I’m starting this off by saying that I’m looking for any type of reasonably advanced photo manipulation tool, that runs natively under Linux. It doesn’t have to be FOSS.
I switched to Linux, from Windows, about three years ago. I don’t regret the decision whatsoever. However, one thing that has not gotten me away from Windows entirely, is the severe lack of photo editing tools.
So what’s available? Well, you have GIMP. And then there’s Krita, but that’s more of a drawing software. And then…
Well that’s it. As far as I know.
1. GIMP
Now, as someone migrating from Photoshop, GIMP was incredibly frustrating, and I didn’t understand anything even after a few weeks of trying to get into it. Development seemed really slow, too. It’s far from intuitive, and things that really should take a few steps, seemingly takes twenty (like wrapping text on a path? Should that really be that difficult?).
I would assume if you’re starting off with GIMP, having never touched Photoshop, then it’d be no issue. But as a user migrating, I really can’t find myself spending months upon months to learn this program. It’s not viable for me.
No hate against GIMP, I’m sure it works wonders for those who have managed to learn it. But I can’t see myself using it, and I don’t find myself comfortable within it, as someone migrating from Photoshop.
2. Krita
Krita, on the other hand, I like much more. But, it’s more of a drawing program. Its development is more focused on drawing, and It’s missing some features that I want - namely selection tools. Filters are good, but I find G’MIC really slow. It also really chugs when working with large files.
Both of these programs are FOSS. I like that. I like FOSS software. But, apart from that, are there really no good alternatives to Photoshop? Again, doesn’t need to be FOSS. I understand more complex programs take more development power, and I have no problem using something even paid and proprietary, as long as it runs on Linux natively.
I’ve tried running Photoshop under WINE, and it works - barely. For quick edits, it might work fine. But not for the work I do.
So I raise the question again. Are there no good alternatives to Photoshop? And then I raise a follow-up question, that you may or may not want to answer: If not, why?
Thanks in advance!
I want everyone who says “just use GIMP” to draw a box in gimp
Looking past your downvotes, this is another good example of why I find it difficult to learn GIMP. As far as I know, you need to use a box selection to draw a box? Like border that selection or something? In what way is that intuitive from any perspective? It feels more like a workaround, rather than a solution.
You can draw a box with the paintbrush tool, though. That also fixes your thing about triangle. Or if you want the lines to be totally straight, use the Paths tool, then when you’re done marking the lines you want (with or without curves) you click “stroke path” and get a window to select how you want the stroke to be.
That’s either selecting the paintbrush and drawing directly (1 click and drawing) or selecting the paths tool, making the path, and choosing the line style (1 click + however many points needed + 1 click + selecting parameters (I just went for the default to test) + 1 click to confirm).
But then again; GIMP isn’t meant to be a drawing program, it’s Image Manipulation Program. Use the right tools for the right things.
The process for a box is rectangle select tool>(right click)>edit>stroke selection.
If I remember correctly it used to be worse. It was Rectangle Tool, Edit, Selection to Path, Stroke Path
I love/hate gimp but I’ve used it for years because it’s faster and easier than cracking photoshop on a new device.
That’s easy, I just tried it and I haven’t used GIMP that much in total and not at all in the previous year and a half.
You can draw a box with the paintbrush tool. Or if you want the lines to be totally straight, use the Paths tool, then when you’re done marking the lines you want (with or without curves) you click “stroke path” and get a window to select how you want the stroke to be. And I figured this out very quickly as a user not very well versed in GIMP.
As I also wrote in this comment; GIMP is meant to be an Image Manipulation Program, not a drawing program. You generally don’t use a screwdriver to drive nails into wood, you’ve got a hammer for that. Sure, you can use a screwdriver for it in a pinch, but it’s not going to do it well. Use the tools most appropriate for the thing you’re actually trying to do.
I use GIMP rarely but a quick search shows that you can use Shift-click to force straight lines or Shift-Ctrl-click to limit both the angle as well. https://thegimptutorials.com/how-to-draw-rectangle-square-box/
I half-remembered the Shift-click.
GIMP has its share of issues, just like any other software. but it’s biggest issue is that somewhere down the line general users got this idea in their head that it was supposed to be a Photoshop clone.
So they go into it with certain expectations and then get frustrated when it doesn’t work that way. People like me, who actually learned GIMP before PS, obviously didn’t go in with the same bias and therefore have a much better grasp on it.
Gimp is not a Photoshop clone. it’s its own piece of kit with it’s own design and feature decisions that some may like and others may not. That’s life. The developers have no obligation to follow any other software design scheme any more than Sony is obligated to follow LGs TV UI. They’re not clones, they’re alternatives.
if you think Gimps only function is to copy Photoshop, you’re in for a bad time. If you want to use gimp as an ALTERNATIVE and go in without the bias, you’ll likely learn your way around a LOT faster.
