Well go try everything in the two right hand columns here and report back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_raster_graphics_editors

Actually, I just went through that list, removed anything that didn't have critical functionality, and then counted how many "Yes" entries each software had and sorted descending.

The first non-proprietary package comes in at 6th, and is Krita - not one I've heard of before, it's "digital painting and illustration software", so isn't focused on photographic features.

Annoyingly, that's not the only catch, there's also this one:

:(

The next free one on the list is Paint.NET, which is shit.

After that comes Pixia and mtPaint which both look even worse.

So, the answer to your challenge to Ant is: don't bother!?

Yeah.

Unless there's any items listed on the top bit that aren't in the comparison tables, which is possible.


Also, I found this, which is a little bit of fun:
http://mrdoob.com/projects/harmony/


Here, I drew you a rabbit:

That is soooooo /sweet/, that you!

In return, I offer you a pizza ('cept I wasn't sure what topping you'd prefer):

That either looks like a pepperoni pizza (FFS! Why haven't I set my keyboard repeat delay to the minimum setting yet?) or a black hole pizza.

Not really. They're both very complex programs and neither has really solved the problem of presenting a shitload of shallow tools to the user effectively. As a new user, neither would be easier than the other to use.

Photoshop is just as bad, we're just used to it. I get equally annoyed using both and I've been using PS for years.

Photoshop is only £657.60, and it comes with a three-year learning curve at no additional cost. Enjoy!

I suppose you want your money back? I think it's quite excellent, and didn't find it terribly hard to learn. Yes, it's different from Photoshop, and in several ways inferior, but it does probably 70% of the stuff I need to do, for free. I have photoshop free edition anyway, if I can be bothered booting into windows for it (mostly, I can't).

 

If photoshop is all you know, and you don't want to learn anything different, then stick with it.

No, Photoshop is not just as bad.

I'm not used to it, because I encountered them both around the same time, have dabbled with both, yet don't use either.

I have never been able to do anything useful with GIMP.
I've tried plenty of times, both willingly and because it's been the only thing available, and any initial optimism I had has been repeatedly chewed up and spat out.

When using Photoshop, there was initially a question of unfamiliarity with the menus/etc, but now I know software in general better and graphics specifically, I can usually work out where things are, and use it sufficiently.

Still, I've used it relatively few times, and PS Elements hardly ever, but you could put either of those in front of me now and assign a task and I could get it done in a reasonable time, whatever it might be.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't get annoyed with it doing things in a stupid way, but at least I could actually get it to do stuff.

Why are the only people that advocate using GIMP Linux users?

After all, if it's free and so awesome, why don't Win/Mac people also use it?

Answer: BECAUSE GIMP IS FUCKING SHIT!!!

I don't use Photoshop. Or PS Elements.

I use Paint Shop Pro.

Unfortunately, Corel are stupid and have fucked up the last few versions of it, so I can't upgrade.

Which means I'm stuck with buggy text functionality, and don't have support for newer graphics formats, and Windows switches to ugly-mode every time I start the app, and so on.

So I'd like to find something to replace it, but nothing I've tried has been satisfactory.
Which means I'll probably wind up eventually getting Elements for newer functionality and using PSP when I need proper layers and masks and stuff, which will be a huge annoyance.

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.