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 🥹)
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.
The only infrastructure I’m using is the bit of Javascript and HTML
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.
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.
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.
GIMP is terrible, sorry
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.
and there are definitely problems
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
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.
as long as those images don’t have alpha components
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.
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’ve always ignored Photopea because it’s completely proprietary and the pricing is predatory. I don’t approve of those models, the same reason I won’t touch Adobe.
I wish Affinity would just release linux versions, but I expect those to get worse now that they are owned by Serif.
I think your best bet is to buckle down, swallow your pride, and learn Gimp. Yeah, it’s a dumpster fire if you come from a Photoshop background because it isn’t trying to copy Photoshop, it wants to be its own thing. But even though it seems counterintuitive due to your years of existing programming, it is quite powerful.
Krita in Linux has been amazing. I’ve never used Affinity, and I’m far from a pro… But I can do most of what I used to do in Photoshop in Krita fairly naturally. It’s way easier to transition to than GIMP ever was.
Gimp 3 is awesome now, and 100% free + no ads. Just sayin
Guess I won’t be using photopea anymore
Works fine for me, Firefox and Ublock Origin, DNS by PiHole. I think there’s something on your machine causing this.
“Something is breaking Photopea” ??? Yeah it’s yourselves.
Not sure if this lie is allowed under the EU DSA law.
What I am hearing is that you don’t feel like my man should receive any monetary support for a slick and convenient web application he invested a ton of time into. Not something I would gripe about online, but you do you.
I am not paying another high subscription (yes, 96€/year is high for some people) for a tool that processes images locally, no.
That attitude has worked out fine in my life so far.
I am not paying another high subscription (yes, 96€/year is high for some people) for a tool that processes images locally, no.
Then self-host a tool you need for your commercial-grade tasks.
commercial-grade
Today I’ve learned that cropping five images in a row is “commercial-grade”. Sure…
Self-hosting is a good idea, though, if I can find some useful software in that field. See, despite all of the trolling you are actually giving me good advice. I don’t know if it’s intentional, but thanks nonetheless.
Today I’ve learned that cropping five images in a row is “commercial-grade”. Sure…
Today I’ve learned that you cannot use Krita to crop manually because you’re cropping waaay to many images and absolutely need batch processing but you also cannot self-host anything because “it’s only 5 images, man”.
Self-hosting is a good idea, though, if I can find some useful software in that field.
- *types bulk image crop site:github.com into search engine*
- *finds a bunch*
Huh…
Works in brave normally.
The comma in “please, turn them off” is infuratiating in ways I cant even articulate
It’s 100% grammatically correct, for what it’s worth. If it helps, swap the two comma-separated components: “Turn them off, please.”
I think it’s the condescending insinuation
This is what I meant. See: cant even articulate.
cant
…
I fucking hate this app/site/whatever. It’s powerful, and has lots of features. But every single time I use it, the way it works is just off enough from Photoshop that I need to Google it, and I’m always pissed at the stupid reason. I hate Photopea.
