Why is Gimp so shit?

>the only features that "make sense" are are copied from adobe
2 rupees have been deposited in your account

GIMP is not open source, it is free software.

Absolutely no sense of design. They can code but they can't think of and implement basic shit like making shapes last time I checked

Your new layers can have transparency by default. You're retarded.

GIMP is the ultimate brainlet filter and retards get filtered by it constantly.

Adobe has the jewish trickery, not even memeing.

Attached: 486CCBD5-9582-4CBD-A070-3FB076A9E356.png (769x612, 167K)

GIMP + Krita is better than Photoshop.

No shit, brainiac. But why does GIMP decide to defy the basic fucking usability conventions set by literally every other image manipulation program that came before and after it?

>Why don't they cater to my baby duck syndrome?
Same shit every thread

>it is free software.
It is shit software.

>Why is Gimp so shit?
But it's not, the only problem it has is being so different to Photoshop, and the people complaining the most are people so used to PS they have a real hard time getting used to GIMP.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)#Baby_duck_syndrome

Are there any good themes for gimp?

this

photoshop is even worse

Who are you quoting? Sounds like a based & redpilled kind of guy, but I don't see him anywhere in this thread.

How could anyone actually use Photoshop? The Adobe botnet bloat is insane and I would never put their cloud cancer on my machine.

2.1 rupees have been deposited in your account

>How could anyone actually use Photoshop?
It was the best thing around for a long time, they've dug themselves a nice marketshare and are holding onto it tightly.

bokardo.com/principles-of-user-interface-design/

Photoshop is only shit in the sense that it's coded badly and is an enormous resource hog. It still performs the job you want it to do, and does it more easily than GIMP because if you're coming from simpler programs like paint.net or even MS Paint, its layout is reminiscent of other commonly used programs, so you'll already know where most of the basic tools are.

GIMP, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any sort of organization, and all its tools and menus seem haphazardly shoved in in the order they were created with no regard for how often or in what situations that tool or menu is actually used. It's blatantly obvious that GIMP doesn't actually have anyone on staff who is an employed artist or photo editor of any kind.

This is why despite the above I'm still using GIMP and I will still complain about it every day I have to use it because it's honestly fucking inexcusable at this point. The development team has had these same complaints from users for literal decades.

gtk devs are idiots.

Want to tell that to the literal millions of artists who use it? And will adamantly tell you it's far more intuitive and versatile than Gimp?

I've never found Photoshop UI to be good.
On the hand, GIMP is extremely modular and I can create pretty much any UI I would want.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 120K)

>Want to tell that to the literal millions of artists who use it?
yes
>And will adamantly tell you it's far more intuitive and versatile than Gimp?
they're wrong and you're a shill

But can you draw circles?

>Principles of User Interface Design
>Author: Some guy who designs webshit mobile apps
Every fucking time

The main problem with GIMP is that the developers are programmers only, and develop the software with a programmer mentality. They do not listen to artists who have been telling them the same things for like 20 years.

Hate on Adobe all you like, closed source, greed and all, but the main reason Photoshop is so widely used is because it's designed with artists in mind, whether it be for image editing or drawing.

Mindlessly claiming the contrary just further confirms the fact that you're an idiot with your head in the sand.

I wouldn't know if Photoshop makes sense; I'm not a graphic designer or a photo manipulator so I've never had any reason to use it.

Developer time is limited. Begging for bugs to be fixed will not get them fixed any faster.

>a GNU project
Basically a guaranteed death sentence.

>not submitting to the botnet means you have your head in the sand
0/10

If people gave a shit about bugs they wouldn't be using photoshop.

Man I just use this shit to make memes and edits. I'd lose my mind if I had actual work to do.

Attached: gnutoss.png (1000x998, 354K)

photoshop came out first (1990) and even if it sucks these days it is still being
used by a lot of people, gimp came out on 1995 and is surpassed by software
that came out in less than 10 years

and no, its not better because it has a "brainlet filter", calling something better or "based" because its harder
to use sounds retarded, the baby duck syndrome argument has no point because almost every other software
that has the same style or tool design can make better job, that is called a standardization

i dont even use photoshop

*fart and pooping noises

The logo. Look at this shit.

