Gimp is still not an alternative to Ps. Not even close.
I was responding to your comment specifically, which didn’t mention anything about professional use, and if you’ll re read it, you’ll find that I said “it depends on what you’re doing with it”, which even if you were talking about professional use, my statement perfectly aligns with your position. I even said to your average person (i.e. not someone using it professionally) it’s fine.
No need to get defensive and whip out terms from debate class, especially if the statement isn’t even a debate.
Not paying for Adobe, but tried out Inkscape as an Illustrator alternative and damn its UI just felt so unintuitive - many tools and menus were laid out by a different logic than the one I’m used to. Also it still doesn’t properly support CMYK colours from what I can see on their website.
Most people don’t. There is a theory (and I don’t know if it was ever verified officially) that Adobe stuff was made so easy to pirate and crack intentionally. That way students and people learning how to use their tools (primarily photoshop) would master it and therefore force any employer they later worked with to get and stay with Adobe and their expensive enterprise licences. The lower the barrier of entry the more people in the workforce could be competent with it.
Photoshop and Lightroom are what keep me with Adobe. The Open Source stuff simply doesn’t cut it for my needs.
I actually prefer Inkscape over Illustrator. I also still have a lingering fondness for Corel Draw, but I think that’s mostly because I started using it back in 89 when it released.
I also sometimes miss the simple days of learning to use a mouse with Dr Halo.
People pay for Adobe?
Haven’t used PS in ages. Gimp, Audacity, Inkscape, etc
Gimp is still not an alternative to Ps. Not even close.
Depends on what you’re doing with it. For your average person it’s more than fine
Exactly
I hate these Mott and Bailey arguments.
The discussion was about professional use. Then you moved the goalposts.
I was responding to your comment specifically, which didn’t mention anything about professional use, and if you’ll re read it, you’ll find that I said “it depends on what you’re doing with it”, which even if you were talking about professional use, my statement perfectly aligns with your position. I even said to your average person (i.e. not someone using it professionally) it’s fine.
No need to get defensive and whip out terms from debate class, especially if the statement isn’t even a debate.
Not paying for Adobe, but tried out Inkscape as an Illustrator alternative and damn its UI just felt so unintuitive - many tools and menus were laid out by a different logic than the one I’m used to. Also it still doesn’t properly support CMYK colours from what I can see on their website.
Most people don’t. There is a theory (and I don’t know if it was ever verified officially) that Adobe stuff was made so easy to pirate and crack intentionally. That way students and people learning how to use their tools (primarily photoshop) would master it and therefore force any employer they later worked with to get and stay with Adobe and their expensive enterprise licences. The lower the barrier of entry the more people in the workforce could be competent with it.
With how smartly evil these assholes are, I have no issue believing it.
Photoshop and Lightroom are what keep me with Adobe. The Open Source stuff simply doesn’t cut it for my needs.
I actually prefer Inkscape over Illustrator. I also still have a lingering fondness for Corel Draw, but I think that’s mostly because I started using it back in 89 when it released.
I also sometimes miss the simple days of learning to use a mouse with Dr Halo.
My organization pays over $200,000 a year for Adobe products :( I swear most of it is just for the ability to edit PDFs