I am totally supporting developers wanting to make money with their product.
But the developer of Photopea has basically built a product for people who want to get rid of Adobe’s stupid subscription model and now he tries to force them to pay for his own subscription by breaking the application. That really doesn’t sit right with me.
Why would I need to pay 8€/month for image editing features that run in my browser?
It also doesn’t help that he went on Github and complained to the developers of uBlock Origin, replying with troll answers like “How can I help you?” but not wanting to accept any other answer than them allowing him to serve ads.
This guy can get rekt, in my humble opinion. I did like the product before this change, though. Does anyone know of similar image editors out there that can batch-crop images in a certain aspect ratio/resolution and then export them to webp? (GIMP is terrible, sorry 🥹)
That’s true, I was working with Photoshop for many years and it’s hard to unlearn that.
Maybe I’ll give it another chance.
What’s mildly infuriating is that Photopea makes this so easy and now I need to adjust my workflow again. Why do so many devs out there need to enshittify their product after a few years? :(
Absolutely. 😃 Someone even went through my recent unrelated comments in other communities and downvoted each one. I didn’t think blocking some ads would make people this mad!
I don’t really understand why you’re using ad-supported proprietary software that you’ve never paid a dime for (or given a dime to, since you use uBO), claiming that you don’t use GIMP or Krita instead because the former “is terrible” and the latter isn’t meant for cropping (a trivial, fundamental feature of the software), and then acting entitled to use the Photopea author’s own personal work with zero compensation. So you have free alternatives (as in beer and as in freedom), refuse to do even the bare minimum to learn how to use them, and then go full “you took my only food; now I’m gonna starve” when Photopea’s author stops you from using their own site/web app for free that they run and maintain at their own expense.
If anything, you seem entitled and willfully ignorant, and I say that from the perspective of someone who resents digital advertising and proprietary software.
then acting entitled to use the Photopea author’s own personal work with zero compensation.
Running batch tasks on the Photopea author’s own infrastructure because Photopea is a website. Lichtmetzger wrote in a reply that he’s not using Photopea to edit a photo once in a while and now he’s bummed out (I would kinda understand that) but that he’s actually processing a big number of images on someone else’s resources.
The images get processed in your own browser. The only infrastructure I’m using is the bit of Javascript and HTML I am loading when accessing the site, the rest is handled by my own machine.
This won’t work because there is actual server-side code running
That is not true! You can figure that out for yourself - open up the site, disconnect your internet and resize/crop some images. It will do it just fine, because all of that code runs in your own browser.
The image processing happens locally in the web browser.
Not to imply that hosting the static assets to power that (JS and WebAssembly binaries) is free, but it’s definitely much cheaper than the compute resources that would be required to do the heavy lifting server-side.
(Still worth paying for or allowing ads though. Photopea clearly took a lot of work to build)
The completely insane claim was “The only infrastructure I’m using is the bit of Javascript and HTML”, meaning one could just save the page and run it fully locally.
If anything, you seem entitled and willfully ignorant
I understand why people might think that. As I’ve said in another comment, it’s the attitude of the developer that mildly infuriates me. I am not against paying money for a good product and I would’ve even paid the subscription, if 1. it wasn’t so high (96€/year for a tool processing images in your own browser) and 2. he wasn’t such a dick on Github to people.
I know developers need to put food on the table, but then they should at least be honest about that. Going into the uBlock Github and trolling people there while claiming you “always supported ad blockers” isn’t the right way and I am not financially supporting developers who act like this.
Also, some people don’t seem to grasp that I’m not actually processing images for free on the developers’ infrastructure. The image processing is done via Javascript on my own machine. So all I’m doing is loading the website initially, it’s not like I’m taking money out of the devs’ pocket by blocking his ads. Added to that, the site worked fine for many years, why do you need to put an aggressive Adblock detection in now? It’s a cat and mouse game against uBlock and he must know he will never win this game.
Of course, it’s his own tool and he can do whatever he wants with it, but it’s still shitty to do it.
After all, you’re right, I’ve decided to give tools like GIMP another chance. The problem for me is that I used Photoshop for many years (that’s what I learned when I was attending art school, blame the system) and moving away to another tool like GIMP is a lot of work, because it works very differently. I learned there are plugins for easing the transition and I’ll find another tool.
