GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name.
-
I found GnuImp so unintuitive and clunky, and it's ugly too. Krita is a dream to use and it does everything and it looks great. No contest.
@emma_cogdev @baldur I switched from GnuImp (I refuse to use the "official" name) to Krita and it's so much better.
-
RE: https://mas.to/@zzt/116748965255528053
GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
@baldur the one thing that, i've been told, somehow reduces the gnu image manipulation program's usage pains is applying the photoshop-compatible keyboard shortcut scheme.
but that's basically only an option for people who already know photoshop by rote and can go by without looking for knobs and buttons in the ui.
-
RE: https://mas.to/@zzt/116748965255528053
GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
Krita is wonderful to use. I haven't used it too much, but it's now my go-to recommemdation for folks who want to try out digital art.
I remember trying GIMP back in college and it really sucked for me in particular, so I settled on something called FireAlpaca, which worked way better for me. Krita is better than FireAlpaca. I'd definitely recommend trying it.
-
-
RE: https://mas.to/@zzt/116748965255528053
GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
Graphite - Your procedural toolbox for 2D content creation
Still alpha, but definitely something to look out for.
-
@baldur I learned the old GIMP UI after some years, and then theu changed it and made even more confusing...
It was programmer-oriented from the beginning.
-
@baldur if you need something less Illustrator...ive, I can recommend Pinta
-
RE: https://mas.to/@zzt/116748965255528053
GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
@baldur @zzt Krita is actually quite cool. I haven't used it for anything "productiony" yet as my medium is mostly photography and image processing for coding projects, and I've had a stable workflow with Affinity and Nikon tools for a while.
But Krita's documentation is fantastic, and I'd definitely be using it if my work was more focused on the art itself, I'd definitely be spending quality time with it.
-
RE: https://mas.to/@zzt/116748965255528053
GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
@baldur one more vote for giving krita a shot!
-
RE: https://mas.to/@zzt/116748965255528053
GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
-
RE: https://mas.to/@zzt/116748965255528053
GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
@baldur krita IS much more solid and easy to use. Source: decades long user of drawing software such as art studio, deluxe paint, brilliance and Photoshop.
-
-
@baldur my 16-yo daughter who in all her life has used only #Linux and #FreeSoftware prefer #Krita and that's fine.
-
The problem with GIMP's user interface is that it doesn't appear to be focused on any other group of users' needs either, though.
GIMP's UI just sort of exists. It doesn't appear to have been designed with any particular target group of users in mind.
-
@baldur I learned the old GIMP UI after some years, and then theu changed it and made even more confusing...
It was programmer-oriented from the beginning.
-
RE: https://mas.to/@zzt/116748965255528053
GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
@baldur Krita's pretty good. No AI policy, sane UX. A few gripes after switching from commercial software but they're largely minor (like why is erase and draw the same button?)
Major bonus: it's not lead and followed by tiresome people who think rape jokes and slurs against disabled people are funny.
-
RE: https://mas.to/@zzt/116748965255528053
GIMP‘s hostility to users actually being able to productively use it is legendary as is its disdain for people showing concern about its name. It’s genuinely poisoned the well for the adoption of OSS creativity software.
(I need to try out Krita, though, which looks much more solid.)
@baldur When did GIMP start getting actively hostile? I don't find the current version hard to use really at all. Granted I use it for basic stuff and don't do anything really fancy with it so I might be biased in that sense. -
@skjeggtroll the original GIMP user interface was not THAT bad, but it seems, that people who were adding new features where kind of confused with the original tool box and didn't find a way to integrate it with original "paintbrush" paradigm.
Also, the original trick of menu being invisible and available only on right-click was weird, but maybe consistent with UX of original X11 apps. At least, toolbox was available all the time.
In the current version, menu can be found, where you would expect it 20 years ago (funny thing: in browser UX, menu is now not where you would expect it 20 years ago and works little like GIMP worked back then), but you have to open toolbox as new Window.
This is what I mean that "original GIMP UI was not that bad". I can use GIMP probably only because I started 20 years ago, and I now the features are there, only the new way to find these features is perhaps even more confusing, than the old way.
Speaking about "target group": well, programmers and coders in 1990s had to understand stuff like color channels, indexed colors, and so, even layers. Perhaps, GIMP would be powerful tool for making animated GIFs on Amiga ecosystem (before being adopted by web, GIF format was used by Amiga hobbyists and by BBS scene...)
GIMP is at least very powerful conversion, resizing and cropping tool for many classical image exchange formats. It is not so practical for creative work, perhaps because it was designed by people, who needed other specific tasks to be done.
There are some features, which nobody really wants or uses, but which were relatively easy to implement and other tools of the era had them too.
Speaking about UI... I still prefer Gtk over other toolkits. I use MATE desktop (GNOME 2 fork).
-
@skjeggtroll the original GIMP user interface was not THAT bad, but it seems, that people who were adding new features where kind of confused with the original tool box and didn't find a way to integrate it with original "paintbrush" paradigm.
Also, the original trick of menu being invisible and available only on right-click was weird, but maybe consistent with UX of original X11 apps. At least, toolbox was available all the time.
In the current version, menu can be found, where you would expect it 20 years ago (funny thing: in browser UX, menu is now not where you would expect it 20 years ago and works little like GIMP worked back then), but you have to open toolbox as new Window.
This is what I mean that "original GIMP UI was not that bad". I can use GIMP probably only because I started 20 years ago, and I now the features are there, only the new way to find these features is perhaps even more confusing, than the old way.
Speaking about "target group": well, programmers and coders in 1990s had to understand stuff like color channels, indexed colors, and so, even layers. Perhaps, GIMP would be powerful tool for making animated GIFs on Amiga ecosystem (before being adopted by web, GIF format was used by Amiga hobbyists and by BBS scene...)
GIMP is at least very powerful conversion, resizing and cropping tool for many classical image exchange formats. It is not so practical for creative work, perhaps because it was designed by people, who needed other specific tasks to be done.
There are some features, which nobody really wants or uses, but which were relatively easy to implement and other tools of the era had them too.
Speaking about UI... I still prefer Gtk over other toolkits. I use MATE desktop (GNOME 2 fork).
To be a little uncharitable, the original GIMP user interface felt like an afterthought, as was common for OSS projects in that era. It was clunky and a little ugly and a bit greedy for screen real estate. I don't think anyone would call it 'elegant'.
The new user interface feels like the result of conscious, deliberate design -- but conscious, deliberate design that fails to be _for_ anyone.
-
To be a little uncharitable, the original GIMP user interface felt like an afterthought, as was common for OSS projects in that era. It was clunky and a little ugly and a bit greedy for screen real estate. I don't think anyone would call it 'elegant'.
The new user interface feels like the result of conscious, deliberate design -- but conscious, deliberate design that fails to be _for_ anyone.
@skjeggtroll Perhaps. Not opening the toolbox by default is definitely deliberate. And it can't be called user friendly for anyone.
