tired and uninformed defense of GIMP there is. Especially when your primary criticism of Photoshop was... The interface. I guess the argument could be made you eventually get used to working around inexplicable deficiencies like above, but switching to GIMP is not possible if you need the features only included in Photoshop. There's not some random cosmic reason Blender and Inkscape are considered healthy competitors in their respective domains but not GIMP.

I like how you use more words to explaining (what you think) I think than I spent writing the original opinions. I don't have strong criticisms against either... Photoshop did take a while to learn -- I remember struggling to complete tasks when I first started with it because my frame of reference was Paint Shop Pro -- and GIMP also takes a while to learn.

Why do you feel so strongly against 'learning the interface'? That "tired and uninformed defense" is also... what you must do. Why is everyone so afraid of learning?? Fucking wimps. You have a problem, you google it, repeat til you know the product. SO HARD!

Because, again, learning the interface does not replace what the software cannot do. People who have both learned gimp and who need photoshop for their jobs are tired of hearing these lecture points.

I write a lot because I want to clearly explain my points on the Internet where there's no verbal nuance. Sorry if it was too much. Are you really criticizing me for thorough explanation on a discussion forum?

Edit: I should probably qualify that in the capacity I use photoshop it's kind of a moot point anyway, since I depend on illustrator just as much and the convenience of smart objects and the interoperability with stuff like libraries are more than worth the price of admission for me.

People have said that, but they can only mention the one feature. That, from what others have said, didn't work very well on GIMP, but worked well on Photoshop.

1. It took forever to get to more than 8 bits per channel. 2. ...

I could list 4 other points, but really it's just about that one. Photoshop has had 16 bits per channel since 1992 when version 2.5 was released. That's what... 25 YEARS!

Gimp is FINALLY 16bit per channel now in 2017 with their latest beta.

Why would spending money on a brand new system with no proof of success be better than a matured application with plugin support?

Because GIMP has a lot of baggage: a very particular UI, a community of active users (many of whom probably like it exactly how it is thanks), and a terrible name.

So fork it. New name, new UI.

Seashore was a try at this a decade ago.

http://seashore.sourceforge.net/The_Seashore_Project/Screens...

I think the gp's point is they'd rather rewrite than fork. If you fork you lose the other devs esp as you diverge greatly. But you get all the baggage.

A lot of coders doing side projects do it for fun and to learn and that often means making their own architecture decisions (and mistakes) so they can practice that process and learn

Sure. I was responding to the suggestion that the key problems with GIMP are the UI and name. The image manipulation code is surely pretty mature by now.

The name was "terrible" right after the film "Pulp Fiction" was released. Decades later, is that still true?

That word existed well before Pulp Fiction.

From Dictionary.com:

>> Usually Disparaging and Offensive. a term used to refer to a person who limps or is lame.

>> Origin

>> An Americanism dating back to 1920-25; origin uncertain

>> Usage note

>> When describing someone who is lame, gimp is used with disparaging intent and perceived as insulting. But within the disability community, it is sometimes a term of self-reference.

Yes. "Gimp" in UK English is not a word you say in polite company, like calling your software "slut". Sure, it's fine to speak of with a close friend but difficult to even mention to people in certain circles. I don't know what's wrong with calling it "The [GNU] Imp", an imp being like a fairy/pixy (but with a sense of mischief too), like Puck. The mascot could be kept as it fits the description imp as well as it fits anything (I've no idea after c.20 years what it's supposed to be, though I recall looking it up once).

Maybe "Imp" is offensive in other languages? (Nothing other than alternate English meanings shows on Wiktionary).

This GIT thing is never going to take off because it has a lot of baggage: a very particular CLI and grammar, a community of active users (many of whom probably like it exactly how it is), and a "terrible" name.

You could ask the same question comparing your project with Photoshop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com