alt Hacker NewsPhoto GIMP – A Patch for GIMP 3 for Photoshop Users
Comments
GIMP gets the work done. I've never had an issue I couldn't address with its tools, but it's clear the UI was crafted by coders. I'm glad for this approach.
I am glad someone is putting in this effort. Many years ago, there was another project called GIMPshop to make GIMP's interface more accessible to Photoshop users.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop
They taught Photoshop at school, so I found it easier to use GIMPshop than regular GIMP.
How long will this one last? Just learn the GIMP interface, it's not great but not being photoshop isn't a bug
How do we get this into mainline GIMP? As a GIMP user since it existed, I can say that the default interface "works" but the ux isn't great. This looks like a marked improvement and would give me something more like Inkscapes UI but for raster images instead of vector...
The argument over the UI in GIMP and Photoshop is actually based on the kind of "false" premise that Photoshop has a "superior" UI.
It reminds of my first experience using macOS, as a long time Windows user. The first few months on macOS was a totally frustrating and negative experience for me - "What the ...? why does the ENTER key not open files or folders? Why is it going to 'rename' mode? Why doesn't double-clicking the title bar on a window maximise the window? Why are some windows maximised and others take their own custom width? Why is the Maximise button making apps full screen!?" - and so on.
The point is that I had become so familiar with the Windows UI, that every other OS UI suddenly seemed alien - "This is not how a UI should work on an OS". (This was also the reason that I hated Ubuntu's DE, as it tried to imitate the macOS UI I was then unfamiliar with). Familiarity means when you face a new UI, you have to spend effort to re-learn your way of thinking around a UI, which can be a frustrating experience (especially as you grow older). That effort / stress also unconsciously creates a negative impression in your mind about the UI. Both Apple and Microsoft know this and that is why they deliberately make their UI distinct and different from each other - whether it is Windows vs macOS or Windows Phone vs ios. Recently someone (a non-geek) asked me if they should buy a Macbook as they had an iPhone too. As they were a Windows user, I warned them that the macOS UI would be frustrating and to try macOS before committing to it. They did, and ultimately decided against it and chose to stick to Windows (buying a Surface Tablet).
As a former graphic designer, and an experienced Photoshop user, I only considered GIMP as a replacement when Adobe decided to make it a subscription. And just as with Windows to macOS, re-learning to use the GIMP UI was a frustrating experience because I was always thinking of "this is how it is done in Photoshop". Once you let go of that "familiarity", and are willing to actually test if the "GIMP way" is maybe better, it becomes a less frustrating experience. (All that said, while I have got used to using the GIMP tools the GIMP way, the overall GIMP layout does have a cluttered feeling and I do recommend installing Photo GIMP - it won't really make GIMP a Photoshop clone, but it will make it more "familiar" and thus easier to "re-learn" how to use it).
GIMP is the only program that I miss when switched from linux to mac. And GIMP 2.2 was just a perfect for my needs back then
I probably won’t bother to try this because I think it’s unlikely that it fixes whatever is broken in Gimp that prevents me from using it. I use DWM. Gimp simply doesn’t work with that window manager. I won’t bore you with details, but other users of DWM or, possibly, similar WMs know what I mean.
It’s not DWM’s fault. It works fine with programs that support X11 properly. Krita, for example, works perfectly with DWM.
People use Photoshop for sheer capability, not for the layout, naming conventions and shortcuts.
I'll continue to say it; this software does not get taken seriously in a useful way to lots of people until it changes the silly name.
And to summarize and perhaps avert other discussion; it's not so much about being "non-offensive" as it is simply about being professional.
Gimp is shit. It has always been shit and likely will always be shit. The UI is made by Satan himself and it is much closer to Paint than to Photoshop in terms of feature coverage.
There's absolutely no reason to use Gimp when https://www.photopea.com/ exists.
I really hate [edit: the necessity for something like] this. I deeply disagree that Photoshop has better UI than GIMP, it's just that GIMP is no professional's daily driver, you were paid to learn Photoshop; and whenever you learned any technique, you learned it in Photoshop. Clinging to Photoshop UI (which is completely arbitrary and bizarre) just supports Photoshop - you're taking a vacation instead of making a move.
That being said, the comfort that millions of people have with the Photoshop interface is in itself an institution, and has to be respected as such (imagine the collective number of man-hours put into learning it.) I don't know what the answer is. But the worst possible outcome is the Firefox outcome, where GIMP ends up chasing Photoshop rather than remaining its own thing.
Just, please, try to get out of your head that GIMP's UI is bad. It's not, it's just different. Don't think of it as a knock-off Photoshop. Deal with it on its own terms. Use these Photoshop skins as a transition rather than a destination.
That means I might have a problem with this approach, just because it doesn't allow for a easy switch between classic and Photoshop UI. It's actually annoying to switch back and forth. If it catches on and brings more users to GIMP, it will become the interface, and leave GIMP vulnerable to IP attacks.
[flagged]
I see usually two options:
a) Solution X does it generally better than Y and their solution is *ported*.
b) Adapt to solution Y. The end.
Do you remember that foolish Windows-Themes on Linux? Luckily GNOME has killed custom theming. And Apple also. Custom theming is a horrible mess aside from areas where it is intentionally (e.g. Vim color schemes).
But it is also possible that Gimp moves to option A. At some point and they are interested in user-interface improvements. Most people just want to use Single-Window-Mode which shall be default for many years.
Krita is so much more accessible than GIMP.
Only Gimp devs would love Gimps interface.
Just the existence of Gimp seems like so much effort flushed down the toilet because of someone's bad, bad taste and incredibly poor user interface design
I've never understood GIMP's approach to copy paste either. They've made a decision that copy and paste must require as many un-intuitive steps as possible.
Most graphics programs let you select a region, copy it and then move the copy around to where you want it, the end. You can usually paste into new layer if needed.
But not in GIMP for some reason you have to copy something and 'anchor it' or convert it to a new layer before you ever see it.
This kind of thing just makes me use other software.