Of course there are but the claim was that Lichtmetzger only needs to crop a bunch of images and Gimp is 100% capable of that and I say that as someone who can’t stand Gimp any longer and moved to Krita and others.
I know it can’t, I had to remove it from my toolkit because it can’t. It’s something to do with the colorspace added in 2.10. Now, when you export an image with an alpha channel, every other piece of software sees that alpha channel with much higher contrast. There’s been a bug on the tracker for years, but the devs seem split between completely not understanding the issue and claiming it’s intended behavior.
I’ve noticed something that isn’t mentioned in the issue that pretty much proves it isn’t intended, however. If you export a PNG with an alpha channel, then immediately reimport it to GIMP, the alpha channel will have the correct contrast, but will be completely crunched. Lost information. No way in hell destroying the alpha channel entirely is intended.
Yeah and there are problems with all software, but the real issue with GIMP is people dont want to learn how to use it. I took the time, I changed the hotkeys, I tweaked the settings, now GIMP is my mainstay pixel pusher
He’s not forcing you into a subscription model, he wants you to either allow ads or go to a subscription model.
You don’t need to pay 8 Euro a month, you just need to allow the ads.
It’s not broken to prevent ad blockers, we all got used to a system that wasn’t sustainable, and now we’re seeing what is actually required for sites and apps to survive.
I wouldn’t mind paying a few cents, but 8€ is way more than what he could possibly get out of the ads.
I wish a system like Flattr or even BAT could take off. Paying a few dollars a month to not get ads anywhere in a sustainable way seems like the way to go.
(Note: I seem to remember shady stuff about the BAT token but I do not know the details. Don’t incendiate me on that).
I am totally supporting developers wanting to make money with their product.
But the developer of Photopea has basically built a product for people who want to get rid of Adobe’s stupid subscription model and now he tries to force them to pay for his own subscription by breaking the application. That really doesn’t sit right with me.
Why would I need to pay 8€/month for image editing features that run in my browser?
It also doesn’t help that he went on Github and complained to the developers of uBlock Origin, replying with troll answers like “How can I help you?” but not wanting to accept any other answer than them allowing him to serve ads.
This guy can get rekt, in my humble opinion. I did like the product before this change, though. Does anyone know of similar image editors out there that can batch-crop images in a certain aspect ratio/resolution and then export them to webp? (GIMP is terrible, sorry 🥹)
GIMP isn’t terrible. You’re just used to doing things a certain way and GIMP does it differently.
That’s true, I was working with Photoshop for many years and it’s hard to unlearn that.
Maybe I’ll give it another chance.
What’s mildly infuriating is that Photopea makes this so easy and now I need to adjust my workflow again. Why do so many devs out there need to enshittify their product after a few years? :(
There’s also plugins to bring a photoshop-esque UI to GIMP if that will help with your muscle memory.
Oh, that’s nice! I still remember Gimpshop but it’s been dead for years. But I see now that there’s at least PhotoGIMP, that’ll really help me out.
You really angered some people here lol!
Absolutely. 😃 Someone even went through my recent unrelated comments in other communities and downvoted each one. I didn’t think blocking some ads would make people this mad!
People want you get paid for their work?
Then they should sell the product for a one-time fee, not a fucking subscription.
Blame Adobe for setting the norm. If you don’t want to pay a sub or see ads or anything then there are options.
I hate Adobe and their stupid subscription model! Thank goodness for Photopea and their subscription model!
This is like the clown meme, but with only two panels.
I don’t really understand why you’re using ad-supported proprietary software that you’ve never paid a dime for (or given a dime to, since you use uBO), claiming that you don’t use GIMP or Krita instead because the former “is terrible” and the latter isn’t meant for cropping (a trivial, fundamental feature of the software), and then acting entitled to use the Photopea author’s own personal work with zero compensation. So you have free alternatives (as in beer and as in freedom), refuse to do even the bare minimum to learn how to use them, and then go full “you took my only food; now I’m gonna starve” when Photopea’s author stops you from using their own site/web app for free that they run and maintain at their own expense.
If anything, you seem entitled and willfully ignorant, and I say that from the perspective of someone who resents digital advertising and proprietary software.
Running batch tasks on the Photopea author’s own infrastructure because Photopea is a website. Lichtmetzger wrote in a reply that he’s not using Photopea to edit a photo once in a while and now he’s bummed out (I would kinda understand that) but that he’s actually processing a big number of images on someone else’s resources.
