I've been using Photoshop over 20-years, since version 2.0 (~1990), and I know it like the back of my hand.

 

GIMP is very, very similar, and if you really know photoshop, you won't find it hard to pick up at all. It has it's limitations; it is what it is.

 

So too Photoshop (which IMO is far from perfect, least of all in its 'one size fits all' pricing model, and onerous drm).

 

I've stuck with version 6 for my own stuff, since I find later versions generally qualify as ill-conceived bloatware (I use CS3 at work).

You're a fucking idiot opinionated, myopic barsteward..

Ok, sure if you're using Photoshop in a very amateur/photographer (i.e. just rebalancing stuff, cropping, a bit of cloning or watever) way then I accept that PS is slightly more transparent in its presentation of such tools, though not by as much as you claim. There are easier to use programs for that kinda thing though and it's not really the predominant use of photoshop these days.

Using either for graphic design (as I do a lot for work) is an entirely different kettle of piss and they're about equally unintuitive. And as DXMSMXMIX says, one costs £700 less.

I don't think the GIMP is particularly good but I don't think it's much worse than photoshop (the only major failings of the gimp being lack of hardware acceleration and CYMK support (though I don't personally care about the latter, I do very little for print), especially not in terms of usability. Given the price difference and difference in philosophy I'd much rather use the GIMP (though I'd rather not have to use either).

Why is it only Windows and Mac people advocating using Photoshop?

Dick.

If popular means good then I guess you'll accept that IE is the best web browser.

I can do what I need to do in either application (I use them for work too). I just don't find it pleasurable, ever. Both of them piss me off. Unlike, say, Artrage, which is a pleasure to use (not in the same application as PS/GIMP though).

I don't know how much of that is bad design and how much is just the inherent complexity.

I use the easier to use programs for that kinda thing.

I want an editor that supports complex layers, proper masking, all the standard raster and vector tools, decent text tools with leading and kerning, and so on.

As I've pointed out, I keep trying GIMP hoping that someone has come along and made it not shit, but every time I'm disappointed.


I should be more annoyed with Photoshop because it's got a huge team behind it, is Adobe's flagship product, and so on - probably in terms of time/effort/money expended PS is by far the worse piece, but it still doesn't make me as angry as GIMP does when I try to use it.

Because producing Photoshop for Linux probably wont make Adobe money, and that's the only reason they'd do it for.

Works fine in Wine.

Wine is shit.

:D

:?

In what way?

In a white way. :P

I'm coming to suspect that it's you who's shit :Y

I'm more wee at the moment.


I tried to draw you an owl, but it didn't come out quite as intended, plus I kinda forgot how they actually look, so it's not wonderful.

I'm gonna go pee now.

Well that's true, and that's where GUMP comes into its own.

 

Dude, if you are using paint shop "pro"...

 

 

 

um... never mind.

Hah! You're just upset because I'm a Pro and you're a GIMP! :P

I'm amazed you're not using Aperture or Lightroom. Have you tried them?

It didn't cost me anything. Oh wait, yeah.

 

I accept your point but it's still rubbish.

 

The job I wanted to do has now been done in Photoshop, though I did struggle to draw a curved arrow :-$

Something is not rubbish because you failed to figure out how to use it.

Fair point, but something is rubbish when you need a plugin to do a very simple task. And even with the plugin the simple task isn't simple.

 

It was a highly time consuming experience, a waste of time in fact because I couldn't get done what I wanted. I'm all for using FOSS/Freeware, but when it's promoted as a viable alternative I have to disagree.

If you need a plugin to draw an arrow, you're beyond help.