Cool Guides
Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community
1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.
2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.
3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.
4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.
5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.
6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.
Community Guidelines
-
Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
-
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
-
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
-
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.
By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!
view the rest of the comments
Of course it can, it already does at least 90% of what Photoshop does. People are less likely to want to contribute to its development if others are always shitting on the project though.
It comes down to UX. Blender used to have an awful UX, and it was a distant trailer behind the Autodesk products for usage. After they dramatically improved the interface, it became much more popular. Gimp needs the same treatment.
I remember at the time there being a lot of pushback on blender UX changes, too. I watched a talk on it where a guy really said "I had to Google everything so these guys should, too". I know a lot of FOSS guys abhor the idea of conforming to an industry standard, and I get it, but the truth of the matter is that people would rather pay than have to relearn their entire workflow.
Some goes for Resolve. Absolutely awful UI. Which is why I will continue to pirate Adobe products.
I wonder if it comes down to FOSS projects typically not having any designers, but just developers. Like...if that's the case, the maintainers would have to actively reach out to UX folks to help. But I imagine mkst don't even realize or admit there's a problem because they're already intimately familiar with the entire app.
On the contrary, it will only get better if people understand its faults.
There's a lot it cannot do but more importantly it is quite unintuitive. if they'd work on the UI and shortcut keys, I'd be ecstatic because fuck adobe.
Do you mean that the menu structure makes no sense or that it's different to Photoshop, which is what you're used to? I'm not sure that what you say about shortcuts if fair either. For example, by default in GIMP you select the Move tool using M, which makes sense. In photoshop it's V... Duplicating layers in GIMP uses D, PS uses J... Clone tool in GIMP uses C, PS uses S. All of which isn't even that much of a big deal anyway, since both programs allow you to set whatever keyboard shortcuts you want. GIMP and PS are way more similar than they are different, even from a UX standpoint. Both projects have borrowed from each other historically. They will always be a bit different though and I think that's fair enough.
I was a bit disorientated when I first started using GIMP after a lifetime of using Photoshop, including at work where it's still the main piece of software I use. But like everything in life you get out what you put in and after watching a few tutorials and reading some documentation GIMP does click and make sense.
At least we agree about fuck Adobe though! It's only going to get worse as well in my opinion. GIMP is only going to get better though (as long it stays open source) but perhaps not as quickly as we'd like. I have much more faith in GIMP in the long term, so I'm behind them. BTW you can already try out GIMP's first implementation of adjustment layers in their development version
Both.
I think not only if I approach it as thinking Photoshop did it right or as a blank slate "how do I do X?" I get really confused and annoyed. Off the top of my head I won't be great with examples but here's a couple. There were a couple of very basic and common things I tried to assign a shortcut key to in Gimp which the UI wouldn't allow. Also, selection within a layer feels bonkers to me in gimp. There's like two selection modes, one is floating or something? Just feels weird and convoluted. I always feel like I'm on the verge of destroying my selection by accident.
Adobe indeed will only be worse over time from all the evidence we've seen, I agree. I have a windows install on a secondary drive but I try to never use it, even for Photoshop. But I would absolutely love a version of gimp that has the basics a bit closer to Photoshop, because: