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.
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.
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)?
The something that sucks is lack of money. Paying developers to do work definitely helps. It’s unfair to level unconstructive critique at the end result when it hasn’t ever had the same opportunity to thrive that the paid software you’re comparing it to had.
Serif produced a nice software suite by paying developers. They got that money from investors who made it by exploiting people (like every corporation) and then exploited their workers and customers in turn. While this resulted in a relatively nicer alternative to Adobe shit, it still isn’t ideal.
Imagine if GIMP, Scribus, Inkscape, and Krita all had the kind of financial support that corporations do. Blender and the community supporting them are figuring it out to some extent, and now Blender has essentially either matched or eclipsed the corporate competition. This is absolutely possible for other FOSS software, but we the community need to be there for them financially too.
The lead developer of GIMP currently receives about €1,200 per month in donations via PayPal, and the entire GIMP project receives even more via LiberaPay. Admittedly, this is not really ‘their paid job’.
But now I’ve had to listen to open source fans for over twenty years saying that open source software shows that you don’t need a lot of money, just a lot of volunteers to do much better work together. I don’t doubt that (for example) Blender is excellent software, donations or not (they didn’t always exist). But why does this concept fail when it comes to image editing software?
If we all spent that money on gimp, scribus and inkscape, they would be so much better in just 2 years.
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.
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.
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)?
deleted by creator
GIMP had almost 25 years to be acceptable. It is still awful to use. Serif’s Affinity was awesome within half a decade.
Must be something with free software that just sucks.
The something that sucks is lack of money. Paying developers to do work definitely helps. It’s unfair to level unconstructive critique at the end result when it hasn’t ever had the same opportunity to thrive that the paid software you’re comparing it to had.
Serif produced a nice software suite by paying developers. They got that money from investors who made it by exploiting people (like every corporation) and then exploited their workers and customers in turn. While this resulted in a relatively nicer alternative to Adobe shit, it still isn’t ideal.
Imagine if GIMP, Scribus, Inkscape, and Krita all had the kind of financial support that corporations do. Blender and the community supporting them are figuring it out to some extent, and now Blender has essentially either matched or eclipsed the corporate competition. This is absolutely possible for other FOSS software, but we the community need to be there for them financially too.
The lead developer of GIMP currently receives about €1,200 per month in donations via PayPal, and the entire GIMP project receives even more via LiberaPay. Admittedly, this is not really ‘their paid job’.
But now I’ve had to listen to open source fans for over twenty years saying that open source software shows that you don’t need a lot of money, just a lot of volunteers to do much better work together. I don’t doubt that (for example) Blender is excellent software, donations or not (they didn’t always exist). But why does this concept fail when it comes to image editing software?
Agree.