this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
215 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
6348 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
I haven't used Adobe's suite since the late 1990s. I use GIMP.
However. I also don't do graphic design work on a daily basis.
Adobe's software packages are...I don't know if there's a name for it, but I'm going to call them "expert software". That is, they're in large part designed for people who heavily use the software package day-in and day-out. "Expert software" is stuff that has deep feature sets that you spend a long time learning. Emacs is a great example in software engineering. Adobe Photoshop in graphic design. They often support some level of macro functionality, automation, add-on software, configurable interface, etc.
The thing is that all of the time that a user of one of these software packages spends building expertise also kind of locks them into the thing. Telling someone to "just use GIMP" instead of Photoshop...yeah, they have roughly-similar functionality, but there's a lot of finely-honed workflow to break.
And those people have deadlines and stuff that they're working under, and estimates based on their familiarity with throughput in the package that they know.
That doesn't mean that someone can't switch, or even that it's a bad idea to do so. But...there's gonna be friction for 'em. If you've spent 15 years optimizing your workflow, maybe it's not starting from scratch, 15 years to do so on a similar software package. There's overlap. But it's not overnight, either.
I had a coworker who was design lead on a product. I remember how exasperated he got with some kind of very subtle placement behavior differences between GIMP and Photoshop, because he'd gotten very used to the Photoshop workflow that he'd built up.
Workflow is big, but it isn't the biggest issue with Gimp for serious work, the destructive editing is. Workflow you can get used to, destructive editing means you're fucked if you need to edit something you've previously edited - something most if not all professionals do all the time.
This.
It is planned feature for Gimp 3 I believe, hopefully it will be implemented well.
But for now, people that aren't professional graphic designers should really stop recommending Gimp as a viable replacement. It is a very capable piece of software, but too many professional-grade features are missing.
And it's never only about Photoshop either. It is the integration that the suite has. Illustrator to Photoshop to Indesign is (mostly) seemless.
I'm currently trying to switch to foss alternatives, but it's rough.
Totally agree. Gimp is really advanced and badass in many ways, but it's like a nuclear reactor control panel's worth of MS Paint. Hopefully the non destructive editing will change that. But yes like you said, Photoshop has the whole Adobe ecosystem, too. Hopefully things will change for the better with FOSS though, and I think it will. There should be a consortium formed of FOSS media software that aims to collectively work together to beat Adobe's ass.
Not to mention that even if you personally managed to switch to something else, if you're not doing some completely solo work, you will still receive files from others (or may be expected to send files to others) in Adobe format. So even if you wouldn't be using it, you'd still have to pay for it to stay competitive. At which point you may as well use it because of what you said, that most of the alternatives are missing those expert features. So in professional setting, there's unfortunately no escaping Adobe. Someone would have to come up with an alternative feature full package of apps covering all bases (because Adobe isn't just Photoshop and not just graphic design but an entire interwoven ecosystem used in various related fields) and then work really, really hard to push the industry toward it. And it would still probably take a decade or two. So realistically, it would have to be or become some big corporation that would likely turn evil too as the time goes. Or some open source miracle like Blender that would have to attract enough big sponsors.
Not defending Adobe, just saying how it is. I have enough grievances about their software (how they managed to fuck up something as simple as Acrobat is beyond me) but you just have to deal with it or look for a job in another field. (I'm lucky enough that Adobe is only secondary software for me but even then I still can't escape it.)