I’m not excusing Gimps failings. far from it. but I AM saying that half the issue is the Photoshop users thinking that gimp only exists to copy everything from their precious Adobe daddy. And that’s simply not true.
Honestly I feel like this attitude is the reason GIMP’s UX suffers. They’re so determined to be “not like photoshop” that they’re unwilling to fix some of their more boneheaded UI decisions out of fear that they’d be seen as copying photoshop.
That’s not exactly my impression from following the design conversations through the years. They’re more approaching decisions from the angle of what they think is best, their philosophy is to plainly ignore what others do and follow their own direction. Of course taking inspiration from Photoshop might sometimes be a good thing, if it doesn’t conflict with the GIMP way of doing things.
I’ve noticed in recent years some newcomer devs have had discussions on how to design their contributions, mentioning Photoshop and other alternative ways and there were just conversations about the merits of the different approaches that could be taken and what would fit the GIMP best, without bias.
Anyway, I wasn’t aware that GIMP UX suffers, I’ve never used anything else and am happy with it. It seem logical to me, obviously with fewer features than Photoshop but how much can a couple of guys do and they’ve had to refactor most of the GIMP for 3.0, but that’ll open up for a lot of functionality being added moving forward…
Anyway, I wasn’t aware that GIMP UX suffers, I’ve never used anything else and am happy with it.
My argument here is that by never having used anything else, you wouldn’t necessarily realize how much better other UX choices could have been.
That said, I do have to give the devs some credit, as they have fixed two major issues, by adding single-window-mode and unifying the transform tools. Having each transform be its own separate tool was just awful UX IMO.
The biggest remaining UX problem, in my opinion, is the way GIMP forces layers to have fixed boundaries. Literally no other layer-based image editor has fixed layer boundaries, because it makes very little sense as a concept. Layers should solely be defined by their content, not by arbitrary layer properties set in a dialog box.
Agree, partly.
I’ve migrated to a lot of different programs since switching to Linux: Premiere to Resolve, 3DS Max to Blender, to name a few. And I never expected the switch from Photoshop, which I so dearly love, to whatever good alternative that exists - to be easy. I’m willing to put in the time to learn GIMP, if only it hadn’t such glaring and prominent issues that make it really difficult to use.
I’m not expecting a clone. I’m not expecting the UI to be the same. And, I’m willing to learn this program from the ground up. But I want a consistent experience - an app that works. For me, GIMP gets in the way a lot; making things unnecessarily difficult just for the sake of being “different”.
I don’t mean to hate on GIMP. It works very well for people who like it. But we all have different preferences when it comes to software, and in the end - It’s just, not a good alternative for what I prefer. I’m willing to learn something new, but from my experience, GIMP will have (and has) a lot of icks that I just need to “put up with” to be usable. Especially efficiency. GIMP does not feel efficient, like at all. Might be because I haven’t learned it, but even Resolve felt efficient the first time I used it.
I don’t have the same experience with Krita whatsoever. And sure, maybe Krita is a little closer to Photoshop than GIMP is, but I much prefer Krita’s overall experience much more than GIMP - even if it’s missing some more advanced features.
I will stick to Krita, most likely, as that’s what I find myself most comfortable with. But it’s been interesting to hear what everyone else’s experiences are.
If you want to use gimp as an ALTERNATIVE and go in without the bias, you’ll likely learn your way around a LOT faster.
I think this is the key phrase – do you want an alternative (where you might have to learn new ways of doing things), or do you want a clone? GIMP is not a clone, but an alternative.
I also think this gets to something I was told loooooooooong ago, when I was a young lad asking what was the best computer to buy. Someone told me, “Find all the software you want/need to run, and get the computer that will run it all.”
In other words, if you need to use Photoshop, then maybe you don’t use Linux – maybe stick with Mac or (shudder) Windows.
I always love it when Linux users recommend going back to Windows as a option. It takes real maturity to admit that everything is a viable option, and sometimes especially in a professional workplace that Windows and MacOS should both be considered if Linux is limiting your workflow.
@displaced_city_mouse @Adderbox76 yeah I’m fairly OS agnostic, I hate them all…just hate Windows more which I think you might agree with considering the shuddering induced by mentioning Windows 😏 I use ChromeOS, Mac, & iOS daily bc for my uses they are least problematic. Use Win 10 for gaming but looking to switch to Linux not W11 for that and have been dabbling/learning Android & Linux. Honestly it’s a good time to be a nerd IMHO.
But then you cant complain? Just use Photoshop then with Windows or Mac OS and pay the subscription. Problem solved.
