and if so, why ?
>>460762go with krita if you go the freetard route for raster editor, it more closely resembles photoshop, it has a good feature coverage, from my experiencegimp always felt like unpolished jank with unconventional ui structurephotoshop if you want to actually work professionally in conjunction with other adobe software (illustrator, after effects etc)
>>460762I only used 'imp because I was too dumb to figure out how to pirate 'shop. And at this point, I've been using 'imp for so long that there's no reason for me to switch
>>460765Same
>>460762>using bloated installed image editors>not simply going to photopea.com>gimp still can't make circles
>>460965Buy an ad
I taught was bad but if you have the patience to dig trough it you notice its the same or better than PS. And is fucking free and open source...
Not better, but on par with Photoshop nowadays. Has everything I need and more, even animation tools (GIMP is maintained by an animator nowadays)
It's a competent clone of Photoshop as it existed 20 years ago
>>460763FPBPGimp has improved quite a bit, but every other image editor is as good or better. Plus, you don't have to deal with the oddities present in Gimp.
>>460762Gimp is good for what it is, but at the end of the day, just pirate PS. It's simply more robust
>>460762i just have to clean up blueprints for investor changesGIMP is more than enough and i dont have to be fucked daily by adobejews
I genuinely cannot fucking stand using GIMP despite learning with it, it's just such a piece of shit.
Try Krita, it's also free like GIMP and IMO more of a full-blown replacement for PS
>>460994Not even.PS has had full integrated CMYK support since like 1991 (34 years)Gimp still doesn't lmaooo
