[thisislife2]

The argument over the UI in GIMP and Photoshop is actually based on the kind of "false" premise that Photoshop has a "superior" UI.

It reminds of my first experience using macOS, as a long time Windows user. The first few months on macOS was a totally frustrating and negative experience for me - "What the ...? why does the ENTER key not open files or folders? Why is it going to 'rename' mode? Why doesn't double-clicking the title bar on a window maximise the window? Why are some windows maximised and others take their own custom width? Why is the Maximise button making apps full screen!?" - and so on.

The point is that I had become so familiar with the Windows UI, that every other OS UI suddenly seemed alien - "This is not how a UI should work on an OS". (This was also the reason that I hated Ubuntu's DE, as it tried to imitate the macOS UI I was then unfamiliar with). Familiarity means when you face a new UI, you have to spend effort to re-learn your way of thinking around a UI, which can be a frustrating experience (especially as you grow older). That effort / stress also unconsciously creates a negative impression in your mind about the UI. Both Apple and Microsoft know this and that is why they deliberately make their UI distinct and different from each other - whether it is Windows vs macOS or Windows Phone vs ios. Recently someone (a non-geek) asked me if they should buy a Macbook as they had an iPhone too. As they were a Windows user, I warned them that the macOS UI would be frustrating and to try macOS before committing to it. They did, and ultimately decided against it and chose to stick to Windows (buying a Surface Tablet).

As a former graphic designer, and an experienced Photoshop user, I only considered GIMP as a replacement when Adobe decided to make it a subscription. And just as with Windows to macOS, re-learning to use the GIMP UI was a frustrating experience because I was always thinking of "this is how it is done in Photoshop". Once you let go of that "familiarity", and are willing to actually test if the "GIMP way" is maybe better, it becomes a less frustrating experience. (All that said, while I have got used to using the GIMP tools the GIMP way, the overall GIMP layout does have a cluttered feeling and I do recommend installing Photo GIMP - it won't really make GIMP a Photoshop clone, but it will make it more "familiar" and thus easier to "re-learn" how to use it).

[ndiddy]

I grew up using Paint Shop Pro, so I'm not familiar with either. I've recently had to start using both Photoshop and GIMP (Photoshop because the best tool for descreening printed documents is the Sattva Descreen Photoshop plugin, GIMP because I've largely switched to Linux). GIMP is not like most software. With Photoshop, there's tons of functionality but I can usually figure out what to do by poking around in the menus and hovering at the icons in the toolbar. With GIMP, I have to keep looking online for how to do basic things, and the program keeps behaving in unusual ways.

For example, let's say I added a text block to an image. I then select the text layer, there's a box drawn around the text, and I try moving the text around with the move tool. In every other image editor I've used, this will move the text around, but in GIMP this will move the background layer around unless you specifically click on the text and not just inside the box (which can be difficult depending on the font you used). Every aspect of using GIMP works like this. Everything is implemented in a counterintuitive manner. The closest analogue I can think of is it's like figuring out how to play old versions of Dwarf Fortress from before they overhauled the UI for the Steam release.

[Izkata]

That's an option on the Move tool, whether to move the current layer or the thing you clicked on.

As someone who has never used Photoshop, I've always found Gimp to be pretty intuitive, and reading some of the complaints on here I expect I'd find Photoshop strange and unintuitive. For example, one of the comparisons above is about copy/paste, but from their description the Gimp version is much closer to how copy/paste works in general, where you have to paste to create the new copy before you can manipulate it.

[iamcalledrob]

The micro-interactions and hotkeys in GIMP are just so poor though.

For example, basic stuff like zoom in and zoom out are bound differently to literally any other app on any platform. This catches me out every single time I try to use it, and I'll never learn the GIMP way.

Spoiler for anyone unfamiliar: it's not Ctrl+/Ctrl-.

[mixmastamyk]

Tried it, apparently ctrl is not needed. I usually use ctrl-scroll so hadn’t noticed. Maybe we can get them added.

[Mashimo]

I never used Photoshop, it was easy to use other advanced tools such as Davinci Resolve, Darktable etc. But Gimp is just horrible. Even when you don't compare it to Photoshop.

[yborg]

I don't think it's that PS has a better UI it's that so many people spent years in it because it became the de facto standard in graphic design work. Given the choice between doing work and learning a totally different interface so you can do work is choice many people won't make.

[mghackerlady]

I feel like people saying that they're too used to photoshops UI/UX to switch is more of a dig on adobe than GIMP. Your entire skillset being non-transferable simply because of how hard photoshop is to learn and unlearn must mean adobe is in deep UX hell