GIMP is good at image manipulation. There is no reason to use Photoshop when GIMP + Krita can be used instead.

It's very good at what it does, yes. But being good at it doesn't mean shit when it's unpleasant to do from the user end and there are other programs that get the same results faster simply because it's faster for the user to instruct that program.

Nothing to do with bugs, retard. Photoshop has always had it's share of bugs.

>It's blatantly obvious that GIMP doesn't actually have anyone on staff who is an employed artist or photo editor of any kind.
GIMP doesn't have "staff" it's a free open source project, anyone can contribute. If you want to make some changes to the UI then just do it. You don't need to beg for someone's permission.

Affinity Photo is relatively new to the image editing software scene, and it already blows GIMP out of the water.

This is the difference between developers who listen to artists, and developers only thinking about themselves.

Attached: Affinity-Photo-for-Windows.jpg (1920x1080, 238K)

>free open source projects don't have organization among developers of any kind

ok buddy i'm sure you thought that sounded smart when you typed it.

>stonetoss
Post ignored.
>B-b-but actually I don't want them to do the things that I've been begging for them to do for 20 years even though I refuse to contribute or help the project in any way!

>You don't need to beg for someone's permission.
In the open source fantasy some people believe it it might work like that, but in reality all you can get like that is your own GIMP fork noone else will use or know about, because your changes are very unlikely to be pulled into the thing publicly known as the official GIMP - and certainly not without someone's else's permission.

god damn that actually loks really good.

You're just an entitled consumer. Too accustomed to being pandered to by the working class and the megacorps.

Gimp doesn't owe it to anyone to be professional-quality, since it's free as in gratis and also as in libre. It does many of the same things Photoshop can do, and you don't have to pay a periodic subscription to do those things, nor do you have to pay anything for that matter. The question of whether the means it offers to do those things are as intuitive as they could be should be a priority, but it shouldn't be the highest priority. Being able to do the things in the first place -- things you would be paying a ridiculous premium to do otherwise -- is good enough.

Free software doesn't care if you're a satisfied customer or not. It doesn't need customers, it's fucking free. You can take it as it is, and get something out of it, or you can turn up your nose at it, and walk away objectively less empowered, just because the empowerment you were offered didn't meet your lofty standards constructed by years of having to pay for things. And if you can't take it as it is, and you're not comfortable leaving it behind, well, it's right there stripped naked for you, go ahead and get out the scalpel and play doctor, it's all yours.

In summary: If you think any free software package "should" be better, or "should" do this or that, you need to get your head out of your ass and stop thinking of that package as a product. It's not a product, it's a resource. Do you complain when raw plantains and potatoes give you food poisoning, and tell mother nature she should do better, or do you take them as they are, go home, and cook them?

I guess your political beliefs have baby duck syndrome.

See pic related

Attached: 1544976204826.jpg (648x1139, 190K)

And this, gentlemen, is why GIMP sucks.

Nice moving the goalposts. What does getting other people to use or know about it have to do with making the program more usable for yourself? Obviously you can't force the developers to accept your changes, and similarly they can't take them away from you on your own computer. That's called freedom.

If gimp is so bad, why does Adobe deem it necessary to sponsor these threads every day?

photoshop is still worse

>costs money
>no linux version

well that's useless to me.

>everyone at my school uses TI-84 calculators
>therefore TI-84 calculators are the best calculators out there

Am I moving goalposts? You said GIMP has no "staff" that controls the project and that anyone can contribute to the project, and both are not really true.

Yes. My point exactly. GIMP does suck, and it sucks proudly. Because if you can think of anything that does what GIMP can do and *doesn't* suck, it's probably a premium corporate botnet, and if you'd use it anyway just to avoid having to jump through a few more hoops, you are the problem with modern society.

>Gimp doesn't owe it to anyone to be professional-quality
Thanks for providing the exact reason Gimp is still shit.

Meanwhile, Blender is an amazing piece of software for the 3D scene, and getting better and better because they're actually listening to feedback.

>Thanks for providing the exact reason Gimp is still shit.
see: >Meanwhile, Blender is an amazing piece of software for the 3D scene, and getting better and better because they're actually listening to feedback.
Those poor bastards. (The people who make Blender)

Ok so why does gimp exist then?

