this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
361 points (83.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
53370 readers
1570 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
💰 Please help cover server costs.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wouldn't say that Linux & Gimp are objectively better, but they sure are better in the long run, since you plop "gimp" into a nix configuration and never have to deal with installation and cracking.
For most use cases of Photoshop, GIMP is not an alternative at all. For more basic use cases it is, but st that point you shouldn't be wasting efforts on Photoshop anyways, something like Paint.NET would be the recommended.
The closest we have for any Adobe alternatives are Affinity Photo for Photoshop, but that one is not free nor open source, but it's a lifetime pay once license. For some use cases of Photoshop and Illustrator you could use Krita, which is FOSS, and for Premiere there's DaVinci resolve, which has Linux builds and a free version.
Have you used GIMP seriously? And I don't mean installing it, getting confused because the menu layout is different to Photoshop and giving up in disgust after 10 mins.
I will readily admit that Photoshop is currently more capable and faster in some cases but to say GIMP is not an alternative is ridiculous.
Yes I have, but GIMP simply isn't aimed at the same type of work Photoshop and AF Photo are. GIMP feels much more of a hobbyist tool to quickly make a simple edit and that's done. And like the other comment said, it has no non-destructive editing at all, which is an enormous dealbreaker for any kind of professional work you might do.
Look at the home page of GIMP's website, where it says "Whether you are a graphic designer, photographer, illustrator, or scientist, GIMP provides you with sophisticated tools to get your job done." If it's not aimed at the same things photoshop and affinity are then what is it aimed at? Music production? Video editing?
Why then are there so many transformation tools and filters and channel, selection and vector operations, icc profile management, scripting, etc etc etc? Just because you haven't learnt how to do something in GIMP doesn't mean it can't be done.
This point has been valid for a long time unfortunately, however GIMP does now have non-destructive editing. You can check it out in their development version.
I know you and me are not going to agree on this but I think it's important to update and debunk misinformed statements, for the benefit of others.
I used to make graphic art in Paint.net myself, anyone who thinks photoshop has anything special is objectively wrong (we're going to ignore generative AI tools)
The benefit of photoshop is that's its more refined in what it does, not that it does anything extra that these foss tools can't do.
The tooling has years of iteration by paid developers and there are a shitload of high quality presets and brushes and, again, refined use case specific stuff, but yeah GIMP is just as viable as a software to achieve most of what photoshop users online who shit talk it can do. The only people whose opinion even matters is professionals who require photoshop to make money for their bills. Everyone else is just blowing smoke out their ass about it because they think having a better tool automatically makes them better.