The thing preventing me from using Gimp is the terrible UI and UX. And that situation hasn’t really changed very much in the last 15 years, either. I’m getting the feeling that Gimp is stuck as it is because the devs and current users want it like that.
I don’t do much editing (certainly not fancy stuff with heavy use of all the tools), but there is a pretty good mod/patch PhotoGIMP that makes it present similar to Photoshop. It isn’t that old GIMP-shop one that might have malware. Doesn’t fix the missing stuff that power-users need, so no go for many of them. But the UI is much better than the main version of GIMP. Just have to apply the mod/patch after installing GIMP.
PhotoGIMP is the same jank, just taped together in different locations instead. It’s very slightly better, but the actual tools and how you use them are the same. The problem seems to be that Gimp (and all the tools in it) is designed by developers.
Good to know that you actually give options a try (every now and then I try Photoshop to see how it works and new things). So many people will just hate on things just because they just hear that they are bad. One of my friends does photography and hates how Photoshop being a subscription costs so much. But refuses to bother checking-in on GIMP or other options. Even Lightroom alts are deemed not worth it just from muscle memory it seems. Which I do at least understand, but even just checking on options can mean having fall-backs if suddenly needing them. I doubt Adobe will just go away, but they can always make costs higher and higher which price people out.
It would be good if more UI/UX minded folks that actually use Photoshop/Lightroom but hate Adobe’s sub models were to help out. Even just giving good input and follow-up with why or how those things could work is a starting point. Devs and creatives need each other for making projects/products like GIMP into options that more people would use for real.
I’m cheap and have used GIMP, Scribus, Inkscape and Paint.NET for professional work at my job (where I’m basically our one-man marketing and web department). So I’ve had to “make do” with a wide range of free software for a long time. And I may or may not have used a cracked Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator at home, also.
But man, I gotta say the quality and efficiency of my work has improved 10-fold after I bought the Affinity suite (no subscription, and its license allows me to use it commercially too, even though I bought it personally - I love that!)
And I may or may not have used a cracked Photoshop
Installing cracked Photoshop is basically a rite of passage for many. My first cracked program was Photoshop 6 that my photography friend gave me back in high-school when I was stuck on dial-up and they had cable.
I haven’t actually used 3.0 yet, but from all the screenshots I’ve seen, it looks basically the same.
Anyone who has, I have a question: Can you draw simple primitive shapes non-destructively yet (without having to open another plugin panel, select something in a very long dropdown, and filling in a bunch of parameter fields)?
PhotoGimp is the same jank, just taped together in different locations instead. The problem seems to be that Gimp (and all the tools in it) is designed by developers.
I am actually producing PDF/X-4 print-ready stuff with Inkscape, ghostscript and Scribus. I even have TrimBoxes and proper CMYK.
But it involves many manual steps, especially overprinting for the K color channel does not work and I need to adjust every polygon and vectorized text manually.
I whish it would be possible all in one tool. I can afford the time, because it is only a hobby. If it would be professional the extra steps involved make it not good enough.
ghostcript can add a color profile, too. I use the regular ISO coated v2 (without the 300%). This is just a step to not do all things in Scribus by hand and make sure colors are not out of gamut.
I don’t now the command line from the top of my head. Just ping me again, so when I am on my computer I can send the complete ghostscript cli line that currently works for me.
The final profile is set up by Scribus, where I have set it to the ISO coated with 300%. Ideally I would like to have less steps in the chain, so that a change in the Inkscape-source involves less manually steps. One can dream of it. (:
I don’t now which of ProcessColorModel or ColorConversionStrategy is the important one. I kept both and did not bother to try to omit one of them. -dPDFSETTINGS=/prepress makes sure that embedded bitmaps are in 300dpi and I think -f prevents Ghostscript staying in interactive mode after all pages have been finished.
A subscription web service
If we all spent that money on gimp, scribus and inkscape, they would be so much better in just 2 years.
The thing preventing me from using Gimp is the terrible UI and UX. And that situation hasn’t really changed very much in the last 15 years, either. I’m getting the feeling that Gimp is stuck as it is because the devs and current users want it like that.
