×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GIMP 2.6 Released

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the pimp-your-pixels dept.

The Gimp 639

Enselic writes "The GIMP developers are proud to announce the release of GIMP 2.6. The release notes start with: 'GIMP 2.6 is an important release from a development point of view. It features changes to the user interface addressing some often received complaints, and a tentative integration of GEGL, the graph based image processing library that will eventually bring high bit-depth and non-destructive editing to GIMP.' The notes go on to say the toolbox menubar has been removed, the toolbox and docks now are utility windows, it's now possible to pan beyond the image border, the freehand select tool has been enhanced to support polygonal selections, and much more."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

639 comments

It really didn't have this? (-1, Troll)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#25218749)

freehand select tool has been enhanced to support polygonal selections

Wow! It didn't have this before now? Welcome to 1985 [wikipedia.org], GIMP developers...

Re:It really didn't have this? (5, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219097)

Welcome to 1985 [wikipedia.org], GIMP developers...

Care to point us at a project you work on in your spare time so that we can mock it?

Re:It really didn't have this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219129)

Mod p

Re:It really didn't have this? (-1, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219527)

Does he advertise projects he works on in his spare time as being comparable to Photoshop?

Re:It really didn't have this? (1)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219591)

Where do the Gimp developers advertise Gimp as being comparable to Photoshop? I dare to find one statement that's newer than 5 years.

Re:It really didn't have this? (5, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219747)

Does he advertise projects he works on in his spare time as being comparable to Photoshop?

Where does GIMP advertise? And where do they claim to be comparable to Photoshop? In fact, I found
this document [gimp.org], which has the "Gimp Vision", part of which includes:

What GIMP is not:

        * GIMP is not MS Paint or Adobe Photoshop

Re:It really didn't have this? (5, Insightful)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219809)

Does he advertise projects he works on in his spare time as being comparable to Photoshop?

I've never seen any "advertisements" for the Gimp anywhere. I guess I haven't been paying attention.

That being said, the Gimp is comparable to Photoshop. You can compare anything to anything if you want, obviously. I myself enjoy comparing apples and oranges in my copious free time.

More importantly the Gimp is a free alternative to Photoshop, with different strengths and weaknesses. Both products seem to have a hellish learning curve, so you would be foolish to abandon Photoshop if you are already invested in it, and I suspect it'd be equally foolish to start an investment in Photoshop today when there is a free alternative available.

Re:It really didn't have this? (0, Flamebait)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219829)

-1 troll? I was comparing it with a program from the 1980s which has this feature, just as a point of interest. I know it's open source so I'm just as much to blame as anyone for the lack of it; blaming 'the developers' was intended as a joke.

Re:It really didn't have this? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219969)

Care to point us at a project you work on in your spare time so that we can mock it?

It's right here. [kernel.org] Mock away.

Re:It really didn't have this? (2, Insightful)

Trevin (570491) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219169)

The article you linked to says: it has "box, circle or freehand lasso selection tools." The Gimp 2.4 already had box, circle, and freehand selection tools; that's old stuff. If you look at the Gimp 2.6 release notes (you don't even have to read it), you will see that a polygon selection tool is quite different.

The closest I've been able to get to this sort of functionality before has been to repeatedly add and subtract open-ended freehand regions, where the Gimp will automatically make a straight line between the end and starting points.

Re:It really didn't have this? (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219391)

You could already do a polygonal select, it's just not the tool you'd expect to use.

"Paths Tool: Create and edit paths (B)". Click point-by-point to create the polygon; don't bother closing it, it'll connect the first and last points automatically. As a bonus, you can create arcs instead of line segments if you so desire. Once you have the polygon, just hit "Selection from Path" and presto, there's your selection.

Re:It really didn't have this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219989)

It used to be possible (I would have been on 1.3 when I started), if I remember right, to create polygonal selections using the freehand select tool, holding down some key, and clicking points to define the corners. I've been on version 2+ long enough I've forgotten, however.

Re:It really didn't have this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219479)

Of course it had polygonal select before, but not _in the freehand select tool_.

Re:It really didn't have this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219947)

Great, now I've been reading about Guybrush Threepwood for the last hour... Thanks a lot, Spatial and Wikipedia!

