It’s the same as with Linux, GIMP, LibreOffice or OnlyOffice. Some people are so used to their routines that they expect everything to work the same and get easily pissed when not.
It’s the same as with Linux, GIMP, LibreOffice or OnlyOffice. Some people are so used to their routines that they expect everything to work the same and get easily pissed when not.
Well these tools are in Photoshop and not GIMP. You can’t just hand wave that away as not GIMPs fault.
Well its still not a image manipulation feature missing. It’s a workflow feature. You could also just copy a layer. But in the end, Photoshop has no image manipulation feature that is really missing in GIMP, you can export the same result picture.
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct
Right so you’ve validated my point that it’s not a Photoshop alternative.
Look at it like two cars. One is automatic and the other has a stick shift. In the end what I am talking about is the transportation. Both cars drive the same speed and arrive at the same time, but driving stick requires a different workflow, then driving automatic. But that does not mean, stick shift is no alternative to an automatic.
Photoshop doesn’t have a native G’MIC plugin feature. You can’t wave that away as not Adobes fault!
That’s how stupid you sound.
Different products have different features and different ways to do things. It’s not Gimp’s sole purpose to just clone every feature from Photoshop. It’s not a Photoshop clone, it’s a piece of software in its own right.
Gimp makes great use of the amazing G’Mic filter tool. Adobe doesn’t. That doesn’t make Gimp better than Photoshop.
Different software makes different choices and people choose whichever they want to use and shut the hell up about it.
My whole point was only that I dislike that people call it an alternative to Photoshop. That’s been proven by your post. I’m not trying to have a semantics contest here