I don’t do much editing (certainly not fancy stuff with heavy use of all the tools), but there is a pretty good mod/patch PhotoGIMP that makes it present similar to Photoshop. It isn’t that old GIMP-shop one that might have malware. Doesn’t fix the missing stuff that power-users need, so no go for many of them. But the UI is much better than the main version of GIMP. Just have to apply the mod/patch after installing GIMP.
PhotoGIMP is the same jank, just taped together in different locations instead. It’s very slightly better, but the actual tools and how you use them are the same. The problem seems to be that Gimp (and all the tools in it) is designed by developers.
Good to know that you actually give options a try (every now and then I try Photoshop to see how it works and new things). So many people will just hate on things just because they just hear that they are bad. One of my friends does photography and hates how Photoshop being a subscription costs so much. But refuses to bother checking-in on GIMP or other options. Even Lightroom alts are deemed not worth it just from muscle memory it seems. Which I do at least understand, but even just checking on options can mean having fall-backs if suddenly needing them. I doubt Adobe will just go away, but they can always make costs higher and higher which price people out.
It would be good if more UI/UX minded folks that actually use Photoshop/Lightroom but hate Adobe’s sub models were to help out. Even just giving good input and follow-up with why or how those things could work is a starting point. Devs and creatives need each other for making projects/products like GIMP into options that more people would use for real.
I’m cheap and have used GIMP, Scribus, Inkscape and Paint.NET for professional work at my job (where I’m basically our one-man marketing and web department). So I’ve had to “make do” with a wide range of free software for a long time. And I may or may not have used a cracked Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator at home, also.
But man, I gotta say the quality and efficiency of my work has improved 10-fold after I bought the Affinity suite (no subscription, and its license allows me to use it commercially too, even though I bought it personally - I love that!)
Installing cracked Photoshop is basically a rite of passage for many. My first cracked program was Photoshop 6 that my photography friend gave me back in high-school when I was stuck on dial-up and they had cable.
You have a good point in needing to try other things, but there’s also a reasonable need to stick with the workflow that works for you.
Have you tried 3.0? Genuine question because I haven’t and the UI looked a lot better than earlier versions. But if it’s still janky…
I haven’t actually used 3.0 yet, but from all the screenshots I’ve seen, it looks basically the same.
Anyone who has, I have a question: Can you draw simple primitive shapes non-destructively yet (without having to open another plugin panel, select something in a very long dropdown, and filling in a bunch of parameter fields)?
PhotoGimp is the same jank, just taped together in different locations instead. The problem seems to be that Gimp (and all the tools in it) is designed by developers.
I am actually producing PDF/X-4 print-ready stuff with Inkscape, ghostscript and Scribus. I even have TrimBoxes and proper CMYK.
But it involves many manual steps, especially overprinting for the K color channel does not work and I need to adjust every polygon and vectorized text manually.
I whish it would be possible all in one tool. I can afford the time, because it is only a hobby. If it would be professional the extra steps involved make it not good enough.
I use Ghostscript for postprocessing the PDF files. What do yo I use to add a color profile for example?
ghostcript can add a color profile, too. I use the regular ISO coated v2 (without the 300%). This is just a step to not do all things in Scribus by hand and make sure colors are not out of gamut.
I don’t now the command line from the top of my head. Just ping me again, so when I am on my computer I can send the complete ghostscript cli line that currently works for me.
The final profile is set up by Scribus, where I have set it to the ISO coated with 300%. Ideally I would like to have less steps in the chain, so that a change in the Inkscape-source involves less manually steps. One can dream of it. (:
Here I am again.
I’ve been fantasizing of making a simple GS GUI.
Finally I found the time to write down, how I use Ghostscript:
gs \ -sDEVICE=pdfwrite \ -o /output/gs_file.pdf \ -dPDFSETTINGS=/prepress \ -sProcessColorModel=DeviceCMYK \ -sDefaultCMYKProfile=/path/to/ISOcoated_v2_eci.icc \ -sColorConversionStrategy=CMYK \ source/file.pdf \ -fI don’t now which of
ProcessColorModelorColorConversionStrategyis the important one. I kept both and did not bother to try to omit one of them.-dPDFSETTINGS=/prepressmakes sure that embedded bitmaps are in 300dpi and I think-fprevents Ghostscript staying in interactive mode after all pages have been finished.Thanks a lot, I will try this !
Agree.