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25218751)

suck my cock you closet homos!

I just got 2.4! (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25218757)

Man, just after I updated 2.2 to 2.4! @#@!#*!!!

One area I hope the GIMP team focuses on in the future is font rendering. I absolutely love working with GIMP, but the fonts still don't come out as nice as they do in Photoshop. I'm not graphical design savvy enough to know why, only that my fonts look like crud when compared to the smooth output of Photoshop.

Other than that, GIMP is an incredible product. Anyone doing casual graphical editing, just learning, or otherwise does not need the top-end features of Photoshop will be well-served by this package. Kudos for doing such an incredible job, guys! :-)

Re:I just got 2.4! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25218939)

A more needed update....

SOMEONE PLEASE FORK THE PROJECT AND GIVE IT A NEW NAME!

My Point of sales machine died a few days ago, and the tech asked if I had installed anything on it. I told him that I loaded up "the gnu image manipulation program" just to avoid saying "GIMP". Can't we rename it to something better?

I suggest we use: GNU Photo & Image Manipulation Program.

Re:I just got 2.4! (3, Funny)

Keyper7 (1160079) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219057)

If someone introduced me to something called "G-PIMP", I'm not sure I'd like to know what the G stands for...

Re:I just got 2.4! (2, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219075)

gPimp, lol, sounds like an evil Apple product. Or a good one, depending on what side of the holy war you fight for.

Re:I just got 2.4! (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219333)

People laugh. But when I taught a web class for my company last year, that name kept me from using this as the recommended graphic program of choice (used Photoshop elements instead). It's typical developer thoughtlessness to use a name that most people associate with a disturbing scene in the movie Pulp Fiction for an application that supposedly wants to be taken seriously. You can have the greatest application in the world, but if you name it "FUCK" you're going to be spending every subsequent Thanksgiving sitting at the kid's table.

Re:I just got 2.4! (0)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220159)

Well, that's as good a criterion as any, I suppose. But if I were the person who writes the checks in your company, you'd have some serious splainin' to do...

Re:I just got 2.4! (1)

Thomas M Hughes (463951) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220169)

While I'm sure there's something to this, that's not necessarily the case. LaTeX is actually quite successful in academia, despite the name. If it's the best tool for the job, people can move beyond the name.

I haven't seen Pulp Fiction, you insensitive clod! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220173)

It's typical developer thoughtlessness to use a name that most people associate with a disturbing scene in the movie Pulp Fiction for an application that supposedly wants to be taken seriously.

Not everybody has seen the movie Pulp Fiction. I for one haven't. For one thing, that movie is proprietary.

Re:I just got 2.4! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219729)

I would say just get rid of GNU in its name. Sure keep it GNU but why wast time with it. It not not like Other apps that give the name of its distribution license as part of its name. How About Graphics Manipulator, Graphics Editor... Image Shop....

Re:I just got 2.4! (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220109)

I'd say a good majority of GNU projects either start with a g, are acronyms that start with GNU, or start with GNU.

GNOME - GNU Object Model Environment
Gnash
GCJ - GNU Compiler for Java
GNU Classpath
GCC - GNU Compiler Collection

Gimp, the love that dare not speak its acronym (2, Insightful)

julian67 (1022593) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220119)

I know this is something of a surprise for people who hate the name GIMP but much of the world doesn't actually speak English (how the fuck do they manage to talk to each other? Nobody knows) and doesn't care, it means nothing. Can those prudish repressed souls who dare not speak its acronym please just use the full name and stop bothering everyone with your tedious hang ups? Thank you.

Re:I just got 2.4! (2, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219019)

The workaround is to always work with a larger image than you need then once the font work is done, scale it smaller.

Re:I just got 2.4! (1)

rugatero (1292060) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219839)

Rather than consider it a workaround, I do this as a matter of course. I find it makes fine detailing easier, and I can archive the high res image - that way, if I ever decide I want a larger version (and I do), I don't end up having to choose between redoing the work or relying on interpolation.

Re:I just got 2.4! (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220141)

So what do you do if you have an image at the resolution it needs to be and you want to put text on it? Do you upsample the image, apply the text, and then rescale it back down to the original resolution? Or do you create the text in a separate document at the higher resolution and then layer it onto the image (which is already at the correct resolution)? Honestly, I'm curious. There are times where you don't necessarily have the luxury of starting with a really high-res image that you can then scale down.

