maybe using computers isn’t the right thing for you
Sir, this isn’t Reddit. Please calm down. :)
And now tell me how to batch-crop and export multiple images as .webp, if it’s doable in Krita. Because I don’t know how.
Yeah krita definitely isn’t the right tool for bulk jobs. You might want to look into learning to use imagemagick’s command line tools, they’re pretty much the gold standard for bulk image tasks
If something was previously the right tool for the job, then, despite no apparent changes in the behavior of the user, is intentionally broken by the creator of the tool and is no longer suitable - that is absolutely, 100% worth complaining about.
Thank you, that’s my opinion as well. 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.
I am not financially supporting developers who act like this.
Are you financially supporting literally any developers at all? You made it clear you were not paying for a Photopea subscription and were using uBO, so there’s not a carrot or a stick here for the maintainer of Photopea (I guess there’s a very tiny carrot for losing you as a user in that you’re not using their resources). I mean that as a genuine question, by the way:
What software that you use have you paid for and/or donated to?
Was it because you had to, or because you felt strongly that they deserved compensation for their work?
Did you ever at any point stop giving said software maintainer money when you felt they were no longer acting in a way that comports with your standards?
Are you financially supporting literally any developers at all?
Yes, I’ve donated to the digikam project in the past, just to name one example. I also donated to Slackware when its creator was in financial trouble. And I am actively donating to the Fediverse instance that allows me to post this comment.
I didn’t “think I got you”; I was leading into something: what was it about Photopea prior to this that made them fundamentally different from Digikam, Slackware, and discuss.tchncs? I’ve donated to Lemmy too and various other FOSS projects, so I authentically appreciate that your donations strengthened that interconnected ecosystem.
You clearly got plenty of use out of them, indicating how integral this apparently was to your workflow. You don’t show any indication you had problems with the Photopea maintainer’s actions or attitude before this. Was it the fact that Photopea isn’t FOSS? I’d agree it’s a huge difference, but at the same time, they’re basically free as in beer, and you weren’t just idly not paying them; you were actively, recurrently using their finite resources. Wouldn’t you agree that, even if you don’t want to give money to proprietary software (assuming again that’s the reason), they at least deserve to break even? If so, you could’ve just whitelisted them on uBO. But I also resent digital advertising for ethical reasons and because it’s a vector for malware, so I’d understand not wanting to turn off uBO and not wanting to give €5/month in compensation. But then it looks like, despite being plenty familiar with the FOSS ecosystem, you never gave it a fair shake. You just called GIMP icky and didn’t do the bare minimum level of searching that’d tell you ImageMagick exists for batch edits. So you weren’t willing to pay for the ad-free subscription (fair in isolation), you weren’t willing to turn off ads (fair in isolation), and you weren’t willing to try something else (fair in isolation), and thus you were just draining their money to your own ends (not fair).
So realistically, it sounds like you were never going to support the Photopea maintainer regardless of what they did or how they acted, and now that they’ve cut you off from using their service for free, you’re acting like this is some kind of principled stance rather than being a lazy, entitled cheapskate.
That definitely plays into it, but the major point for me is that it’s an alternative to Photoshop, which it literally tries to mimick as best as you can in a browser, down to the same keyboard shortcuts Photoshop uses.
Most people here would probably agree that Adobe is a very greedy company. So when there’s an alternative to their software that works fine for many years and then gets turned into a subscription model while the author actively fights uBlock, it just feels…wrong. It’s just the same playbook, but with a slightly lower cost.
I also think it’s very hypocritical to accuse me of freeloading from Photopea, because that project uses other open-source libraries under the hood. Did anyone ask the developer if he financially supported the projects that he is profiting off? He doesn’t even mention them on the website (or if he does, it’s not easy to find), but you can see them when you deobfuscate the Javascript blob.
If someone criticizes me for using this project ad-free, it’s just as valid to criticize the developer for using open-source libraries in a closed-source project (as closed-source as a web-application can be).
But to break it down to a simple point: I would’ve paid for the software if it cost 5€/month. That’s 60€ per year, which is reasonable for an image manipulation tool that can run most of its features locally. But 96€/year is too much. I’m not moving away from Adobe to pay for another big subscription. Now that ship has sailed for me completely, after this whole uBlock fiasco.
You just called GIMP icky and didn’t do the bare minimum level of searching that’d tell you ImageMagick exists for batch edits.
