Be the change you want to see.

Idk if GIMP has a marketing problem but I definitely agree that FOSS projects should add screenshots and a description of what the program does to their website and repo. It really annoys me when someone links a piece of software and it just doesn't say what it does and there's no screenshots that would make it easy for me to see what it looks like and how the UI is structured. When there's no screenshots I'm rarely even interested in trying it out because, even with a description, I don't really know what it is. Like, I wouldn't be interested in a car based on only a description, I'd have to see a picture of it too.

Actually I would pick GIMP.

1. Says what it is, an image editor.
2. No popups and random interruptions.
3. Not only AI editing examples which makes me thing the tool is AI only.
4. An overview of the variety of major features it has rather than just AI editing.
5. Links to helpful documentation rather than endless marketing pages that say nothing.

Really think only thing I would like to see is some screenshots and examples of using the tool, rather than just info on what it does. But the Photoshop page barely has this, just a few examples of the AI tools.

Open Source software is not a product that needs marketing.
The devs making Gimp gain literally nothing from you downloading and using it.
Stop applying capitalist logic to one of the few aspects of life that haven't been monetized yet.

FOSS projects are often labors of love.

Nobody who isn't completely deranged loves marketing.

I would have to choose GIMP (in spite of this awful name) because that page loaded without javascript and the photoshop page requires me to enable javascript.

I know I'm being a bit facetious, here, but... Adobe can afford to hire full time front end devs and designers. FOSS projects can't really compete with Adobe's investors.

Agree, however on clicking the photoshop link was first hit with 2 popups before I could see the page.

I couldn't agree more and I see it everywhere as well. It's systemic.

Which would you choose based on their website?

Problem is, people on Lemmy are techies who might actually prefer the Gimp site. But any "normal" person would not.

I don't know man, I think the Photoshop homepage reeks of corpo crap, whereas the Gimp homepage does a good job at cleanly presenting the program in a quick way. Maybe I'm just used to FOSS, or already too allergic to corporate software, but going by the homepage design, my preference is obvious, there's not even a contest

dont forget how they expect you to compile it. some projects offer a nice .msi for windows, a .whatever for mac, and then linux users just get a link to their github. i mean cmon.

edit: i'm not talking specifically about gimp, my dudes.

I mean, the name is a bigger problem than anyone seems to want to admit...

Idk I like the gimp page. Two clicks, and you're into the tutorial on how to edit pictures. The first page gives you all you need to know: Image manipulation program.

adobe's page otoh... Well after the first two popups, I gave up.

...

Alright, Second try and four popups later, I'm in. gotta admit the funny animations and the tools they show off are pretty nice

the gimp one displays normally, while the adobe one shows a blank white page.

the choice is obvious

We got gimp 3 before half life 3.

i mean its pretty good if you get used to it.. i remember the shortcuts for all the major tools i use and it's very quick and easy to use for me.

Don't touch my workflow. Just because you couldn't get acclimated to it, doesn't mean no one did.

Nothing is intuitive in that software.

UI/UX is a very very difficult job. I've only ever known a few UI/UX artists that were any good, and OMFG, are they expensive.

You can't just drop everything and focus on something where you don't have domain experts. Not to presume too much about you, but that would be like saying you need to drop everything you're doing and focus on brain surgery next year. UI/UX is art. It's a very specific type of art that, unfortunately, doesn't come easy for people. There are companies for hire that work professionally on UX/UI, but they're not cheap either. Anyone can spot bad UX, but knowing how to fix it in a way that works for everyone, that's nearly a unicorn.

I've been using gimp since it was released for daily driver projects.

I've been using Photoshop for about a decade when required for gigs.

I can get around either app pretty decently at this point.

If you drop any new user into either, they'll be absolutely lost.

If you drop a seasoned Photoshop user into GIMP, they'll not only be lost but be unable to use their vast array of plugins and macros and aren't quite (but non-technically are) impossible for the average user to work on.

We can't make Gimp Photoshop-like. We can make strides to improve Gimp, but it's beyond reach for the current team. Maybe we can start a crowdfund to get a UX company to take a stab at it, but even at that we'd need buy in from the developers and it would likely be an incredibly large rework, not unlike the current one that took quite a long time.

It is essential that you explain exactly what you find unintuitive, otherwise -forgive me, but- this feedback is worthless. Make a bullet list, with captures, show how you would rename or rearrange things. Do your part !

I followed some YouTube tutorial to rearrange all the stuff that can be to make it more like photoshop, which did make things somewhat better

GIMP is generally geared towards photo-editing, so if you have an existing image, you can use GIMP quite well to e.g. cut out parts of it or to apply effects.
It's not really geared towards digital painting or creating new images from scratch, like Krita and presumably IbisPaint are.