11-20-2017, 09:40 AM
I learned Gimp first and Photoshop much later.
I know my way around PS but would never use it for a project because i find it utterly unintuitive. Illustrator is even worse compared to Inkscape.
The Path Tool alone is a nightmare.
I guess Gimp has just a bad image. Even all the underground street artists rather use a pirated version of PS than Gimp.
You also get so much more support in terms of tutorials.
All the pros use Photoshop and a real good youtube tutorial for Gimp that equals the best PS channels is rare.
Its true that Photoshop has a few things that make it superior to Gimp.
Layerstyles and Adjustment Layers for example.
When you want to make a very complex photo manipulation, non destructive adjustments are so much better than Gimp's destructive tools that never remember the latest values you just used a minute ago.
When it comes to layerstyles, the vector technology is just so much better, than the bumpmapping hassle we have to use.
On the other hand, texteffects with bevels and stuff are out of fashion because of smartphones and flat design.
Texteffects were always the candy of PS. Good for writing tutorials, and selling styles, but i doubt they have much real application in the real world.
Yes its fun to make a fire text, but would be considered bad taste on most real world applications.
Lets just say texteffects are something people use: its still easier to buy a style and apply it in 3seconds to a text, instead of painstakingly making it (taking hours ) and then having to do it all over again for a different word or a different size.
It may also be true that Gimp had content aware fill earlier than PS, but a lot of those tools are still a bit esoteric to use.
Resynthesizer works really well but i just had a look at an article yesterday and had know idea how many more things you can do with it and where to find these entries in the menu.
The Impaint tools in G'MIC seem to never work for me, and David Tschumperle is unwilling to explain what the sliders do.
I think one of Gimp's problem is that its all a bit cluttered and all over the place.
Could be the branding is another turn off.
Gimp doesnt sound like a serious program to me.
A friend of mine once said she thought, Gimp is a nerdy amateur software, like the crudest form of mspaint or something.
Or a tracker program for music making.
Gimp and Inkscape have the power to be on par with AI and IS, but you really have to know your stuff.
Where to get plug-ins, what they do, how to install and then how to come to a professional looking result.
It needs more tutorials and examples.
Lots of people who do "gimping" as a hobby are still struggling with the tools.
I know my way around PS but would never use it for a project because i find it utterly unintuitive. Illustrator is even worse compared to Inkscape.
The Path Tool alone is a nightmare.
I guess Gimp has just a bad image. Even all the underground street artists rather use a pirated version of PS than Gimp.
You also get so much more support in terms of tutorials.
All the pros use Photoshop and a real good youtube tutorial for Gimp that equals the best PS channels is rare.
Its true that Photoshop has a few things that make it superior to Gimp.
Layerstyles and Adjustment Layers for example.
When you want to make a very complex photo manipulation, non destructive adjustments are so much better than Gimp's destructive tools that never remember the latest values you just used a minute ago.
When it comes to layerstyles, the vector technology is just so much better, than the bumpmapping hassle we have to use.
On the other hand, texteffects with bevels and stuff are out of fashion because of smartphones and flat design.
Texteffects were always the candy of PS. Good for writing tutorials, and selling styles, but i doubt they have much real application in the real world.
Yes its fun to make a fire text, but would be considered bad taste on most real world applications.
Lets just say texteffects are something people use: its still easier to buy a style and apply it in 3seconds to a text, instead of painstakingly making it (taking hours ) and then having to do it all over again for a different word or a different size.
It may also be true that Gimp had content aware fill earlier than PS, but a lot of those tools are still a bit esoteric to use.
Resynthesizer works really well but i just had a look at an article yesterday and had know idea how many more things you can do with it and where to find these entries in the menu.
The Impaint tools in G'MIC seem to never work for me, and David Tschumperle is unwilling to explain what the sliders do.
I think one of Gimp's problem is that its all a bit cluttered and all over the place.
Could be the branding is another turn off.
Gimp doesnt sound like a serious program to me.
A friend of mine once said she thought, Gimp is a nerdy amateur software, like the crudest form of mspaint or something.
Or a tracker program for music making.
Gimp and Inkscape have the power to be on par with AI and IS, but you really have to know your stuff.
Where to get plug-ins, what they do, how to install and then how to come to a professional looking result.
It needs more tutorials and examples.
Lots of people who do "gimping" as a hobby are still struggling with the tools.