274
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
274 points (97.6% liked)
Open Source
31746 readers
165 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Photoshop.
And yeah, no, please, don't come over and mention Gimp and Kryta and all the others. I get it, they're cool for the stuff they do. They just aren't the all in one package that Photoshop is or have as powerful tools specifically for photo editing. Photoshop would require a Blender-style major effort to replicate and Gimp just isn't up to it. I wish it were. Photoshop is at the perfect intersection of being uniquely capable and walled off behind the single crappiest ecosystem in software.
Nobody likes Adobe, nobody wants to work with Adobe. Nobody can avoid Photoshop. That's just the world we live in and I don't like it.
Well, counterpoint: Photoshop tries to be an "everything for everybody" app, and GIMP/Krita don't need to compare to that, as little as any user needs all the features of Photoshop.
Call me nobody, then. I worked with the Adobe suite professionally for 15+ years, haven't touched it for the past six. You won't find a single 1:1 replacement. It's just a matter of quitting and accepting the individual limits of different alternatives.
It's a groupthink issue anyways. 3DSmax/Maya was the same for a long time, and "everyone" was saying Blender is not an alternative. And then some big companies switched to Blender and suddenly people stopped complaining about it. And while Blender did improve during that time, it did not improve so substantially that it really made all the difference.
It's absolutely that, like the office admin workers who swear by Microsoft Office over open alternatives no matter how insidious Windows becomes. "I know this one tool and you will have to wring it from my cold dead hands"...
"I find your conditions... acceptable"
this pretty much. Everytime i see people bitching about editors and editing, it's almost always keybinds. Which is literally a skill issue. Or something will be organized slightly differently, also a skill issue. Or it's feature set will be like, marginally different.
It's almost never something that's going to stop you from doing what you wanted originally. Your visions change, your tools change, your ways adapt, it's how the world works, it's how we work. It's how everything has always been.
Based. Just curious, what do you use for vector editing software? (For Illustrator-type work)
Not much, honestly. Fortunately I was never very reliant on vector graphics.
Inkscape IMO never really matured to a working solution, certainly not comparable to Illustrator, but I know others have better experiences.
I agree that it depends on your use case. If you're an artist or illustrator you can make do with a number of alternatives and just go elsewhere for photo editing, and if you're just doing basic adjustments to photos rather than detailed edits you can figure it out as well.
Photohop is harder to bypass if you're a jack-of-all-trades user mostly doing image editing but also dabbling in the other options from time to time. That's not to say you can't do it if you try, but it's going to be less convenient and add friction to your workflow.
Yeah, Jack-of-all-trades here as well. For sure it's less convenient to have to switch programs for different purposes but there is also the added convenience of not having to find pirated and cracked Adobe warez.
This sounds like Stockholm syndrome. You are just too familiar with Photoshop, so using anything else is hard and less efficient.
In photography there is this mantra about "the most important part is right behind the camera". A good photographer is not a good Nikon user, or good Canon user. A good photographer can deliver decent pictures with a potato camera if needed.
Sure, a potato camera is less efficient for any work that an actual good one. So it's good to invest in a good brand. But the point is: if you are not capable to make average results with a potato software, the problem is not in the software.
You know why the person themselves is the important part of this equation?
Because they know what tools to use for which purpose.
For example, GIMP is only now getting non-destructive editing through adjustment layers, which is such an indispensable feature for important projects
it's not like you could ever just copy layers or something. That's never been a feature in gimp, not once.
I understand your point, but to act like that is the sole thing stopping people from using, is kinda silly. (idk maybe i'm wrong and adjustment layers are this incredible feature, with never before discovered productivity benefits or something, i'm assuming not though)
They make things so much easier, having to make copies of every layer every time just to keep the original in case you need to re-do something half an hour later is super annoying.
Especially if you do multiple different things with a layer. Do you really have the patience to make backuo copies of a layer after every little edit you apply to it?
And then let's say step 2 of 5 didn't turn out like you want. Backup copies or not, you still have to re-do everything from 2 to 5 because of GIMPs destructive nature as of right now
oh so it's basically like a COW fs but for graphics editing? That's pretty slick. I'm sure you could implement something fairly similar to that natively, though it would be a decent bit of work.
It's going to be part of the 3.0 release, after what feels like an eternity. The 2.99 dev release has it already, I might try that
Actually, I'd much prefer a FOSS alternative of Affinity Photo instead of Photoshop.
I'd be happy if the Affinity suite worked on Linux :(
yeah, I'd totally pay for it.
Just like MS Office.
