I expected ridiculous propaganda from Adobe, but they give absolutely no reasons why Photoshop is better than Gimp and list a bunch of things that Gimp can do too.
They only mention Gimp a few times at the top and they never mention it again after:
How is Photoshop different from Gimp?
They ask a question they literally never answer.
They could have lied, they could have stretched the truth, they could have brought up the paltry number of things Photoshop does that Gimp can’t. They never do. They never say what Gimp can or can’t do.
Like I said, I expected ridiculous propaganda. I didn’t expect them to just pretend Gimp doesn’t exist in their article about Gimp.
It’s more complex. In Photoshop, it’s a single tool. In GIMP, you make a circular selection, convert it to a path, and then stroke the path.
Not only is this more convoluted, it’s bewilderingly unintuitive to beginners and is definitely one of GIMP’s shortcomings.
I think the real reason so many people hate GIMPs flow is that it doesn’t match the free paint tool that comes with every Microsoft OS since before I was born.
This would help explain why people who have never used PS even 10 years ago would regularly bounce off GIMP for making no intuitive sense
In every fucking program ever it’s a single tool.
One can reduce to two steps:
I’ll not disagree that it is unintuitive, however. But, that was not the statement.
That doesn’t do the same thing, I guess the goal is really how to draw the outline of a circle
Yeah. That’s different. The way that I’d do it, supposing it didn’t need to be perfect (I’d use a vector-based program like Inkscape for that), would be to create the selection, paint bucket, contact selection by desired number of pixels, clear. Not as good as converting to a path but more intuitive to me having learned PS circa early 2000s.