The images get processed in your own browser. The only infrastructure I’m using is the bit of Javascript and HTML I am loading when accessing the site, the rest is handled by my own machine.
If Photopea was so simple, you could just download the necessary parts and self-host.
This won’t work because there is actual server-side code running, meaning you’re hogging someone else’s resources to do your commercial-grade tasks.
That is not true! You can figure that out for yourself - open up the site, disconnect your internet and resize/crop some images. It will do it just fine, because all of that code runs in your own browser.
The image processing happens locally in the web browser.
Not to imply that hosting the static assets to power that (JS and WebAssembly binaries) is free, but it’s definitely much cheaper than the compute resources that would be required to do the heavy lifting server-side.
(Still worth paying for or allowing ads though. Photopea clearly took a lot of work to build)
The completely insane claim was “The only infrastructure I’m using is the bit of Javascript and HTML”, meaning one could just save the page and run it fully locally.
This is of course BS.
There was a repo that did just that for self hosting photopea. But it got shut down
I understand why people might think that. As I’ve said in another comment, it’s the attitude of the developer that mildly infuriates me. I am not against paying money for a good product and I would’ve even paid the subscription, if 1. it wasn’t so high (96€/year for a tool processing images in your own browser) and 2. he wasn’t such a dick on Github to people.
I know developers need to put food on the table, but then they should at least be honest about that. Going into the uBlock Github and trolling people there while claiming you “always supported ad blockers” isn’t the right way and I am not financially supporting developers who act like this.
Also, some people don’t seem to grasp that I’m not actually processing images for free on the developers’ infrastructure. The image processing is done via Javascript on my own machine. So all I’m doing is loading the website initially, it’s not like I’m taking money out of the devs’ pocket by blocking his ads. Added to that, the site worked fine for many years, why do you need to put an aggressive Adblock detection in now? It’s a cat and mouse game against uBlock and he must know he will never win this game.
Of course, it’s his own tool and he can do whatever he wants with it, but it’s still shitty to do it.
After all, you’re right, I’ve decided to give tools like GIMP another chance. The problem for me is that I used Photoshop for many years (that’s what I learned when I was attending art school, blame the system) and moving away to another tool like GIMP is a lot of work, because it works very differently. I learned there are plugins for easing the transition and I’ll find another tool.
Its actually not, but if you really hate the interface then try photogimp
Believe me, the interface isn’t the problem with GIMP, and there are definitely problems.
Of course there are but the claim was that Lichtmetzger only needs to crop a bunch of images and Gimp is 100% capable of that and I say that as someone who can’t stand Gimp any longer and moved to Krita and others.
Alright, yeah, that’s fair, as long as those images don’t have alpha components at least.
You dont think GIMP can handle transparent backgrounds in a PNG?
I know it can’t, I had to remove it from my toolkit because it can’t. It’s something to do with the colorspace added in 2.10. Now, when you export an image with an alpha channel, every other piece of software sees that alpha channel with much higher contrast. There’s been a bug on the tracker for years, but the devs seem split between completely not understanding the issue and claiming it’s intended behavior.
I’ve noticed something that isn’t mentioned in the issue that pretty much proves it isn’t intended, however. If you export a PNG with an alpha channel, then immediately reimport it to GIMP, the alpha channel will have the correct contrast, but will be completely crunched. Lost information. No way in hell destroying the alpha channel entirely is intended.
Yeah and there are problems with all software, but the real issue with GIMP is people dont want to learn how to use it. I took the time, I changed the hotkeys, I tweaked the settings, now GIMP is my mainstay pixel pusher
He’s not forcing you into a subscription model, he wants you to either allow ads or go to a subscription model.
You don’t need to pay 8 Euro a month, you just need to allow the ads.
It’s not broken to prevent ad blockers, we all got used to a system that wasn’t sustainable, and now we’re seeing what is actually required for sites and apps to survive.
I wouldn’t mind paying a few cents, but 8€ is way more than what he could possibly get out of the ads.
I wish a system like Flattr or even BAT could take off. Paying a few dollars a month to not get ads anywhere in a sustainable way seems like the way to go.
(Note: I seem to remember shady stuff about the BAT token but I do not know the details. Don’t incendiate me on that).