Re:I just got 2.4! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219087)

I absolutely love working with GIMP...

Yeah. Ummmmmmm, between you and me...um....what are you taking? And who's your supplier?

GEGL (4, Interesting)

blindd0t (855876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219139)

So now with GEGL worked into GIMP, how long will it be until we see something equivalent to Photoshop's Layer Groups? Is it already in this release? (I didn't see anything about it in the release notes.) Sometimes simple projects grow in size to the point where it'd be very convenient to be able to better organize layers in groups and sub-groups. I like GIMP, and it would be much more practical for me to use it more often with this feature.

Re:I just got 2.4! (2, Informative)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219297)

I absolutely love working with GIMP, but the fonts still don't come out as nice as they do in Photoshop. I'm not graphical design savvy enough to know why, only that my fonts look like crud when compared to the smooth output of Photoshop.

Could it be the kerning [wikipedia.org]? I don't use GIMP, but kerning is one of those things that can be hard to put your finger on, but make a huge difference on whether or not text looks good.

Re:I just got 2.4! (2, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219493)

Kerning is definitely part of the problem. Even with the auto-hinter on and/or forced, the text kerning is still a bit bizarre. But even then, Photoshop appears to emit smoother edges on the text. GIMP fonts often look rough around the edges, and I can't figure out why.

Re:I just got 2.4! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219589)

I experienced the same problem with crappy looking fonts, specifically when printing. I have gotten around this by changing the ppi to 300 (the default is 72) when creating a new image. This has made a huge difference and the fonts look much better. The option is under the advanced section when you create a new image.

Re:I just got 2.4! (2, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219945)

You know what? I think that does the trick! I never would have thought of using the DPI to increase the resolution of fonts. But if you think about the way that font renderers are implemented, it makes a lot of sense. Kudos!

Re:I just got 2.4! (3, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220023)

I haven't used GIMP in a long time, but what you describe sounds more like an issue with how it handles antialiasing. Photoshop gives you several different options for how it applies antialiasing, which you adjust depending on the character shapes and how they interact with the background imagery you're dealing with (for instance, you might use 'smooth' for small text on a dark background, or 'sharp' for a large headline). With GIMP it looks like it's just a single checkbox--on or off.

CYMK (5, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25218759)

A question, is there CYMK color separation support already?

Sorry if this was implemented already, I havent checked on the Gimp in a while.

Re:CYMK (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25218943)

I don't see it anywhere in the release notes, though the potential for CMYK support was one of the reasons for the move to GEGL.

There is a plugin called seperate+ [yellowmagic.info], though I'm not sure if that still works properly with the new version.

There's also a potentially useful article [archlinux.org] on this on the Arch Linux wiki.

Re:CYMK (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219033)

CMYK support for the GIMP [archlinux.org] - Why you might not need CMYK support in the GIMP.

Separate+ CMYK separations plugin for GIMP [yellowmagic.info] -- And if you really need it, get this. Very nice. Supports ICC color profiles.

Re:CYMK (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219175)

Thanks a lot. I'll look into it.

CMYK support is absolutely necessary for any serious attempt at desktop publishing.

Re:CYMK (4, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219353)

Don't you just love the number of times people say "You don't really need CMYK support"? For those of use who work in the professional publishing world and see our work printed on real presses, YES WE DO!

Re:CYMK (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219357)

Thanks a lot. I'll look into it.

CMYK support is absolutely necessary for any serious attempt at desktop publishing.

Unless your desktop publishing operation goes out to a litho offset printer, I wouldn't worry about it. Most other kinds of printers only take RGB inputs, even if they use CMYK inks.

Re:CYMK (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219827)

Only if you intend to publish on paper. If you want to publish on websites, or any other screen medium, then CMYK is completely useless.

Windows version still lagging. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25218889)

the Windows compile and installer is still only at 2.4.7.. A great release but it will take a couple of weeks or months before the windows people can enjoy the UI changes that will confound all the users for weeks on end until they get used to yet again a change in the UI.

