While I wouldn’t consider myself “proficient” in Photoshop, except for the
things I did most often, I wasn’t a casual user, either. So I’m sort of in the
middle.
>> No, I merely expected a similarity of tools that worked in
>> more or less the same ways. That, I don't think, is unreasonable.
Actually, it is understandable, but it is not reasonable—from the perspective
of the GIMP weltanshauung. It is understandable because of the similarities in
the tools and even their icons: this is the paintbrush tool, so it must be
similar to the paintbrush tool in GIMP. Similar, yes, the same, no. Let me give
you an analogy.
I was once, long ago, fluent in Latin. Romanian is the closest modern
equivalent, closer than Spanish. When dealing with written Romanian, Latin was
a help, but it by no means made the language clear with little effort. I had to
study to understand the (sometimes critical) differences. It was worse with
Spanish—I gave up. %-{
Easier to learn the “language” as an original, occasionally helped by an
unexpected close similarity. So it is with the language of GIMP. Once I stopped
thinking, “This must be similar to Photoshop,” things got much easier. It has
been the same with every graphics program I’ve ever used, starting with
“MacPaint,” followed by “Superpaint,” and Deneba’s “Canvas," and finally
"PhotoShop” As soon as I started treating then as separate “languages," things
got much easier.
Versteh? հասկանալ? સમજવું? เข้าใจ? سمجھنے? (Get my drift?)
=^D
Ross
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Mark Morin <mdmp...@gwi.net> wrote:
>
> You say that you are not trying to unduly critical of gimp. By that I
> take it to mean that you are trying to be duly critical of gimp. That is
> the way that you are coming across. Have you considered the possibility
> that the answers to your questions is: because that's the way it is.
> Gimp is not photoshop. Any expectation for it to look like or act like
> photoshop is unrealistic. The internet is not a hardware store where all
> that is available is one product. If you don't like what you see move on
> to something else.
>
> If the casual user picks up gimp because he or she doesn't want to shell
> out hundreds of dollars for a program that she or he may use once in a
> blue moon, it is safe to assume that the person in question is not an
> experienced photoshop user. Therefore, there would be no unlearning
> curve as the person got used to using gimp after having become
> proficient in photoshop. If that person is proficient in photoshop such
> that they need to unlearn things to use gimp then they probably are not
> a casual user of photoshop. Thus, new users to gimp (in your words
> "casual users"), who are using it for the reason you give, probably
> don't expect it to perform like photoshop. They simply expect it to
> perform as it performs because that's all they know.
>
> Photoshop is not the gold standard by which all other programs are to be
> evaluated. One could just as legitimately ask why photoshop's UI is not
> like gimp's and what the underlying rationale is for their UI. Gimp is
> not nor ever was and never will be a "free version of photoshop."
>
> I hope that you are feeling better.
>
>
> On 2/17/2017 2:56 PM, Boxman wrote:
>>> Good point -whether a user thinks Krita or GIMP is "more like
>>> PhotoShop"
>>> might depend on which version of Photoshop they've used. I'm only
>>> familiar with one version of PhotoShop, and that's CS2 on Windows.
>>> Maybe
>>> PhotoShop on Mac has a substantially different UI, and maybe CC looks
>>> substantially different than CS2.
>>> Another good point. On Photoshop I only ever edited photographs,
>>> mostly
>>> starting from a raw file, and never tried to paint using PhotoShop.
>>> Maybe Krita's paint tools resemble PhotoShop's paint tools.
>>>
>>> Elle
>> Shortly after I posted last week, I had a medical crisis and ended up in
>> hospital, so that's the reason I haven't responded to any of these posts over
>> the last week. As I said, I'm not looking to be unduely critical OF gimp,
>> just
>> looking for some answers. And no, I'm not saying that I think GIMP should be
>> more like P'shop. No, I merely expected a similarity of tools that worked in
>> more or less the same ways. That, I don't think, is unreasonable. Its like
>> as if
>> you went to the hardware store to buy a hammer but all they had were hammers
>> with curved handles and thus you had to relearn hammering nails anew. Not
>> something one would want to be forced to do. The lack of a general purpose
>> cursor, to my way of thinking, is just that basic and it really threw me for
>> a
>> loop.
>>
>> WHY do new users expect expect similarity with P'shop? My guess is that more
>> users than not are casual users who use it far less than professionals.
>> Indeed,
>> that is the major attraction of free software; we don't want to pay $600 +
>> for
>> something used only infrequently and thus we are frustrated to find such a
>> steep
>> learning curve since money doesn't constitute the only form of investment -
>> there's the matter of invested time.
>>
>> I was hoping that there was some sort of basic design philosophy that I was
>> missing that would, upon learning of it, would ease the transition.
>> Apparently
>> not. GIMP is merely different not by any conceptual means. I don't see any
>> reasons for the differences but the reality is that I just have to be
>> patience
>> and take the time to relearn.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
> List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
_______________________________________________
gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
