Thanks for taking the time to respond. I can tell you have relevant experiences with GIMP that the developers could benefit from hearing. If you haven’t already, I suggest you think about point 1 and provide detailed feedback at the link provided by @cmyk.student. There’s a few topics you touched on in your comment, but none of them are detailed or actionable except for the suggestion to make features optional.
Even that is not without issue due to point 2. I’m curious. What exactly do you think the main focus of GIMP should be? I have a feeling it’s not the same as what the developers believe. I’m certain it’s different from my opinion. I won’t say what I believe yet, but I will say this. My idea of GIMP’s purpose says the vignette filter is just as, or even more, “goofy” than the waves filter.
Again, this would make it behave different from other filters so it’s not a no-brainer solution to your problem. The inconsistent behavior is considered bad UX by users like me.
A little misunderstanding here. My comment meant that I could not understand what you were trying to say about the eraser. I was not saying anything about the behavior being ok. Now that you provided more details, I think you are asking why the eraser doesn’t make the part of the image transparent unless you add an alpha channel? If that’s so, what do you think the eraser should do if there is no alpha channel?
No, please, don’t. Krita is much more dedicated to painting, while gimp is more general purpose and leaning more towards photography than krita. It is good that we have different tools with different strengths. If gimp would replicate krita workflows, why would we need two separate tools then? (Maybe I misunderstood …)
I tried krita many times, especially due to the non-destructive capabilities, but came back to gimp every single time, as krita does not handle my use cases very well. I am looking forward to gimp 3+'s new non-destructive features, though.
As someone who uses Gimp for personal work and Adobe at the dayjob I have to say it’s pretty obvious that they both have UX advantages and disadvantages. The thing to understand is that Gimp and PS cover a huge range of use cases and both have a very long history that has left them with various ux baggage that can’t really change just like that.
Suggesting that vignette is a critical filter is almost absurd to me. Waves and the other seemingly strange tools are actually important pieces of the puzzle when hand building more complex results. You’ll see many similar ‘base’ effects in Blender etc. You can very quickly create vignetting using basic features, having a dedicated filter is an unnecessary nicety.
Gimp can obviously improve, masked layer effects, fewer clicks for layer management and better performance are the main ones imho.
Many people indulge in gimp-interface bashing… especially those who only use it for 3 ultra-basic functions, for which it’s easy to find suitable applications.
Personally, I’ve never managed to use Darktable’s interface (I do almost exclusively “complex” photo processing), and I remember complaining for a long, long time about the time when Gimp’s No. 1 priority, which was then 8-bit only, was to produce a single-window interface…
PS: what is “vignette”? the result of my poor English skills?
The thing is, I find the UI to work pretty well for editing. Others do so as well. Ask me to do something in Krita and I’ll be able to do it with ease. And it’s easier to adapt to something where you have some familiarity with it. I didn’t find GIMP seemingly hidden NDE nice to work with.
Gimp can obviously improve, masked layer effects, fewer clicks for layer management and better performance are the main ones imho.
Yeah. I totally agree.
Performance improvements, post GIMP 3.0, would be great. At present, GIMP hardly takes advantage of the GPU even though there are currently some efforts to improve its OpenCL filters (e.g together with GEGL).
I only use GIMP for photography stuff but, in all truth, I am persuaded most future developments (post GIMP 3, I mean) should leave this part alone.
In short, IMHO, since there are already many open source, free for everyone, softwares (RawTherapee - ART - darktable - VKDT) to handle both RAWs and JPEGs what’s the point of duplicating their options?
This considering the veeery small amount of GIMP developers available to work with new stuff and not only bug-fixing.
If you are “serious” about photography you are likely forced, sooner or later, to learn more than one software even though this is time-consuming to say the least…
I think the point stems from the fact that the Krita workflow is much closer to Photoshop in terms of how things such as layers, layer masks, layer groups, adjustment layers, and layer style work. Indeed, Krita added layer styles specifically to increase compatibility with Photoshop.
Even if the Photoshop workflow is not optimal in some objective sense it has the benefits of being well known and with a huge body of tutorials associated with it. Following along a Photoshop tutorial is often a lot easier in Krita than GIMP as a result.
My understanding is that GIMP is closing a lot of the gaps with v3 (especially with adjustment layers) although still might not be there in terms of layer styles.
That’s perfectly fine. So, krita is for you. And gimp is for those who prefer the gimp approach. No need to equalize them ui/ux wise.
Gimp 2.x does not have some real nde features yet, only the basic stuff you can do with layer modes. This will change with the next major release, but may still lag behind the other tools, however, as you say, it’s closing gaps at good pace.
I was not talking about feature completeness or especially availability of nde features, I only referred to ux/ui and related workflow differences. Of course gimp is lacking some features (as do krita or photoshop or any other tool) and there’s nothing to say against improving on that. But ux/ui may and should differ among the tools, otherwise we don’t need different tools if all have the same features and the same ux/ui.
Statements as “tool xxx is the best“ should always come with the restriction “for me”, ”for a particular requirement” or similar. And about circulation of the tools, at least in my “bubble” (a rather technical one) I know several gimp users, but not one krita user personally. This may be different in more artistic “bubbles”/“circles”.
Incorrect. I am not mistaking the GIMP for anything and I know what it is. Ignoring that Straw Man, if you are comfortable with undefined acronyms and synonyms, so be it.
No. If by “Its” one is referring to the example image, the GIMP already has filters>Artistic.
Horses for Course …
In any case, the example is referring to the questionable use of ‘waves’ presumably to mean Wavelet Decomposition.
Elsewhere there is a Forum where the Sigma ‘dp2 Quattro’ compact routinely gets shortened down to “DP2” a great pity because Sigma also made a camera of that name - forcing one to assess context to determine which model is meant.
