dude i'm designing something right now and freecad is just what i need. Thanks!

For decades, the only thing they needed was clean, easy Action and Macro support.

Most photographers use half a dozen pretty simple actions that they are absolutely incapable of recreating in gimp. Most photogs are technically competant in very VERY narrow fields. Most of them use paint away the ______ which just masks, sets up a specific color channel and lets you math the removal of that color with brushes.

Now, you need to add in context-aware fill, outpainting and sky replacement.

i used to love gimp, but around gimp 2.0 the other free image editing software worked better for what i needed

wait until you see Lightroom vs Darktable comments :)

'I make all my images with the GIMP." (Cracks whip at chained up leather clad person in a leather body suit and mask) "DRAW FASTER YOU WORTHLESS POS AND MAYBE MOMMY WILL LET YOU SEE AN OUTLINE OF A TITTY LATER."

Man, respectfully, for those of us constantly in online spaces a logical answer like this seems to make total sense. In reality, that's ridiculous and totally impractical. And it's ridiculous when a software program that's intending to replace a mainstream commercial program doesn't consider the branding. GIMP has been around for decades and are steadfast about this name, but you are deluding yourself if you truly believe that they wouldn't have made considerably more progress toward broad adoption if they had a better name.

Like Jesus, what do said people do when their OS upgrades versions?

Man oh man, let me tell you: some people just never upgrade

If GIMP would just eat the complaints of their small, dedicated users, and make the UI more like Photoshop, they'd grow their userbase much faster.

Maybe, that's why they don't do it?

It's not the name holding them back. As everyone else in here is saying, it's the UI quirks.

Blender is four years older than GIMP. Blender is lightyears ahead of GIMP.

GIMP can't draw circles. Bye.

One mans quirk is another mans standard

To me the funny thing about these online squabbles is the people insisting gimp is somehow good. It is not, it has never been - it is an appalling embarrassment of a tool. Sure, a programmer who doesn't really know anything about professional imaging can use it to make a couple icons, but if you want to do any form of professional work, for-fucking-get it. It's a joke and it always has been a joke.

I was a professional game developer/producer for over 20+ years and gimp has ALWAYS been the laughing stock.

I'd say that Photoshop UI is more streamlined than GIMPs in several ways. In how it handles selections and layers and filter application, etc. And, it's not just familiarity. GIMP is clunky.

Whereas Blender compared to Rhino, or Maya, or Sketchup, or Solidworks--there is no one way to do 3D that works better than another. Moving from one to the other, you can only take the basic concepts of a mesh between them, how they get there is all over the map.

So meta: the original meme was a blurry photo of a tv broadcast, now it's an ai upscale in the fuck_ai community

it doesn't seem's a screencap from that youtuber that paid like $1000 to purchase the full dvd set from the african broacaster, then watched hundreds of episodes to find it => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP2wiN7aW4U

Shout out to photopea.

It was made by a programmer who does not understand anything about how professional imaging people use software. It would be like an artist to somehow manages to cobble together some kind of crudely functional IDE, but he's never programmed in his life and he doesn't even know what programming really is.

It really does suck, it is one of the worst tools ever made. I have the resume to back this up, I worked in digital media for over 30 years, and was a professional developer for 20. Gimp is an appalling piece of shit, it is a joke. No professional artist who has access to proper tools would ever choose to use it. These are the facts. Gimp is "better than nothing" but just barely.

Yep. I haven't used it in a while but I remember it being so far off the Photoshop layout and key binds I couldn't use it.

I myself started my career as a web designer. I'm well versed in Photoshop, illustrator, InDesign, Lightroom, and premiere. Part of what makes those tools good is their fairly consistent UI choices and easy to remember shortcut keys, many of which feel intuitive and based on something.

Gimp definitely lacks some features, but I'd be happy to use it if it had a UI that didn't break my brain. I do not think you're being super fair about your assessment. Every time I've needed it for anything, assuming I had the time and patience, I've been able to do what I needed to in terms of editing with layers, applying effects, etc. But it was always fairly uncomfortable. So yeah I don't think it's an objective fact that no one would ever use it because it's the worst software ever.

It's called gimp cause it's submissive to Photoshop and covered in rubber or leather bondage

I think it can be more than one thing and the name has never helped.

TBF I think certain feature requests in GIMP have been backlogged for 15 years or so. Like a timeline for animating in, for example.

skill issue. it can draw circles just fine, you just refuse to learn anything different.

The funny thing is, there are always “pros” bitching about it, but never doing anything about it.

the ellipse tool is literally right there.

there have been several, including one that tried to look like photoshop but then ended up being malware.

1. turn grid on
2. use a brush
3. use an eraser
4. make the brush smaller and click the same spot

Hey, cool! I'm happy that it works for you!

Doesn't for me though. I'll just stick to my cycle of waiting five-ish years, trying it again to see if they fixed their crap and then binning it again.

I started with GIMP, and I've stuck with it and enjoyed it for all my use cases for over a decade.

I tried Photoshop a few times and hated it every time.

I love GIMP

Pros would FREQUENTLY try to do something about it, create a pull request, get denied for some bullshit reason, and forget about the project entirely.

Frequently? Then you can surely link some denied PRs from before the AI slop times.

Also forks are a thing. It just needs one single person to take the staff, create a fork, merge all the rejected PRs into it, and merge from upstream every once in a while.

Yes because turning a one click action into what is this, 8 precisely accurate clicks? Makes so much sense in a professional workflow.

Gimp is pretty much the epitome of software where "you can do it, but it's going to be tedious and painful"

The whole conversation reminds me of this XKCD

Why yes.

so like vibecoders!

Can I ask in a non argumentative way what exactly makes it's unsuitable? Is it just that the professional workflow is built around photoshop, something to do with colour, something about the files?

In most cases I don't really care about x vs y arguments I'm more interested in the fundamental reasons. I've encounted many people saying things are better because or not used in industry when the whole purpose of the product was to take over the industry via free school software etc.

It's not that.

Photographers went from Photoshop to lightroom quite quickly.

And other proprietary tools as well.

On the open source front many graphics people went to Inkscape instead of gimp.

Gimp methodology and UX is not landing with the majority of people and it's not offering them enough workflow improvements to justify the learning curve.

Show us please. In other software it can be done in 1 click or 2.

Someone ping me if this gets a reply

Grids have Snapping so its as precise as you set the grid to be. If it has to look professional then I would expect you to use the grid in PS as well. PS is not "one click", you have to select the ellipse tool, set the options, click the start point, and click the end point. If i recall you can also click for angle?

I think the trouble with art software is that Photoshop is the biggest over-complicated unwieldy piece of shit ever made, and everybody has to ape it because "it's what artists know".

Bring back Deluxe Paint.

That's what Gimpshop was.

You're not really interested, you're just trying to call bullshit on somebody that has decades of experience. YOU go out and you find me a professional artist that will attest that they prefer gimp, and I'll walk naked down Main Street.

I'm not here to squabble with you people, you all know it's a piece of dog shit. You can already see that people will not accept what I'm saying, this is not an argument by authority, but the fact of the matter is no professional artist would ever use that tool, and you know that.

It's not up to a pro to fix somebody else's broken heap of shit. A professional artist is going to pick the professional tools that are made available to them Not their job to correct this piece of dog crap.

if your pro-OSS avoid Photopeas

They got the usability entirely wrong. I just can't take GIMP seriously as photo editing software.