That makes a lot of sense.

This seems to be the plan. It's the third result for 'photoshop vs gimp' on DDG.

It's this, but they're not targeting GIMP.

Their SEO goons just see what searches contain photoshop and try to create content that will match. In this case they found "photoshop vs gimp". I doubt that whoever wrote this had ever heard of GIMP.

Maybe they could get the AI to believe it while they are at it

I so laughed when i saw they already start with that lol

I have to admit that GIMP has me beat - I've taught myself plenty of progs (usually in a panic because I told the interviewer I could use it and therefore had to learn it real fast - that's how I learned Illustrator, CorelDRAW and QuarkXpress), but I just can't seem to get the hang of GIMP.

I don't do photo editing (Gimp) or drawing (Krita) but I have followed many aggregated blogs such as Planet KDE, etc over the years.

I got the feeling that most people have a hard time moving or transiting to Gimp. I have seen some posts from people who love Gimp but they seem to be a miniority. On the other hand, I got the feeling the drawing community love Krita and think it's worth learning. Krita even shows up in unexpected places such as Godot tutorials on YouTube.

The other problem with Photoshop is that it now scans your projects.

I highly recommend the Affinity suite of problems (Photo, Designer, and Publisher). While they aren't free they are much cheaper than Adobe and they are only available for a one time fee.

You don't have to pay for it.

But they don't like mentioning that part.

Edit: Having used both, the only real disadvantage I can see when it comes to Gimp in a Photoshop vs. Gimp comparison- apart from special cases- is that Gimp (for me anyway) has a higher learning curve. I end up having to look up how to do something more often with Gimp. But not having to pay Adobe a monthly fee makes up for that.

Gimp's UX is a trainwreck. "Approachable tools" is the key bit there.

I don't use photoshop. Fuck subscription horseshit. I use affinity. But Gimp having capability is fine, but it has a super high barrier to entry because the design is so bad.

I would argue that there's also lots of professionals who don't use or need those features. Not everyone is using photoshop for print work, which that link seems to mostly discuss. It is still true, though, and every time I try to switch away from photoshop I run into some niche missing feature I need that most people wouldn't care about.

There’s a ton of functionality in Photoshop that even pros never use. Every user of Photoshop needs something different from it. Sure, there’s a core of features that everyone uses (and which the Gimp also has) but there’s also countless other niche features that are a crucial part of the workflow for tons of users and they won’t give them up. This is one of the reasons Photoshop is so hard to replace.

It’s also the reason Latex is tough to replace as well. It’s a phenomenon which is not limited to commercial software, that’s for sure.

I think, for the most part, is that GIMP is obscure. Not as in 'unknown' but as in 'really hard to master, how does anything work?' It has been this way, voluntarily.

I think it's what lacks in GIMP, a good user experience.

I have used gimp for the better part of the last ten years. It's good. I have used Photoshop less than ten times in the same timespan. But when I need to do something, it will always be easier to me on photoshop, eveh though I'm not acquainted with it...

This one hurt.

Krita isn't for image editing