Adobe has lost basically nothing. Because Gimp is still ridiculously underpowered compared to Adobe Photoshop (let alone the rest of the suite). That is perfectly fine since the vast majority of users don't need those capabilities. But the people who do (e.g. professionals)? There is really no other choice.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, that title's last sentence is just a straight-up lie, lol

[–] riquisimo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago

I disagree. GIMP and photopea get really slow on larger files that photoshop can handle with stability. I've really, really tried to move to GIMP, beyond just learning different hotkeys. I keep falling back to Photoshop.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 days ago

Do execs really hate him? Competition validates the marketplace and your product. Plus they can afford to develop more features than the open source community can produce in the same amount of time. So they can always argue you are paying for the additional features.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

(Disclaimer: I use Gimp a lot and Adobe not at all)

Tbh, the people who use Gimp and the people who use Adobe are two separate crowds and neither Gimp nor Adobe are the only tools in town.

If I'm not going to pay for a photo editing tool and Gimp would cease to exist, I'd just download another free tool and call it a day.

If I'm a professional relying on Adobe Photoshop, the existence of Gimp does nothing to me. Photoshop plus Lightroom costs ~€25/month. For a private person that's a lot. For a professional that hardly matters. If I pay €1000+ rent for a studio+office, paying €25 isn't that big of a deal.

Or to put it the other way round: If our hypothetical professional saves just one hour of work per month due to using Adobe tools over Gimp or another software, it's cheaper for them to use Adobe. Because time literally is money when you are self-employed.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

GIMP's UI and UX are just terrible. I forced myself to use it for months but it never felt like anything ever got easier to do, it's just so unintuitive. Nevertheless, I thank the devs for all their work, it's great great tool

[–] moopet@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

I used PS from v3 (I think?) to CS2 (ish?) before switching to GIMP. I thought the interface was weird until a designer at my job showed me where I was getting confused. So I've been a semi-regular G user for the last million years and every once in a while I offer to help my partner with something in PS and honestly I take so long to get anything done because I can't find it in the PS UI.

[–] FG_3479@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Have you tried PhotoGIMP?

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Did you reconfigure it much?

There are preconfiguration packs that make it more like photoshop if you want. Gimpshop I think one is called.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I didn't, I will check it out but that is still terrible UX if you need to mod the program to make It intuitive

[–] moopet@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 days ago

"Professionals" is one of those words, you know, like "consumer" or whatever, that does a lot to hide what's really going on. I'm a professional who used to use GIMP all the time for my work. I'm not less of a professional because I didn't like Photoshop, in fact, I used to use PS at previous jobs but gave it up because I prefer the GIMP interface (yes, I'm that person) and didn't need the other bits. "Professional" just means you do it as a job; it doesn't indicate what that job is, and different people have different use cases.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 days ago

poor artists blame their tools.