I just love when people demand everyone's muscle memory to be overturned in a free tool for "better UX" because they themselves are too lazy to learn a new workflow.
This is exactly the attitude that made Photoshop end up with the absolute worst UX ever. So bad, I'd argue it's the reason Adobe just gave up and spread out new features across multiple other tools.
> I just love when people demand everyone's muscle memory to be overturned in a free tool for "better UX" because they themselves are too lazy to learn a new workflow.
Gimp devs probably think like you do. And this also is why artists aren't using Gimp more as well. The hubris. Gimp UI is objectively terrible and the workflow you're talking about doesn't have artists in mind, it's designed by developers for developers, not artists.
GIMP's UX is not objectively terrible. I use both Photoshop and GIMP and between the 2, GIMP is much easier to use for simple photo edits and manipulations.
Sure, Photoshop has chops, it can do amazing stuff with ease, but I prefer GIMP's layout, it makes far more sense to me and it is quick and easy. Maybe if I had started with Photoshop I would agree with you but it does work well once you get it, and it doesn't take long to get it, and that combo is what makes for "objectively good" UX.
I know gimp reasonably well. Take those flat icons, they made it impossible to find anything. I installed it on a friends computer and now half the icons were missing. I was looking for new versions of icons unsure what they look like and unsure if they are even there. I try resize though the menu but it's different from the resize tool? There is no preview.
In stead of explaining the application in 30 min I spend 30 min looking like an idiot. I accidentally detach a tool from the gui then was unable to get it back in. haha Questions like "how do I draw a box?"
There are countless little weird things you have to get used to. Like, why is configure grid in the "image" menu? Why not put it under grid under "view"? I keep forgetting where it is.
I do UI with simple questions like: Is the grid part of viewing or part of the image?
Often times people say that GIMP is just another workflow and one has to get used to it, just like with Photoshop. Maybe there is some truth to that. But my personal opinion differs.
Of all the tools I played around with over the years, as a beginner or intermediate, be it Photoshop, Cinema 4D, Blender, Paint.Net, Illustrator, Inkscape, Premiere, and countless other less prolific..
I was always able to figure it out myself fairly easily, with a bit of tinkering... except GIMP. It is my least used program with the most Google and YouTube searches, and I'm never not frustrated while using it. Still, every few years I come back and try it again.. and am disappointed again.
I remember, to this day, what my very first frustration was. I wanted to use GIMP to resave a PNG as a JPG and didn't notice the hidden dropdown (behind a checkbox!?) to change the file type why saving. Changing it in the filename box returned an error.. why? why? Sure, it only took a minute to find it, but it shouldn't have.
Don't get me wrong, it is undoubtedly a powerful program and I am grateful that it exists. But the UI is abhorrently unintuitive.
Well, it's the exact opposite for me. I don't do a lot with Gimp but I can only remember one time I needed to google how to do something, I just find it very intuitive to use. Sure it's not the most polished software and I've seen one or two bugs but overall it does everything I need with an easy to use interface.
> Changing it in the filename box returned an error
I always do it like that and it just works. Though in current versions you have to "Export" to jpg/png and not "Save as". Afaik the intention is to prevent overwriting the original file on accident.
Yeah, I don't find it too much of a bother either. For my (admittedly) limited use cases, it serves me just fine. Better documentation of the scripting capabilities would be wonderful though.
I switched from Adobe Photoshop to Pixelmator Pro. I'm happy to pay for software when it's fast, feels native, and has intuitive UX. Respect to the GIMP devs for continuing that important work, but I have to +1 to each of your points; the GIMP UX is not good. I find myself constantly getting 'locked' into some selection or transformation state I don't understand, there's no UI indicator for, and pressing escape or deselect doesn't get me out of. Very annoying usability in my experience.
On Linux, I use mtPaint whenever I can, because it is quick and intuitive. So when I need to use GIMP, it is for a relatively complex task. I keep a GIMP-instructions text file to record every step of these operations so I won't have to research it again the next time.
My colleagues on Windows have been tempted to try GIMP (for casual use), but none I know have stuck with it. They revert to either PhotoFiltre or Serif DrawPlus.