I know about ImageMagick and as I’ve said in another comment, a commandline tool is not suitable for cropping different areas of multiple images, I need a visual representation. GIMP might have improved, you’re right on that point. I haven’t used it in a long time and I will try to see if it’s better now (2.x was painful and anybody saying otherwise is simply delusional).
lazy, entitled cheapskate
Not sure why this was neccessary. You started out so eloquently and then your emotions got the best of you. I believe you can do better than the typical Reddit “discussion”.
I am not financially supporting developers who act like this.
You were not financially supporting the developers before either. You admitted that you do frequent batch processing of many images on their infrastructure. If anything, losing you as a user is saving them money.
You admitted that you do frequent batch processing of many images on their infrastructure.
I’m not sure why you keep commenting this as a fact, when it’s literally not true. As I’ve said in another thread, you can open up the site, disconnect your internet and process all of the images just fine. All of that code runs in your own browser.
As I’ve said in another thread, you can open up the site, disconnect your internet and process all of the images just fine. All of that code runs in your own browser.
Then disconnect your internet when ads load. Or save the page if “All of that code runs in your own browser.”
Or save the page if “All of that code runs in your own browser.”
Sir, this is not how the internet works. I thought people on the Fediverse are a bit more technically-versed than the average population.
When I disconnect my internet, I can still crop images, save them to my machine in various formats and use the tools in the left sidebar. Photopea does not use the developers’ server to do these tasks, or otherwise I wouldn’t be able to do them at all, when I go offline.
That doesn’t mean I can just save the whole website locally and run it as is. Mostly, because the developers’ code contains references to online sources or might bug out in certain places if it’s not run on the intended domain, etc.
If I disassembled the obfuscated code and replaced those online references, I’m pretty sure the whole thing would just work. Not being able to save a website locally and just run it as is does not disprove my point that the application does not technically need a server to run. It’s just that the developer coded it that way.
It seems like you either cannot understand the technical aspects of what I’m saying or you believe you had a great “Got him!” moment when you said I was freeloading on the devs’ machine and now you decided to stick with it. Either way, not worth any more of time.
So commercial-grade batch processing of images on other people’s infrastructure and dodging any form of compensation is 100% worth complaining about? OK.
You can’t just save the webpage as HTML and run it (which is what woelkchen doesn’t seem to grasp, even though I tried to explain it to him in another thread). But technically, all of the image processing code for cropping, saving, painting on the image etc. runs locally.
You can see that easily for yourself, just disconnect your internet after opening the site and it continues to work just fine.
That’s why all of the accusations that I’m freeloading and straining the developers’ server from batch-processing images are unfunded.
I fully grasp it, I was just pointing out how insane your claim is that you don’t use their server resources by making an equally insane counter point.
That’s why all of the accusations that I’m freeloading and straining the developers’ server from batch-processing images are unfunded.
You claimed that I was uploading and batch-processing images on the developers’ infrastructure. I tried to tell you it’s not true, because all of those features still work without internet. Load photopea.com, disconnect your internet - tadaa, you can still “upload” images, crop them, save them, draw on them…
I must be a magician if I can connect to the developers’ machine without any connection at all. There is only one person in this thread who cannot understand how basic technology works. And it’s not me.
My point is: Why would I pay a subscription for that “service”? A service that barely uses any resources, except the ~1MB Javascript file and a few image assets that are delivered via the web? A web server hosting a few megabytes of data does not warrant 8€ per month per user. If people believe I am an entitled bitch for thinking that way, they can do so. But it will not change my opinion.
I did suggest many things, from how to crop in Krita, using ImageMagick, that Gimp is fully capable of cropping (OP refused to use Gimp for that task because it’s “shit” in his eyes), how to look up open source alternatives on GitHub (I found a bunch, including a python GUI application running locally), etc.
OP made a many BS claims, by insisting that he needs batch processing but when suggesting to self host, he refuses this by saying that he’s only cropping 5 images.
I’m envious of your energy if you’re willing to spend it to set up a self hosted thing to batch process 5 images when there’s an off the shelf solution that works just fine but has ads. Sometimes the job is big enough to be annoying to do it one way but not too big to be worth the trouble of setting up an entire GitHub repo locally.
I’m not the one getting nervous at looking at other alternatives.
I am not nervous, I am mildly infuriated. There are other tools and I will learn them.
Use the right tool for the job
imagemagick certainly isn’t the right tool for batch-cropping, unless the cropped area is always in the same place (I need a visual representation before cropping and a commandline tool doesn’t cut it here). But thank you for at least trying to suggest an actual solution instead of patronizing me.
