I'm starting this off by saying that I'm looking for any type of reasonably advanced photo manipulation tool, that runs natively under Linux. It doesn't have to be FOSS.
I switched to Linux, from Windows, about three years ago. I don't regret the decision whatsoever. However, one thing that has not gotten me away from Windows entirely, is the severe lack of photo editing tools.
So what's available? Well, you have GIMP. And then there's Krita, but that's more of a drawing software. And then...
Well that's it. As far as I know.
1. GIMP
Now, as someone migrating from Photoshop, GIMP was incredibly frustrating, and I didn't understand anything even after a few weeks of trying to get into it. Development seemed really slow, too. It's far from intuitive, and things that really should take a few steps, seemingly takes twenty (like wrapping text on a path? Should that really be that difficult?).
I would assume if you're starting off with GIMP, having never touched Photoshop, then it'd be no issue. But as a user migrating, I really can't find myself spending months upon months to learn this program. It's not viable for me.
No hate against GIMP, I'm sure it works wonders for those who have managed to learn it. But I can't see myself using it, and I don't find myself comfortable within it, as someone migrating from Photoshop.
2. Krita
Krita, on the other hand, I like much more. But, it's more of a drawing program. Its development is more focused on drawing, and It's missing some features that I want - namely selection tools. Filters are good, but I find G'MIC really slow. It also really chugs when working with large files.
Both of these programs are FOSS. I like that. I like FOSS software. But, apart from that, are there really no good alternatives to Photoshop? Again, doesn't need to be FOSS. I understand more complex programs take more development power, and I have no problem using something even paid and proprietary, as long as it runs on Linux natively.
I've tried running Photoshop under WINE, and it works - barely. For quick edits, it might work fine. But not for the work I do.
So I raise the question again. Are there no good alternatives to Photoshop? And then I raise a follow-up question, that you may or may not want to answer: If not, why?
Thanks in advance!
Gimp is really powerful. What are you missing from it?
habit and practice. op himself said he believes gimp can do wonders, but he's migrating from adobe and is accustomed to photoshop's shortcuts, ui and workflow.
imho, people go wrong expecting same experience in different application. yes, gimp works very differently but when migrating, one should count on different ui and logic. afterall, ps also have learning curve in the start and none complains.
it's similar to users migrating from windows to linux, expecting same windows ui and workflow, blaming linux bad.
They did list one specific example of text wrapping which is apparently a two step process on Photoshop and twenty steps in GIMP. Probably an exaggeration, but the sentiment seems to be that it isn't just different, its worse.
Dealing with differences is fine, but things that are more difficult or require more steps is a problem that should hopefully be fixed.
yeah, having 30 years of Photoshop experience and then being told I have to learn a whole new tool that looks and works completely differently? it took a very long time to become a master of this one tool. now I have to completely re-learn and re-master a new one?
no thanks.
not to mention that GiMP is just a pain in the ass to use.
But then you cant complain? Just use Photoshop then with Windows or Mac OS and pay the subscription. Problem solved.
I’ve used Photoshop for 30 years and have never - not once - paid for it.
pay for it, HA!
But just because I have the option of running Photoshop doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on GiMP, lmao. Enough with the gatekeeping.
While I get your point about not expecting all software to have the same workflow, keep in mind that learning a new one isn't always in the cards. The reason people don't complain when learning Adobe is because they are probably starting with it. But if they complain when switching to GIMP it's because they have to spend the time to learn a new system instead of getting their work done. And especially in a professional environment, that just ends up causing problems.
While I get your point about not expecting all software to have the same workflow, keep in mind that learning a new one isn't always in the cards. The reason people don't complain when learning Adobe is because they are probably starting with it. But if they complain when switching to GIMP it's because they have to spend the time to learn a new system instead of getting their work done. And especially in a professional environment, that just ends up causing problems.
If this comment isn't the perfect distillation of the frustration people have with GIMP, I don't know what is.
OP makes a very even-handed, consciencious treatise to gather more info about alternatives to GIMP based on the UX issues they themselves have been struggling with and which are commonly recognized throughout the community, with at least one example, while acknowledging how incredible and powerful an undertaking a piece of software GIMP definitely is, and...
... The same cookie cutter response on every single GIMP discussion since 1998: "IT IS VERY POWERFUL. WHAT FEATURE IS IT MISSING?"
Similar to GIMP itself: You're not wrong you're just... Not being anywhere near as helpful as you could be.
I dunno. The title was "Are there really no viable alternatives to PhotoShop on Linux?". I think it's fair to say, "There's GIMP". It's viable. People use it successfully and happily. 'Nuff said.
Ha, well, yeah this pretty much tracks.
To paraphrase: "if we only pay attention to the most fundamental requirements and ignore any nuance and subtlety that's added, the implementation is perfect. What's the problem?"
Or: "Why care about the body of the post when there's at title?"
Since no one else seems to actually be answering you, I'll give you one. Smart Objects AKA linked layers. I use these in just about every single PSD and it has saved me rediculous amounts of time and effort undoing or redoing edits and avoiding destruction of a raster image by rotating or scaling it multiple times.
There has been a feature request open for this for 10 years and it is still not implemented. I first found out about the intention to add linked layers several years ago but I quickly gave up when I realised how much time it was taking.
I couldn't tell you other features as I have not used Gimp much beyond trying it out for some light projects and to make use of some of it's better-than-Photoshop color to alpha tools. But this one feature combined with all the UI, behaviour, and shortcut decisions is enough to keep me stuck on Photoshop for Windows for a long while yet.
Fair enough. I guess it depends on what you're used to. I never used Photoshop and I've been using Gimp for over a decade now. I do a lot of visual editing for my work and there isn't anything I haven't been able to do with Gimp. But yes, some stuff do take hours of work. I also work with FOSS music production software and while I know the commercial ones are easier to use, everything I've wanted to accomplish using FOSS music production I've been able to get it done. I guess it all depends on what your reference point is
habit and practice. op himself said he believes gimp can do wonders, but he's migrating from adobe and is accustomed to photoshop's shortcuts, ui and workflow.
imho, people go wrong expecting same experience in different application. yes, gimp works very differently but when migrating, one should count on different ui and logic. afterall, ps also have learning curve in the start and none complains.
it's similar to users migrating from windows to linux, expecting same windows ui and workflow, blaming linux bad.
When all my experience with image manipulation programs was paint.net and I wanted something more powerful I tried gimp. I hated it. I saw it was powerful but the ux just isn’t great. It’s really complicated and unfriendly for new users. When I then tried using photoshop, it was really easy to get into. And that’s a general problem with foss. Most big closed source programs had millions spent on ux research. Most foss programs never think about the average user but are instead by professionals for professionals.
I don't think it is UX research so much as that user interfaces for people using a program every day for hours are genuinely different in the optimization space than user interfaces that are easily discoverable for new users and the occasional user.