Gimp is really powerful. What are you missing from it?
habit and practice. op himself said he believes gimp can do wonders, but he’s migrating from adobe and is accustomed to photoshop’s shortcuts, ui and workflow.
imho, people go wrong expecting same experience in different application. yes, gimp works very differently but when migrating, one should count on different ui and logic. afterall, ps also have learning curve in the start and none complains.
it’s similar to users migrating from windows to linux, expecting same windows ui and workflow, blaming linux bad.
When all my experience with image manipulation programs was paint.net and I wanted something more powerful I tried gimp. I hated it. I saw it was powerful but the ux just isn’t great. It’s really complicated and unfriendly for new users. When I then tried using photoshop, it was really easy to get into. And that’s a general problem with foss. Most big closed source programs had millions spent on ux research. Most foss programs never think about the average user but are instead by professionals for professionals.
If this comment isn’t the perfect distillation of the frustration people have with GIMP, I don’t know what is.
OP makes a very even-handed, consciencious treatise to gather more info about alternatives to GIMP based on the UX issues they themselves have been struggling with and which are commonly recognized throughout the community, with at least one example, while acknowledging how incredible and powerful an undertaking a piece of software GIMP definitely is, and…
… The same cookie cutter response on every single GIMP discussion since 1998: “IT IS VERY POWERFUL. WHAT FEATURE IS IT MISSING?”
Similar to GIMP itself: You’re not wrong you’re just… Not being anywhere near as helpful as you could be.
I dunno. The title was “Are there really no viable alternatives to PhotoShop on Linux?”. I think it’s fair to say, “There’s GIMP”. It’s viable. People use it successfully and happily. 'Nuff said.
Ha, well, yeah this pretty much tracks.
To paraphrase: “if we only pay attention to the most fundamental requirements and ignore any nuance and subtlety that’s added, the implementation is perfect. What’s the problem?”
Or: “Why care about the body of the post when there’s at title?”
habit and practice. op himself said he believes gimp can do wonders, but he’s migrating from adobe and is accustomed to photoshop’s shortcuts, ui and workflow.
imho, people go wrong expecting same experience in different application. yes, gimp works very differently but when migrating, one should count on different ui and logic. afterall, ps also have learning curve in the start and none complains.
it’s similar to users migrating from windows to linux, expecting same windows ui and workflow, blaming linux bad.
While I get your point about not expecting all software to have the same workflow, keep in mind that learning a new one isn’t always in the cards. The reason people don’t complain when learning Adobe is because they are probably starting with it. But if they complain when switching to GIMP it’s because they have to spend the time to learn a new system instead of getting their work done. And especially in a professional environment, that just ends up causing problems.
While I get your point about not expecting all software to have the same workflow, keep in mind that learning a new one isn’t always in the cards. The reason people don’t complain when learning Adobe is because they are probably starting with it. But if they complain when switching to GIMP it’s because they have to spend the time to learn a new system instead of getting their work done. And especially in a professional environment, that just ends up causing problems.
They did list one specific example of text wrapping which is apparently a two step process on Photoshop and twenty steps in GIMP. Probably an exaggeration, but the sentiment seems to be that it isn’t just different, its worse.
Dealing with differences is fine, but things that are more difficult or require more steps is a problem that should hopefully be fixed.
Since no one else seems to actually be answering you, I’ll give you one. Smart Objects AKA linked layers. I use these in just about every single PSD and it has saved me rediculous amounts of time and effort undoing or redoing edits and avoiding destruction of a raster image by rotating or scaling it multiple times.
There has been a feature request open for this for 10 years and it is still not implemented. I first found out about the intention to add linked layers several years ago but I quickly gave up when I realised how much time it was taking.
I couldn’t tell you other features as I have not used Gimp much beyond trying it out for some light projects and to make use of some of it’s better-than-Photoshop color to alpha tools. But this one feature combined with all the UI, behaviour, and shortcut decisions is enough to keep me stuck on Photoshop for Windows for a long while yet.
Fair enough. I guess it depends on what you’re used to. I never used Photoshop and I’ve been using Gimp for over a decade now. I do a lot of visual editing for my work and there isn’t anything I haven’t been able to do with Gimp. But yes, some stuff do take hours of work. I also work with FOSS music production software and while I know the commercial ones are easier to use, everything I’ve wanted to accomplish using FOSS music production I’ve been able to get it done. I guess it all depends on what your reference point is
GIMP is made that way on purpose.
It can do lots of magical things, but it seems like the developers tried to make it as different as possible just for the sake of being different.
I’m sure that if you bring up something to a developer of GIMP that “isn’t like Photoshop because it’s buried under 4 menus”, the only thing the developer will do to address the issue is release an update that then buries the feature under 5 menus.
They got their weird software with its weird name and they are PROUD of how weird it all is.
All I can suggest with it is to keep searching Google or YouTube on how to do things with it.
I’ve mostly used Affinity and GIMP over the years. Although my work just got me Photoshop so that I can explore some of its “smart” AI stuff to help with some things.