Sir, this isn’t Reddit. Please calm down. :)
And now tell me how to batch-crop and export multiple images as .webp, if it’s doable in Krita. Because I don’t know how.
Yeah krita definitely isn’t the right tool for bulk jobs. You might want to look into learning to use imagemagick’s command line tools, they’re pretty much the gold standard for bulk image tasks
Have you tried using the BIMP plugin for GIMP? It might be an option? https://thegimptutorials.com/how-to-do-batch-processing/
Why would I be not calm? I’m not the one getting nervous at looking at other alternatives.
https://imagemagick.org/script/command-line-processing.php
Use the right tool for the job instead of complaining.
If something was previously the right tool for the job, then, despite no apparent changes in the behavior of the user, is intentionally broken by the creator of the tool and is no longer suitable - that is absolutely, 100% worth complaining about.
IMHO.
Thank you, that’s my opinion as well. 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.
Are you financially supporting literally any developers at all? You made it clear you were not paying for a Photopea subscription and were using uBO, so there’s not a carrot or a stick here for the maintainer of Photopea (I guess there’s a very tiny carrot for losing you as a user in that you’re not using their resources). I mean that as a genuine question, by the way:
Yes, I’ve donated to the digikam project in the past, just to name one example. I also donated to Slackware when its creator was in financial trouble. And I am actively donating to the Fediverse instance that allows me to post this comment.
You think you got me here, but you didn’t.
I didn’t “think I got you”; I was leading into something: what was it about Photopea prior to this that made them fundamentally different from Digikam, Slackware, and discuss.tchncs? I’ve donated to Lemmy too and various other FOSS projects, so I authentically appreciate that your donations strengthened that interconnected ecosystem.
You clearly got plenty of use out of them, indicating how integral this apparently was to your workflow. You don’t show any indication you had problems with the Photopea maintainer’s actions or attitude before this. Was it the fact that Photopea isn’t FOSS? I’d agree it’s a huge difference, but at the same time, they’re basically free as in beer, and you weren’t just idly not paying them; you were actively, recurrently using their finite resources. Wouldn’t you agree that, even if you don’t want to give money to proprietary software (assuming again that’s the reason), they at least deserve to break even? If so, you could’ve just whitelisted them on uBO. But I also resent digital advertising for ethical reasons and because it’s a vector for malware, so I’d understand not wanting to turn off uBO and not wanting to give €5/month in compensation. But then it looks like, despite being plenty familiar with the FOSS ecosystem, you never gave it a fair shake. You just called GIMP icky and didn’t do the bare minimum level of searching that’d tell you ImageMagick exists for batch edits. So you weren’t willing to pay for the ad-free subscription (fair in isolation), you weren’t willing to turn off ads (fair in isolation), and you weren’t willing to try something else (fair in isolation), and thus you were just draining their money to your own ends (not fair).
So realistically, it sounds like you were never going to support the Photopea maintainer regardless of what they did or how they acted, and now that they’ve cut you off from using their service for free, you’re acting like this is some kind of principled stance rather than being a lazy, entitled cheapskate.
That definitely plays into it, but the major point for me is that it’s an alternative to Photoshop, which it literally tries to mimick as best as you can in a browser, down to the same keyboard shortcuts Photoshop uses.
Most people here would probably agree that Adobe is a very greedy company. So when there’s an alternative to their software that works fine for many years and then gets turned into a subscription model while the author actively fights uBlock, it just feels…wrong. It’s just the same playbook, but with a slightly lower cost.
I also think it’s very hypocritical to accuse me of freeloading from Photopea, because that project uses other open-source libraries under the hood. Did anyone ask the developer if he financially supported the projects that he is profiting off? He doesn’t even mention them on the website (or if he does, it’s not easy to find), but you can see them when you deobfuscate the Javascript blob.
If someone criticizes me for using this project ad-free, it’s just as valid to criticize the developer for using open-source libraries in a closed-source project (as closed-source as a web-application can be).
But to break it down to a simple point: I would’ve paid for the software if it cost 5€/month. That’s 60€ per year, which is reasonable for an image manipulation tool that can run most of its features locally. But 96€/year is too much. I’m not moving away from Adobe to pay for another big subscription. Now that ship has sailed for me completely, after this whole uBlock fiasco.
I know about ImageMagick and as I’ve said in another comment, a commandline tool is not suitable for cropping different areas of multiple images, I need a visual representation. GIMP might have improved, you’re right on that point. I haven’t used it in a long time and I will try to see if it’s better now (2.x was painful and anybody saying otherwise is simply delusional).