This. It amazes me how bad GIMP is and yet how great Photopea is given it's a project by one guy that runs 100% in client side JS. When I need to edit a photo on a machine without PS installed Photopea is the way to go. I can't image why I'd ever resort to GIMP.
In my high school photography class ~12 years ago, everyone was using Photoshop. But I used GIMP instead. I remember everyone being so impressed - wow, there's this free tool that does pretty much everything Photoshop does?
But I feel like the software has barely changed since then. Photoshop has HEAPS of new features, and it's faster. And of course I don't expect GIMP to keep up with that. But even the basics, it feels just super slow and clunky. I wonder if they fully take advantage of the GPU?
Also yeah, as people have already mentioned, sometimes the UX is a bit confusing. Every time I use the alignment tool, I have to Google how to use it again. A lot of the tools are like that.
Has development slowed down over the past few years? I'm curious. Is there a lack of contributors? Or is the port to Gtk3 so overwhelmingly that it has taken up all their time/effort?
>The issue is that Gimp lost its primary contributor a few years ago (don't know why, he just disappeared), and nobody has really stepped up since.
>Like, that guy was the only one working on the gtk3 port. The gtk3 port is right now basically in the same state it was in 2018 or 2019, whenever that contributor left.
>So, the reason gimp is bad is mostly because very few people work on gimp, and it's a big software.
I have been sort of an early adopter of GIMP, and in the past I was quite a heavy user for many years, and I never really understood all this bad press that GIMP gets, especially the UI. I used GIMP for many years, some months on daily basis, sometimes only few times a week, but quite regularly, and I always liked it, and never had problems with it. Then one day I had to edit several images on a computer that was not my and only had Photoshop on it, and I think I started to appreciate a little the frustration a long time Photoshop user with muscle memory must feel when using GIMP. The two hours of using Photoshop were some of the most frustrating in my life: everything kind of felt familiar, and I knew all those features that I want to use are there, but I had the hardest time finding them and figuring out how they worked. Everything seemed to be in the most illogical places, key combinations did not do what I expected them to do, dialogs did not make any sense. I managed to finish the work, but it took much longer time than it would in GIMP, and was incredibly frustrating. I am sure the Photoshop UI made perfect sense to the people who designed it, and that someone who is used to it can get great work done with it, but it made no sense to me. That's probably how Photoshop users feel when trying to get work done in GIMP.
These days I do not use GIMP much since I work almost exclusively with vector graphics, but every once a while I have some situation where GIMP seems to be the appropriate tool, and I always find it pleasant and easy to get back to.
I think the X11 legacy has a lot to do with GIMP's UX even though there's now a native Mac version. That said, I still think GIMP is quite an achievement.
I can't find it right now but I remember seeing a video at a dev conference, and a GIMP dev was taking questions.
A user asked if GIMP would be adding support for a feature. It was something related to printing, I wanna say either 32-bit color or CMYK. The GIMP dev spent the rest of their time trying to convince them that the feature was a bad thing and that they didn't want it or need it.
Something we need to do a better job of in the open-source community is educating people on what to expect from open-source software. GIMP isn't "a Photoshop clone". It's a unique thing. It's not trying to replace Photoshop. Unfortunately, 99% of the open-source community seems to believe that it is. How did we get to this point? When you see this BS, please call it out. Do your part.
Google for "Photoshop alternatives". Of course you're free to disagree, but you will be disagreeing with a majority. And since the subject of your disagreement is inherently subjective, I don't see a reason to evangelize people to your opinion, not to mention the condescending tone tone with calling the mainstream opinion BS and appealing to call it out.
Blender isn't a 3D Studio Max or Houdini Clone. But it is an alternative 3D tool, just like Gimp is an alternative raster editing tool to Photoshop. I find it productive to ask both why Blender is so successful and why is GIMP still so bad.
UX is incredibly complicated, and it is lacking in most open source projects.
It's needs designers who can tell developers what to build, and that level of specification just isn't present in most open-source which tends to be code-driven rather than design driven.
As someone who uses Photoshop since version 6 I think GIMP is totally capable as a software in what you can actually do with it.
