Non-destructive editing was way, way more important. Shapes can be done differently anyway.
Typical "we know this feature is asked many times, but it not on our priority/ it is not planned"
I’m not criticizing open source itself, but I think this highlights a common issue in open source software, one that distinguishes widely adopted projects like Blender from others. Successful open source software tends to reach users beyond just those within the open source movement.
I know some might disagree, saying that these developers work for free, but that’s not the point here. Software is created for users, and if a developer declines to implement a feature requested by the user base, many will simply return to proprietary alternatives—like Adobe Photoshop or Photo Pea, in this case. This leaves these open source projects feeling like “second-class citizens” because they lack the specific features users need.
Wrong tool for the job anyway.
GIMP and photoshop have always been photo editing tools first and foremost, which means they are meant for working with bitmap graphics, not vector.
Want to work with vector graphics? Use Inkscape.
Would you look at that: Inkscape already has very robust shape tools
Edit: before I rip my hair out: As explained elsewhere in this post, GIMP already has shape creation methods for bitmap. I assumed people were refering to PS's vector shape capabilities because... GIMP already has shape creation methods for bitmap.
Yes, it's part of the default tool set of a lot of programs that are not GIMP; don't like it? Use those programs you listed instead. Or implement it because it's FOSS. Or throw some money at the devs—who are creating something for you for free while you whinge about the things they haven't done for you—so you at least have some right to whinge.
Its on the roadmap. AFAIK it requires vector layers before it can be worked on.
Man there's a lot of really stupid shit in here.
Yes having a simple to use shape tool is nice. And it's on the roadmap so no, it doesn't go against some weird vaguely defined "core value" of gimp.
GIMP needs a glow up. It looks like what it is, but for a program looking for artists and designers to switch - you’re not going to get it by looking like the Temu photoshop.
Not gonna lie this update is great. We got TEXT OUTILINES! Do you hear that??? Finally text outlines 🥹❤️
I use GIMP only for the simple pixel stuff, and I hope they did not make basic operations even more complicated. I always struggle to get some basic things done just because there are myriads of for me useless and arcane settings.
Gimp 3.0.0 is fucking awesome, haters gonna hate.
There is already a killer plugin for Gimp 3.0.0 called "Batcher" that lets you batch edit and convert images (including pdfs) either with a GUI interface or from the command line. There are already plenty of tools that can do this from the command line, or that are commercial paid software... but this is a pretty damn powerful utility to have attached to a fully featured free and open source image editor that you could teach someone who is uncomfortable with scripting how to make a bunch of edits across a large amount of image files with.
https://github.com/kamilburda/batcher
I use Paint.net usually and there are plugins people make that you can install. Does GIMP not have that?
GIMP (at least in v2) does have a vector path tool and stores the paths with the image! Thing is, they kind of work like selections and you have to explicitly stroke the paths on bitmap layers. It's a bit more complicated than necessary and not easy to grasp at first.
and that is why I always keep my receipt
I looked up what a "shape tool" is supposed to do. How about using better tools for this, like Inkscape, export as pixel file (png or whatever), and import it into GIMP?
Ooh, new gimp version.
