this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
716 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59569 readers
4136 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What do you use now?
I bought the Affinity Suite which has been great for me. Sadly they don't have a Linux version, which is what I'm moving to. Krita covers some other of Photoshop's features as well. And people who say Gimp is a Photoshop alternative are crazy. Gimp uses destructive editing which is clown level in image editing and makes it completely useless imo. But supposedly non-destructive editing is coming.
I really wish I didn't hate gimp but I very much do.
Same. I want to love it, I really, really do, but it makes me want to blow my brains out when I use it.
Yeah it's truly painful
I tried to curve text once, to match the curvature of a mug. Pro tip: don't even try.
It is destructive in what sense? I've been using gimp to do various edits non professionally for many years and I am feeling comfortable with many advanced things, but now I am curious about maybe trying Krita or something.
I thought using layers and so on in gimp was also considered non destructive... Maybe I am missing out on something.
I have also used photoshop in like 20 years ago, can't remember much.
Destructive in that many edits are lossy. Change the transform of an object, then go do a bunch of other edits, and then go back and edit that same transform again. What you'll be editing now is the edited image, not the original one (as in Photoshop), so there's massive data loss and it looks absolute crap. If you want to edit with the original image as origin you have to undo all edits back to before you edited the transform the first time.
Non-destructive editing should be coming in the future, and they might have implemented some non-destructive things since I last used it.
So wait, if you're editing the original image, wouldn't the result just be wrong? I'm genuinely confused. You edit something, you want to change that, you should be changing what to you edited it to, right? Isn't that the only thing that makes any sense, because if you were editing what you had before, the change you make wouldn't be right in the context of the new edit?
And if you want to keep something, this is why we have layers. Which Gimp has and just works. That's the real way to do "non-destructive editing".
Maybe just not understanding how things work in PS because I've never used it extensively, but common sense tells me that if you edit something, you want it to look like that and any further edits would be on what you edited it to, not some unknown echo of the past that would interfere with how the image currently looks, which is what you should be editing, right?
You're right, but you're missing a key point. Every edit changes the way the image looks. With destructive editing those changes are "baked" into the object you're changing, and that is data loss. If you want to make a change to that edit you want it to still have the information from the original image so it can be included and changed into the new result you want. Destructive editing doesn't allow for that. It's like if you bend a metal wire, you just crumple it up, and then you want to straighten it again - you won't be able to get it perfectly straight. Non destructive editing does allow for that because it still has the original information, it just doesn't display it in its original form, it displays it with the edit you've made to it, and the edit is "live" so you can change it. It has nothing to do with layers per se, but using layers can be a way to do certain edits in a non destructive way.
If you don't grasp the difference just open Gimp and do the transform test. Paste an image into a new layer, change the transform and squish it to the extreme (non uniformly), make it a few pixels wide only. Apply the transform. Change the transform again and pull the image out to its original aspect ratio. You'll have a blurry image because of all the data that was lost in the first edit. Non destructive editing has been like the most requested feature for Gimp for the past forever for a reason.
I tried to read up on it, i understand it in theory, but in practical terms I don't get what's the difference to just working with layers..
I guess I might have to play around a bit with it to get it? I dunno...
Layers aren't edits, they're layers. Edits you make to layers or parts of layers. That image whose transform was being edited in my previous example would be on its own layer.
Also, it's been a while since I used Gimp so I'm going off of very vague memories that I have tried to erase with copious amounts of alcohol.
On second thought, maybe it's the way I work with layers as well. I tend to keep duplicates of the base image as layers to work with effects and mask them so that I have flexibility with applying them and editing them as needed. Perhaps the benefit of non-desteuctive editing is the same thing as I end up with, but more automated...?
There's GIMP and Krita as Photoshop alternatives
Dark Table as a Lightroom alternative
DaVinci Resolve as a video editor
Personally giving up Lightroom is the hardest IMO, the others were easy choices.
Edit: Will add links when I get to my next break at work, no time right now.
I love Gimp but I would never suggest it as a Photoshop alternative for professional users.