Many grievances with GIMP stem from the way how things are done. Where Blender had a weird, but rationally thought out and consistent UX, GIMPs user interface feels weird and inconsistent — as if the way it ended up looking was the only way someone managed to get it to work using default GTK widgets.
This might seem like a luxury problem, but it is really not — an intuitive and consistent user interface is crucial in an image editor that most people fire up just to get stuff done. I'd even argue that is more important than a lot of other things.
Try out Krita as well, might be not as much geared towards photo editing, but has a much more consistent UX.
I have a suspicion that most of the people who are quick to react to any mention of GIMP with "Bad UI" aren't really those who see GIMP as a professional tool which could theoretically replace the proprietary one they work up to 8 hours a day.
If UI is reasonable and mostly logically laid out, the workflow can be adapted. However, if the available toolset and functionality are lacking, you just can't integrate the program into your daily work.
I'm very grateful for GIMP and Krita, but they are just not there. Sometimes, you even see the parts of the solution are available, but they don't compose, like in this Krita FR request, which is almost 5 years old by now:
Becouse it uses GNOME stuff ? GTK true abbrev don't mean anything for decades now.
Also Gimp is UNIVERSALLY hated by teens/kids who are forced to learn it in schools. Just finding anything in menu is so not intuitive (not like in Adobe/Corel) that is it plainly stupid. And that is not some high hanging fruit.
Eg. I was trying to teach someone about composition in photography using old laptops laying around with Linux/BSD installed, so, you agree, Gimp is first choice. At least 3 times it was young persons with Gimp trauma from school lessons. So, when I started launching Gimp they all showed disgust followed by disinterest on their faces and all tried to run away. It is really so bad !
So here you have it: Gimp in practice - disgust in users. When some teen/student needs some tool then there is pressure on parents to buy them real McCoy like Adobe Photoshop. I personally like Corel, box version.
And that disgust is well deserved just at Gimp launch time - you are welcomed with multiple uncoherent windows, try to switch between them. Then try to find basic tool like "curves" - hidden in some not really intuitive place like eg. "Adjustment" menu.
Save picture ? You must discover some idiotic options about exporting. And that just 1 minute usage of that "gimp".
Yes, it do the work and even have better then 8 bits support but basic UI is trash.
45 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 98.1 ms ] threadMore like everyone who do anything serious with pictures.
Gimp devs probably think like you do. And this also is why artists aren't using Gimp more as well. The hubris. Gimp UI is objectively terrible and the workflow you're talking about doesn't have artists in mind, it's designed by developers for developers, not artists.
Sure, Photoshop has chops, it can do amazing stuff with ease, but I prefer GIMP's layout, it makes far more sense to me and it is quick and easy. Maybe if I had started with Photoshop I would agree with you but it does work well once you get it, and it doesn't take long to get it, and that combo is what makes for "objectively good" UX.
In stead of explaining the application in 30 min I spend 30 min looking like an idiot. I accidentally detach a tool from the gui then was unable to get it back in. haha Questions like "how do I draw a box?"
There are countless little weird things you have to get used to. Like, why is configure grid in the "image" menu? Why not put it under grid under "view"? I keep forgetting where it is.
I do UI with simple questions like: Is the grid part of viewing or part of the image?
Of all the tools I played around with over the years, as a beginner or intermediate, be it Photoshop, Cinema 4D, Blender, Paint.Net, Illustrator, Inkscape, Premiere, and countless other less prolific..
I was always able to figure it out myself fairly easily, with a bit of tinkering... except GIMP. It is my least used program with the most Google and YouTube searches, and I'm never not frustrated while using it. Still, every few years I come back and try it again.. and am disappointed again.
I remember, to this day, what my very first frustration was. I wanted to use GIMP to resave a PNG as a JPG and didn't notice the hidden dropdown (behind a checkbox!?) to change the file type why saving. Changing it in the filename box returned an error.. why? why? Sure, it only took a minute to find it, but it shouldn't have.
Don't get me wrong, it is undoubtedly a powerful program and I am grateful that it exists. But the UI is abhorrently unintuitive.
