Let’s be realistic. None of the FOSS alternatives come even close to Photoshop. Gimp has never been a good piece of software. Not to mention, if you’re doing commercial work, you need the original software to reliably work with clients and others.
In the case of GIMP it’s an interface that makes any kind of sense. Have to admit that Inkscape is looking pretty damn good these days - even though it’s not really a replacement for Illustrator and is more a good replacement for progs like Freehand and Coreldraw.
The latest flavor of trying to fix Gimp’s UI by modifying it to look like Photoshop. These go back decades and usually end up being abandoned after a few years.
The whole premise is flawed. Gimp should be a viable program on its own, by having a UI that actually makes sense and not by copying the market leader, because this will always mean playing catch-up, it will always mean being seen as a lesser copy.
One of the biggest feautures missing for professionals is CMYK color space. There are some workarounds found, but it’s not at the same level of Adobe and certainly not built for it.
I switched to FOSS everything and I still miss a lot of stuff even if I’ll never touch Adobe again. Everything is so much harder to use and that was a sacrifice I chose to make for the sake of software freedom
No, it has special source, because it 1) was literally the first practical photo editing software for home computers 2) has been in continuous development since 1987 and 3) is clearly designed for artists, not programmers. It’s not just how long the development has been, but also how much resources have been poured into it compared to open source and other competitors - and to what end. Gimp may only be just nine years younger, but it’s clearly (just look at its insane user interface) typical of an issue that is very widespread among open source projects: It’s developed by programmers for programmers, with little regard for non-technical users and actual workflows.
Not all open source software suffers from this, but a ton does. It’s frustrating any time I’m trying to get people to e.g. switch to Linux and other open source software; they often run into a wall of poor usability. This is the main thing that prevents mass adoption of the Linux desktop. The fact of the matter is, most developers of open source software are highly technical people who are developing this software for themselves and other highly technical people. This might be fine for you and I, but it won’t win over the better washed masses.
But then you still have Adobe your PC which does nasty things to your PC, high seas or not.
Find FOSS alternatives like Gimp + Photoshop plugin (PhotoGimp), Krita, Inkscape.
Therr is no reason to be using Adobe in the 0-20 years, and definitely not in 2026.
This is how we do it: https://github.com/KenneyNL/Adobe-Alternatives#animate
Let’s be realistic. None of the FOSS alternatives come even close to Photoshop. Gimp has never been a good piece of software. Not to mention, if you’re doing commercial work, you need the original software to reliably work with clients and others.
I’m curious what features Adobe has that FOSS is missing
In the case of GIMP it’s an interface that makes any kind of sense. Have to admit that Inkscape is looking pretty damn good these days - even though it’s not really a replacement for Illustrator and is more a good replacement for progs like Freehand and Coreldraw.
That’s how I felt it that its more the interface than functionality. Although I’ve never checked and compared with PhotoGimp
What is PhotoGimp?
The latest flavor of trying to fix Gimp’s UI by modifying it to look like Photoshop. These go back decades and usually end up being abandoned after a few years.
https://github.com/Diolinux/PhotoGIMP
The whole premise is flawed. Gimp should be a viable program on its own, by having a UI that actually makes sense and not by copying the market leader, because this will always mean playing catch-up, it will always mean being seen as a lesser copy.
One of the biggest feautures missing for professionals is CMYK color space. There are some workarounds found, but it’s not at the same level of Adobe and certainly not built for it.
I switched to FOSS everything and I still miss a lot of stuff even if I’ll never touch Adobe again. Everything is so much harder to use and that was a sacrifice I chose to make for the sake of software freedom
yawn corpo speak
Some people do actually use this software to make a living. That’s not corpo-speak, it’s a reality.
Anywho, I’ve never paid for Photoshop. Just updated my pirated copy every half-decade or so.
As some people make a living using gimp. Your chosen software doesn’t have special sauce because its closed source.
No, it has special source, because it 1) was literally the first practical photo editing software for home computers 2) has been in continuous development since 1987 and 3) is clearly designed for artists, not programmers. It’s not just how long the development has been, but also how much resources have been poured into it compared to open source and other competitors - and to what end. Gimp may only be just nine years younger, but it’s clearly (just look at its insane user interface) typical of an issue that is very widespread among open source projects: It’s developed by programmers for programmers, with little regard for non-technical users and actual workflows.
Not all open source software suffers from this, but a ton does. It’s frustrating any time I’m trying to get people to e.g. switch to Linux and other open source software; they often run into a wall of poor usability. This is the main thing that prevents mass adoption of the Linux desktop. The fact of the matter is, most developers of open source software are highly technical people who are developing this software for themselves and other highly technical people. This might be fine for you and I, but it won’t win over the better washed masses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition