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.
Something I use a ton: smart objects, smart masks, smart filters. Non destructive actions where I can still edit the original and have all previous items applied in a separate file or view in real time.
OK but thats a workflow problem, that’s not a missing design tool.
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
Those aren’t tasks. those are tools.
A task would be if to give us an example of an “end result” that you can accomplish in PS that you can’t in GIMP.
Not what tools you use to make it. But the content that comes out the other end.
I’m not going to argue that PS has some extra tools that make stuff easier to do. It has the resources to develop them, after all.
But there is no drawing, animation, photo edit, composition or other end product that you can ONLY do with Photoshop. The only people who say that are people who have never used any alternative.
So my point is still valid that GIMP is not an alternative to Photoshop. It would be like saying this screwdriver is an alternative to this toolset. People coming from Photoshop aren’t looking at the singular goal of image manipulation.