Not sure why this was neccessary. You started out so eloquently and then your emotions got the best of you. I believe you can do better than the typical Reddit “discussion”.
You were not financially supporting the developers before either. You admitted that you do frequent batch processing of many images on their infrastructure. If anything, losing you as a user is saving them money.
I’m not sure why you keep commenting this as a fact, when it’s literally not true. As I’ve said in another thread, you can open up the site, disconnect your internet and process all of the images just fine. All of that code runs in your own browser.
Then disconnect your internet when ads load. Or save the page if “All of that code runs in your own browser.”
Sir, this is not how the internet works. I thought people on the Fediverse are a bit more technically-versed than the average population.
When I disconnect my internet, I can still crop images, save them to my machine in various formats and use the tools in the left sidebar. Photopea does not use the developers’ server to do these tasks, or otherwise I wouldn’t be able to do them at all, when I go offline.
That doesn’t mean I can just save the whole website locally and run it as is. Mostly, because the developers’ code contains references to online sources or might bug out in certain places if it’s not run on the intended domain, etc.
If I disassembled the obfuscated code and replaced those online references, I’m pretty sure the whole thing would just work. Not being able to save a website locally and just run it as is does not disprove my point that the application does not technically need a server to run. It’s just that the developer coded it that way.
It seems like you either cannot understand the technical aspects of what I’m saying or you believe you had a great “Got him!” moment when you said I was freeloading on the devs’ machine and now you decided to stick with it. Either way, not worth any more of time.
Indeed it’s not. That’s why your claim that you can use Photopea without using their resources is BS.
Well, it uses the servers to do something and you refuse any compensation.
Then do and host your own version.
So commercial-grade batch processing of images on other people’s infrastructure and dodging any form of compensation is 100% worth complaining about? OK.
Doesn’t photopea run locally?
You can’t just save the webpage as HTML and run it (which is what woelkchen doesn’t seem to grasp, even though I tried to explain it to him in another thread). But technically, all of the image processing code for cropping, saving, painting on the image etc. runs locally.
You can see that easily for yourself, just disconnect your internet after opening the site and it continues to work just fine.
That’s why all of the accusations that I’m freeloading and straining the developers’ server from batch-processing images are unfunded.
*whoosh*
I fully grasp it, I was just pointing out how insane your claim is that you don’t use their server resources by making an equally insane counter point.
Yes, exactly this insane claim.
You claimed that I was uploading and batch-processing images on the developers’ infrastructure. I tried to tell you it’s not true, because all of those features still work without internet. Load photopea.com, disconnect your internet - tadaa, you can still “upload” images, crop them, save them, draw on them…
I must be a magician if I can connect to the developers’ machine without any connection at all. There is only one person in this thread who cannot understand how basic technology works. And it’s not me.
My point is: Why would I pay a subscription for that “service”? A service that barely uses any resources, except the ~1MB Javascript file and a few image assets that are delivered via the web? A web server hosting a few megabytes of data does not warrant 8€ per month per user. If people believe I am an entitled bitch for thinking that way, they can do so. But it will not change my opinion.
“Um, achtually I crop images only locally and loading up Photopea in the first place doesn’t count towards freeloading other people’s work.🤓”
Bro why you being mad cringe try just suggesting things instead of being a dick
I did suggest many things, from how to crop in Krita, using ImageMagick, that Gimp is fully capable of cropping (OP refused to use Gimp for that task because it’s “shit” in his eyes), how to look up open source alternatives on GitHub (I found a bunch, including a python GUI application running locally), etc.
OP made a many BS claims, by insisting that he needs batch processing but when suggesting to self host, he refuses this by saying that he’s only cropping 5 images.
I’m envious of your energy if you’re willing to spend it to set up a self hosted thing to batch process 5 images when there’s an off the shelf solution that works just fine but has ads. Sometimes the job is big enough to be annoying to do it one way but not too big to be worth the trouble of setting up an entire GitHub repo locally.
It’s really no energy at all to just install Krita or Gimp to crop 5 images.
I am not nervous, I am mildly infuriated. There are other tools and I will learn them.
imagemagick certainly isn’t the right tool for batch-cropping, unless the cropped area is always in the same place (I need a visual representation before cropping and a commandline tool doesn’t cut it here). But thank you for at least trying to suggest an actual solution instead of patronizing me.
You could try Irfanview. Its not FOSS and its at a cost if this is a commercial thing
Calm down.
Then pay. You’re using a commercial service to do commercial-grade tasks. Stop to dodge compensation.