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 has its share of issues, just like any other software. but it's biggest issue is that somewhere down the line general users got this idea in their head that it was supposed to be a Photoshop clone.
So they go into it with certain expectations and then get frustrated when it doesn't work that way. People like me, who actually learned GIMP before PS, obviously didn't go in with the same bias and therefore have a much better grasp on it.
Gimp is not a Photoshop clone. it's its own piece of kit with it's own design and feature decisions that some may like and others may not. That's life. The developers have no obligation to follow any other software design scheme any more than Sony is obligated to follow LGs TV UI. They're not clones, they're alternatives.
if you think Gimps only function is to copy Photoshop, you're in for a bad time. If you want to use gimp as an ALTERNATIVE and go in without the bias,, you'll likely learn your way around a LOT faster.
I'm not excusing Gimps failings. far from it. but I AM saying that half the issue is the Photoshop users thinking that gimp only exists to copy everything from their precious Adobe daddy. And that's simply not true.
Honestly I feel like this attitude is the reason GIMP’s UX suffers. They’re so determined to be “not like photoshop” that they’re unwilling to fix some of their more boneheaded UI decisions out of fear that they’d be seen as copying photoshop.
That's not exactly my impression from following the design conversations through the years. They're more approaching decisions from the angle of what they think is best, their philosophy is to plainly ignore what others do and follow their own direction. Of course taking inspiration from Photoshop might sometimes be a good thing, if it doesn't conflict with the GIMP way of doing things.
I've noticed in recent years some newcomer devs have had discussions on how to design their contributions, mentioning Photoshop and other alternative ways and there were just conversations about the merits of the different approaches that could be taken and what would fit the GIMP best, without bias.
Anyway, I wasn't aware that GIMP UX suffers, I've never used anything else and am happy with it. It seem logical to me, obviously with fewer features than Photoshop but how much can a couple of guys do and they've had to refactor most of the GIMP for 3.0, but that'll open up for a lot of functionality being added moving forward..
My argument here is that by never having used anything else, you wouldn't necessarily realize how much better other UX choices could have been.
That said, I do have to give the devs some credit, as they have fixed two major issues, by adding single-window-mode and unifying the transform tools. Having each transform be its own separate tool was just awful UX IMO.
The biggest remaining UX problem, in my opinion, is the way GIMP forces layers to have fixed boundaries. Literally no other layer-based image editor has fixed layer boundaries, because it makes very little sense as a concept. Layers should solely be defined by their content, not by arbitrary layer properties set in a dialog box.
In terms of UI sometimes you think something is better merely because you learnt this way. The best example would be windows style desktop versus macos style desktop. I can't use another desktop than a windows style one, which is why I always used kde and I always hated gnome.
Now I don't know whether gimp is good enough or not, but it must be said IMO.
Amen to everything you're saying.
I think this is the key phrase -- do you want an alternative (where you might have to learn new ways of doing things), or do you want a clone? GIMP is not a clone, but an alternative.
I also think this gets to something I was told loooooooooong ago, when I was a young lad asking what was the best computer to buy. Someone told me, "Find all the software you want/need to run, and get the computer that will run it all."
In other words, if you need to use Photoshop, then maybe you don't use Linux -- maybe stick with Mac or (shudder) Windows.
@displaced_city_mouse @Adderbox76 yeah I'm fairly OS agnostic, I hate them all...just hate Windows more which I think you might agree with considering the shuddering induced by mentioning Windows 😏 I use ChromeOS, Mac, & iOS daily bc for my uses they are least problematic. Use Win 10 for gaming but looking to switch to Linux not W11 for that and have been dabbling/learning Android & Linux. Honestly it's a good time to be a nerd IMHO.
I always love it when Linux users recommend going back to Windows as a option. It takes real maturity to admit that everything is a viable option, and sometimes especially in a professional workplace that Windows and MacOS should both be considered if Linux is limiting your workflow.
I once heard it explained that gimps programmers goal was to make a program that can edit pictures. Their goal was not to edit pictures.
Speaking for myself, I can say that's true. To the point that even if I've got access to both, my default would be GIMP.
Agree, partly.
I've migrated to a lot of different programs since switching to Linux: Premiere to Resolve, 3DS Max to Blender, to name a few. And I never expected the switch from Photoshop, which I so dearly love, to whatever good alternative that exists - to be easy. I'm willing to put in the time to learn GIMP, if only it hadn't such glaring and prominent issues that make it really difficult to use.
I'm not expecting a clone. I'm not expecting the UI to be the same. And, I'm willing to learn this program from the ground up. But I want a consistent experience - an app that works. For me, GIMP gets in the way a lot; making things unnecessarily difficult just for the sake of being "different".
I don't mean to hate on GIMP. It works very well for people who like it. But we all have different preferences when it comes to software, and in the end - It's just, not a good alternative for what I prefer. I'm willing to learn something new, but from my experience, GIMP will have (and has) a lot of icks that I just need to "put up with" to be usable. Especially efficiency. GIMP does not feel efficient, like at all. Might be because I haven't learned it, but even Resolve felt efficient the first time I used it.
I don't have the same experience with Krita whatsoever. And sure, maybe Krita is a little closer to Photoshop than GIMP is, but I much prefer Krita's overall experience much more than GIMP - even if it's missing some more advanced features.
I will stick to Krita, most likely, as that's what I find myself most comfortable with. But it's been interesting to hear what everyone else's experiences are.
Photogimp is a plugin for people coming from photoshop but still may not be the exact clone