I could do all of this without leaving Photoshop. My general workflow is to use Krita and Inkscape (I used Gravit for a while because Inkscape was having some bugs I couldn't cope with), and maybe do some minor final colour correction/grading in Gimp on the final output. but then again neither is Gimp? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The alternates I liked aren't complete Photoshop replacements. I realise gimp is free, but there also seems to be a general attitude amongst gimp contributors that they think the UX is fine, while most people (in my circles, at least) disagree with that view I'd like to see Gimp become as successful as krita or inkscape (which had UX issues for years, too) I'm not criticising the people, just this instance of their work, so I hope it inspires them to improve. I don't know how to phrase this without it sounding insensitive, though. Maybe someone put a lot of thought into the gimp UX, but it seems like a wasted effort (or maybe it was just inexperience). I'd hardly call any workflow I design an engineered one (even if I like this field), when compared to something produced by an UX designer (or a team of them) who specialises in the field. Partially agree with you that every UX is "engineered" but that depends on how far we're willing to stretch that definition in the design domain. I didn't mean to sound condescending, and if I hurt any gimp devs, I'd like to apologise.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |