[maccard]

Started with Paint.net, went to Gimp, then to Photoshop and currently jumping between Gimp and Photoshop. Bear in mind, I'm a developer who sometimes has to dabble in graphics. I only use GIMP because I can't afford the license on my home computer, and my university supplies my Photoshop license.

While I think gimp has the potential to be great, the UI and workflow is painful in comparison to PS. For instance, take creating a rectangle with a gradient on it (with curved corners), and a border that fades from one color to transparent (thinking a rectangular button here). Photoshop: Choose foreground colour and bg color to be the two points on your gradient. Pick curved rectangle tool. Drag rectangle, and change fill type in the top bar to be radial gradient. Click Stroke, and change fill type to gradient. adjust the color.

GIMP. Select the selection tool(why???) Drag the selection to your desired state. Apply a gradient to the stroke by... I don't know actually. then go to slect, and choose rounded rectangle, and choose the border radius (in %??? what the hell sort of measurement is this). Click Ok. Go to edit, and choose stroke selection, and choose stroke with Paint Brush. (This creates an empty border with a stroke around it). Use Gradient fill tool to create the centre of the rounded rectangle, then resize to fit within the border because I can't figure out how to not apply the gradient to the border which is in the selection.

In the end, you get the same result. But PS's workflow makes more sense. to draw a rectangle, you use... a rectangle tool. In gimp, you select the shape you want and draw a stroke around your selection. I also find gimps export a pain in the ass. Why can't I click save as, and save as a PNG rather than having to export? It's clunky, and a pain to use. No matter how powerful a tool is, it's useless if the interface is non-intuitive. I know they don't want to go the adobe route, but they may consider taking some inspiration from one of the most researched products in the world.

[phaemon]

> GIMP. Select the selection tool(why???)

Mainly because 99% of learning Gimp is learning how to use selections properly. Gimp is for image manipulation, not drawing buttons.

If that's the kind of stuff you're doing, use Inkscape. Do the Tutorials under the Help menu. They're really excellent and it sounds like exactly what you're looking for.

[scott_karana]

Does Inkscape have any raster modification capabilities? Not all "buttons" are composed solely of vectors.

[phaemon]

Yes, a few, but why not do those in something else...say, Gimp?

I can't think of a decent looking button (even for very loose definitions of "decent") that couldn't have been done with vectors. Can you give me a good example?

[scott_karana]

My point is that Gimp was pointed as a Photoshop replacement, but then excused for poor vector support.

Then, Inkscape was proposed for its vector support, but it neglects raster support.

Why use two solutions when Photoshop offers both capabilities?

[aryastark]

You remind me of the people that use Excel to do desktop publishing, or mocking up GUI screens.

God bless your special breed.

[scott_karana]

Pardon? I'm advocating Photoshop over Inkscape because, to my knowledge, only one of them excels at mixing raster and vector capabilities.

If I want a high-resolution vector button with the modified picture of a face on it, I know which program I'm choosing.

Was I that unclear?

> Gimp is for image manipulation, not drawing buttons.

> (implied) Inkscape is for drawing buttons, not image manipulation

Photoshop is used for both image manipulation and for drawing vector buttons, in its modern incarnations. That was my point.

[phaemon]

I see. So Adobe Illustrator is useless?

[scott_karana]

No, Illustrator is fantastic for its usage cases. (As I'm sure Inkscape might be)

We were talking about Photoshop replacements. Despite the name, it's very much a hybrid raster/vector tool now, unlike how the GIMP was described above.