Krita is both free as in gratis and libre and is incredibly better

To free you from your chains of decent and bless you with suck.
Unironically.

this is basically the "its my style!!" argument, what
a sad excuse to not improve on the making of it
i dont know how freetards expect to have its glorified
year of desktop if incompetence like this is praised

how convenient to use this shitty excuse when there are
free software out there that its better than their paid alternatives
they're better beacuse you know, they try to be

Well maybe I'll take another look at it then. Seemed nice but I stopped using it when I realized their mascot was an anime girl.

The website and repo are hosted by the GNOME foundation and they have staff. They control the website because hosting it costs money. But anyone can take the code and do whatever they want with it. See those brainlets who forked it recently over finding the name offensive, if they can figure out how to fork it and get publicity, don't tell me you can't.

Year of the Linux desktop is already here and has been here for awhile.
How, you ask?
Because when Windows 10 came out, people finally realized they'd rather be free than bask in the most decadent possible virtual convenience at all times.

Krita is better anyway.

>Those poor bastards. (The people who make Blender)
Actually they're quite happy. They enjoy making software 3D Artists enjoy using, and as a result, they're getting heaps of funding through donations to the Blender Foundation.

Meanwhile Gimp's development team are filled with miserable sods similar to yourself, trapped in their little bubble, not caring what anyone has to say.

Attached: 1520943061480.webm (800x450, 2.92M)

fucking just'd

source on webm pls

>not caring what anyone has to say.
Again, though, give me one reason why they should.

It's great that Blender does (I was shitposting when I said those poor bastards) but they're not really obligated to and neither are the Gimp dev team.

So, since the Gimp dev team aren't obligated to deliver a quality item, nor are they obligated to put feedback into effect, why are you hating on them for not doing so?

youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg

GIMP developer time is limited. Doing actual user studies takes time and money. Some random retard complaining for years about keybindings on a brazillian crab fishing forum is not a legitimate user study.

If anything that just proves that autodesk customers are waking up to the botnet faster than adobe customers who are still sitting pretty with their stockholm syndrome.

Because a programmer planned the functionalities. Instead of someone who knows how to create a user friendly software.

Couldn't they just copy the photoshop workflow?

It is fucking annoying how the select tool works on gimp. I can't easily use the select tool, then transform the selection, then deselect the area. You have to go out of your way to do it.

In photoshop is just as simple as select the area, right click "Free Transform", do your stuff, enter, click anywhere to deselect.

Gimp is fucking horrible.

Thanks boss.

But here's the thing. If they don't care about their users, why, exactly, does the project exist at all?

Also, Autodesk is fucking nuts. Their shit costs 4-5 times what Adobe's software does. There's a LOT more motivation to move to free software when you're practically paying the cost of an employee for a license.

Krita is already FUCKING BETTER than Gimp.

>But here's the thing. If they don't care about their users, why, exactly, does the project exist at all?
Why should I have to answer to that? I'm not a GIMP developer.

What I'm asking is why criticize people for neglecting a project they're not obligated to maintain. "Because if they neglect the project then it has no reason to exist" is not an answer because they are also not obligated to provide their project with a reason to exist.

this, people fail to realize this

>Krita
that program is also more niche and doesn't have nearly as many features to cover as GIMP, with far less technical debt.

krita has far fewer features for image manipulation

gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#i-dont-like-gimps-user-interface-why-cant-you-just-copy-adobe-photoshop

> I can't easily use the select tool, then transform the selection, then deselect the area.
it's the same fucking thing, select the area, click the free transform tool, then press enter

It's fine to use. Many people use it and enjoy the UI. You have baby duck syndrome and don't like the UI.

im not a retard so yes
this

I never thought I'd post this unironically.

Attached: different.png (300x100, 32K)

see

Except it is ironic because that's what all adobe cucks say about anything else

No it's not ironic because it literally is bad literally because it's different from literally every other program in the field. literally.

Krita is what GIMP should have been from the beginning.

What's with his voice? Is he autistic?

no he's Dutch

>Criticize someone who says things are bad because they're different
>Go on to say a thing is bad because it's different

Kiki isn't an anime girl incel