> Changing it in the filename box returned an error
I always do it like that and it just works. Though in current versions you have to "Export" to jpg/png and not "Save as". Afaik the intention is to prevent overwriting the original file on accident.
My colleagues on Windows have been tempted to try GIMP (for casual use), but none I know have stuck with it. They revert to either PhotoFiltre or Serif DrawPlus.
Suddenly I'm in a selection mode and I have to Google my way out.
But I feel like the software has barely changed since then. Photoshop has HEAPS of new features, and it's faster. And of course I don't expect GIMP to keep up with that. But even the basics, it feels just super slow and clunky. I wonder if they fully take advantage of the GPU?
Also yeah, as people have already mentioned, sometimes the UX is a bit confusing. Every time I use the alignment tool, I have to Google how to use it again. A lot of the tools are like that.
Has development slowed down over the past few years? I'm curious. Is there a lack of contributors? Or is the port to Gtk3 so overwhelmingly that it has taken up all their time/effort?
>Like, that guy was the only one working on the gtk3 port. The gtk3 port is right now basically in the same state it was in 2018 or 2019, whenever that contributor left.
>So, the reason gimp is bad is mostly because very few people work on gimp, and it's a big software.
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/u5m7xo/why_is_gimp_s...
Really? High bit depth images are a big change! There have been lots of other improvements too.
These days I do not use GIMP much since I work almost exclusively with vector graphics, but every once a while I have some situation where GIMP seems to be the appropriate tool, and I always find it pleasant and easy to get back to.
A user asked if GIMP would be adding support for a feature. It was something related to printing, I wanna say either 32-bit color or CMYK. The GIMP dev spent the rest of their time trying to convince them that the feature was a bad thing and that they didn't want it or need it.
That mindset is why GIMP remains bad.
Blender isn't a 3D Studio Max or Houdini Clone. But it is an alternative 3D tool, just like Gimp is an alternative raster editing tool to Photoshop. I find it productive to ask both why Blender is so successful and why is GIMP still so bad.
GIMP is not intended to clone Photoshop. That doesn’t mean it can’t be perceived to be a good alternative to Photoshop.
It's needs designers who can tell developers what to build, and that level of specification just isn't present in most open-source which tends to be code-driven rather than design driven.
Many grievances with GIMP stem from the way how things are done. Where Blender had a weird, but rationally thought out and consistent UX, GIMPs user interface feels weird and inconsistent — as if the way it ended up looking was the only way someone managed to get it to work using default GTK widgets.
This might seem like a luxury problem, but it is really not — an intuitive and consistent user interface is crucial in an image editor that most people fire up just to get stuff done. I'd even argue that is more important than a lot of other things.
Try out Krita as well, might be not as much geared towards photo editing, but has a much more consistent UX.
want to guess what G in GTK originally stood for? that's right, GIMP.
GIMP invented that toolkit because they needed one. the fact that their user interface has some hairy technical debt is not the least bit surprising.
If UI is reasonable and mostly logically laid out, the workflow can be adapted. However, if the available toolset and functionality are lacking, you just can't integrate the program into your daily work.
I'm very grateful for GIMP and Krita, but they are just not there. Sometimes, you even see the parts of the solution are available, but they don't compose, like in this Krita FR request, which is almost 5 years old by now:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381287
Becouse it uses GNOME stuff ? GTK true abbrev don't mean anything for decades now.
Also Gimp is UNIVERSALLY hated by teens/kids who are forced to learn it in schools. Just finding anything in menu is so not intuitive (not like in Adobe/Corel) that is it plainly stupid. And that is not some high hanging fruit.
So here you have it: Gimp in practice - disgust in users. When some teen/student needs some tool then there is pressure on parents to buy them real McCoy like Adobe Photoshop. I personally like Corel, box version.
And that disgust is well deserved just at Gimp launch time - you are welcomed with multiple uncoherent windows, try to switch between them. Then try to find basic tool like "curves" - hidden in some not really intuitive place like eg. "Adjustment" menu.
Save picture ? You must discover some idiotic options about exporting. And that just 1 minute usage of that "gimp".
Yes, it do the work and even have better then 8 bits support but basic UI is trash.