Exactly... easily replaceable but you have an endless whining of users that imagine they might somehow in the future need this one feature that office has but alternatives don't.
That's an increasingly small number, if only because now Google is in that market, too.
However, there is a second reason you need Office, and that's compatibility. I don't use Office for work normally, but I still have an Office account (which, annoyingly, is how you pay for Office now), because I have clients who want to work on their formats and it doesn't make sense for me to work around compatibility and have an argument about it instead of just paying for the damn thing and working with whatever software other people want to work.
But if I was by myself and didn't need to work with anyone else ever? Yeah, I would not miss much from Office, honestly.
That's my position as well. But there are certain features that I do require for work and other integrations with other MS products that you can't get elsewhere.
As you said if one lives in a bubble and doesn’t to collaborate with others then native Linux apps might work and might even deliver a decent workflow. Once collaboration with Windows/Mac users is required then it’s game over – the “alternatives” aren’t just up to it.
Windows/Office licenses are "cheap" and things work out of the box. Software runs fine, all vendors support whatever you’re trying to do and you’re productive from day zero. Sure, there are annoyances from time to time, but for most people they’re way fewer and simpler to deal with than the hoops you’ve to go through to get a minimal and viable/productive FOSS-only experience. It all comes down to a question of how much time (days? months?) you want to spend fixing things and dealing with small compatibility issues that simply work out of the box under MS for a minimal fee. For most people paying for MS and doing their job right away delivers a better ROI than going FOSS and then doing their job while dealing with the small details.
I object to that "work out of the box" comment. I have lost more work hours to OneDrive being terrible than to any single other technical reason. Office has at least as many quirks and inefficiencies as any of its alternatives.
It's a bit of a standard and it doesn't... not... work? So yeah, it's the go-to you have to have as a fallback for things to not get annoying when you work with multiple other people outside your same organization on something. Alternatives are as good or better, though, especially if you consider commercial ones as well as FOSS ones.
But yeah, it's priced just so that it makes sense to pay for it and not use it over not having it ready to go when you need it. On purpose. Which sucks.
Windows is a different story. Quirky and annoying yes, but not more so than the alternatives and definitely the standard for big chunks of things in ways that it's not trivial to replace.
Teams is also the meeting system furthest from "just works" in my experience. Not sure where all the Microsoft apologists get those ideas that stuff made by Microsoft "just works".
Yes, marketing. Microsoft is good at it.
I don't even know if I give them that. I guess pricing things just at the edge of you begrudgingly buying them instead of going elsewhere is "marketing" if you squint. I mean, by all accounts they're worse at branding than Apple and worse at PR than literally everybody else in their competing markets. After a certain critical mass it probably doesn't matter much, I suppose. At least not short term.
Well by definition it's marketing. Communication, branding, PR are just some disciplines of Marketing, pricing definition is another and you can always be at the "edge of you begrudgingly buying them" then you're good, very good at it.
Photopea. Not foss, but a free clone of photoshop.
idk honestly i just don't think i really believe this take.
The only really objective aspect of it is going to be user complacency. It's possible you've been using PS for 10-20 years now. And switching seems like an impossibility. But honestly, given the feature set, or the non existing feature set, i don't think it really matters.
Ultimately you can still do graphics editing in GIMP, and you can still do graphics editing in PS, it's more about your adaptability and flexibility, rather than skill set, and software. I've used both photoshop, gimp, and photopea. They all do the same thing, photopea is worse than either. GIMP is more featured, and doesn't come with adobe, PS has AI editing, and probably like 2 other features, and also the copyrighted color pack that you have to pay ransom for.
They all work fine, stop complaining, you'll live. Maybe that's just the doomerism peaking through or something, but honestly, it's such a vapid complaint IMO.
It does seem like a hopeless situation sometimes. I used to be a graphic designer and honestly it is very difficult to switch to any other program that is cohesive. Especially with the addition of AI features in Photoshop (keyword, I know, but generative fill can be extremely helpful in some cases). The Affinity suite is barely even able to keep up, and they have employees that are paid. Cross-compatibility and file type standards are a massive issue too, let alone the functionality itself
Also would be nice to have open source ecosystem with blender ,then open source pro level video editing like da vinci and open source photoshop.
I'm happy to give Black Magic Design my money.
I literally wouldn't piss on Adobe if it was on fire.
I haven't gone back to Blender's built in editor and postprocessing suite. I hear they did some stuff to it in 4.0.
Still, yeah, I end up going to DaVinci because Blender editing is more like Gimp Photoshopping than it is like Blender 3D modelling and rendering.