+- Gimp-Forum.net (https://www.gimp-forum.net)
+-- Forum: GIMP (https://www.gimp-forum.net/Forum-GIMP)
+--- Forum: General questions (https://www.gimp-forum.net/Forum-General-questions)
+--- Thread: when will Gimp lose the learning curve rep (/Thread-when-will-Gimp-lose-the-learning-curve-rep)
when will Gimp lose the learning curve rep - carusoswi - 11-20-2017
I've been a Gimp user since 2000. I've been a PS user during the same time (and currently am a subscriber to CC). Before that, I used Micrographix Picture Publisher, a very capable photo editor not at all dissimilar to GIMP/PS (whatever happened to them?).
I recently installed Gimp 2.9.7 on my system, and I am thrilled with the steps forward in that version (runs solid on my Ubuntu 17.10 system).
That Gimp version also was packaged with Darktable as a RAW image plugin. I had previously toyed with Darktable, but, since it was packaged with Gimp, decided to spend some time with it. My first attempts were not unlike previous sessions toying with the application, no real direction on how to proceed. After watching a couple of tutorials, the workflow became clear, and now, I am an enthusiastic user of that application as well.
I guess it shouldn't matter to me what the general consensus is on editing applications, but, I confess, it matters to me.
Over the years, I have perused many an article comparing the relative merits of one editing application over another, and, it seems, whenever Gimp is mentioned, there is a chorus of comments about how steep is the learning curve. Why is this? Just yesterday, I came across an article listing 25 free editing applications for those who don't want to "pay a subscription fee". Obviously, the article could not deal with any of these applications in depth and still cover all 25 of them, but there were decent comments about all 25 except for Gimp which was described as being full of features, but not as user friendly as most. I wanted to add mine to the list of comments following the article, and registered to do just that only to find that the comment section was closed for the article (written in 2015).
I am left still wondering why the reviewer could not find anything better than that to report on the GIMP. I do pay a subscription, as I am curious and like to see what's happening on the PS side of things. I took the time to become reasonably proficient with LR, and, for me, that learning curve was not a downhill coast, nor was figuring out Darktable. The learning curve for GIMP is not a bit more steep than that of Photoshop. Both programs function in a very similar manner. Instead of changing your brush size through the tiny (and I do mean tiny) interface at the top left of the PS screen, GIMP's interface appears (on my machine) as a reasonably sized pane at lower left. There is a keyboard shortcut for PS Levels or you can use drop down menus two deep as I recall to invoke it with mouse gestures. In GIMP, you click "Colors" then "Levels" (if there is a shortcut key, I have never found it). It goes on and on. Levels in PS work essentially the same as they do in GIMP. The basics of selecting brushes and adjusting their size works the same in both programs. There is no major difference in the use of the clone tool (I do like that PS gives you a preview of the clone before you use the tool - useful in aligning elements such as trouser seams, etc. that you may want to clone).
OK, the tools are found in different locations, but it takes all of 5-minutes to discover these tools, then one is off and running. I keep asking myself why all the noise about how hard GIMP is to learn. I learned to use GIMP and Photoshop back in 2000, and I really do not see a big difference in the effort to learn either. GIMP wasn't exactly easy, but neither was Photoshop. I am still learning new tidbits about both to this day, and, IMHO, it is GIMP that has come the longest way in terms of development.
The other anthems that critics of GIMP love to sing are (make that WERE) it's lack of CMYK and 16-bit support. I doubt I will ever need CMYK, but I have GIMP 2.9.7 up and running and loaded with a Darktable gnerated 32 bit floating point file as I type this.
GIMP was the first with "content aware" fill, and all of these features are presented to me, the user, free of charge.
GIMP is an astounding editing application, and while we users have had to be patient as its development occurred, that development has been relentless and continues to this day.
I appreciate the GIMP development team for providing me with such a powerful application.
Sorry to rant (sort of).
Respectfully,
Caruso
RE: when will Gimp lose the learning curve rep - Ofnuts - 11-20-2017
It's psychology at work. If you pay for it you think it's better. Typical example: when you put images on Facebook, they are mercilessly recompressed/altered to save bandwidth. People who use PS complain about Facebook. People who use Gimp complain about Gimp.
RE: when will Gimp lose the learning curve rep - Espermaschine - 11-20-2017
I learned Gimp first and Photoshop much later.
I know my way around PS but would never use it for a project because i find it utterly unintuitive. Illustrator is even worse compared to Inkscape.
The Path Tool alone is a nightmare.
I guess Gimp has just a bad image. Even all the underground street artists rather use a pirated version of PS than Gimp.
You also get so much more support in terms of tutorials.
All the pros use Photoshop and a real good youtube tutorial for Gimp that equals the best PS channels is rare.
Its true that Photoshop has a few things that make it superior to Gimp.
Layerstyles and Adjustment Layers for example.
When you want to make a very complex photo manipulation, non destructive adjustments are so much better than Gimp's destructive tools that never remember the latest values you just used a minute ago.
When it comes to layerstyles, the vector technology is just so much better, than the bumpmapping hassle we have to use.
On the other hand, texteffects with bevels and stuff are out of fashion because of smartphones and flat design.
Texteffects were always the candy of PS. Good for writing tutorials, and selling styles, but i doubt they have much real application in the real world.
Yes its fun to make a fire text, but would be considered bad taste on most real world applications.
Lets just say texteffects are something people use: its still easier to buy a style and apply it in 3seconds to a text, instead of painstakingly making it (taking hours ) and then having to do it all over again for a different word or a different size.
It may also be true that Gimp had content aware fill earlier than PS, but a lot of those tools are still a bit esoteric to use.
Resynthesizer works really well but i just had a look at an article yesterday and had know idea how many more things you can do with it and where to find these entries in the menu.
The Impaint tools in G'MIC seem to never work for me, and David Tschumperle is unwilling to explain what the sliders do.
I think one of Gimp's problem is that its all a bit cluttered and all over the place.
Could be the branding is another turn off.
Gimp doesnt sound like a serious program to me.
A friend of mine once said she thought, Gimp is a nerdy amateur software, like the crudest form of mspaint or something.
Or a tracker program for music making.
Gimp and Inkscape have the power to be on par with AI and IS, but you really have to know your stuff.
Where to get plug-ins, what they do, how to install and then how to come to a professional looking result.
It needs more tutorials and examples.
Lots of people who do "gimping" as a hobby are still struggling with the tools.