Re:Windows version still lagging. (2, Informative)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219013)

you're not looking deep enough. see here [sourceforge.net]. not quite 2.6.0, but close enough.

Re:Windows version still lagging. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219051)

The 2.6.0 installer for Windows is basically ready. It just needs a little more testing and should become available in a day or two.

Re:Windows version still lagging. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219221)

the Windows compile and installer is still only at 2.4.7.. A great release but it will take a couple of weeks or months before the windows people can enjoy the UI changes that will confound all the users for weeks on end until they get used to yet again a change in the UI.

At least they didn't put in a ribbon. ;0

Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1, Insightful)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25218913)

Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now?

Yes, I know about gfig, and I know I can laboriously create paths and nonsense like that, but sometimes I just want to draw shapes simply and directly.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (4, Informative)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25218987)

Make an oval / rectangular selection, stroke with the desired width. Wasn't so laborious now was it? But for a more drawing oriented program check out Krita. There should be a Windows port soon as well.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219405)

A missing feature is still a missing feature, no matter the workaround. If someone was selling a car with no seatbelts, I wouldn't buy it just because someone pointed out I could make my own easily enough.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219771)

Making your own seatbelts would be more akin to creating a new plug-in for GIMP. What GP suggested is merely a 2-step process to accomplish what could be done in 1... the tools are already provided, you just have to use them.

Why create entirely different "line", "rectangle", "polygon", and "ellipse" tools when "stroke selection" and "stroke path" do all of those — and more? For example, "rounded rectangle": rectangle select, grow selection by radius, stroke selection.

Plus, the time you save by creating a "rectangle" tool isn't that significant because it won't be used very often. The 2-step workaround is fast enough that it's not worth the trouble.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1)

replicant108 (690832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219467)

Make an oval / rectangular selection, stroke with the desired width. Wasn't so laborious now was it?

Drawing with the selection tool may not be laborious, but it is obscure and counter-intuitive.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219763)

Drawing with the selection tool may not be laborious, but it is obscure and counter-intuitive.

Perhaps - I guess I've used Gimp for so long that it doesn't seem counter-intuitive, but YMMV. However, given how many tools already exist in the toolbox, I'll gladly draw this way as opposed to having a few (not so essential, IMHO) icons more there.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219883)

Funny that you should say that, because when you were looking for the "rectangle" tool, I bet your first assumption was that the "box-looking thingy" was the tool you wanted. Well, it was; you just didn't realize "stroke selection" was the tool to get you from point A ("I have a rectangular selection, now what?") to point B ("black rectangle outline").

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219823)

Make an oval / rectangular selection, stroke with the desired width. Wasn't so laborious now was it?

The problem I have is that I already vaguely know that's how you're supposed to draw shapes in Gimp. However, I probably need to do that less than once per year, so I've usually forgotten the details each time I try it. Now I'm stuck poking around until I relearn the exact procedure.

If they really never want to include a simple shape drawing tool, they need to add a Clippy-like popup: "It looks like you're trying to draw a shape using our back-asswards method. Let me show you the counterintuitive steps you'll need to take..."

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25220001)

This is sad. I've been using Gimp for a long time and never knew about using stroke to outline a selection. I've always selected an area, filled it, shrunk the selection and cut out the area I didn't need.

Always did the job I needed it to, but could've been easier. I thank you for saving time in the future.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (3, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219011)

Then you want Inkscape instead.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (4, Interesting)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219159)

Then you want Inkscape instead.

No really I want GIMP to be able to do this.

Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

These things should be single step operations from the main control pane.

Rich.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219277)

They are simple, you are the reason why you can't do it. Everyone else manages it just fine.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (2, Insightful)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219535)

This train of thought here is exactly what's wrong with Linux and the OSS world in general. If it's already doable, no matter how hard and /or obscure the method, than that's just good enough,no reason to improve.

Until this attitude is corrected, OSS will continue to go nowhere.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1, Troll)

qwertphobia (825473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219683)

This train of thought here is exactly what's wrong with Microsoft and the Win32 world in general. If it's already doable, no matter how easy and /or efficient the method, than it's just not good enough, it's gotta be tinkered with just to charge the users for the next upgrade.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219933)

Using Microsoft's failures to justify OSS' shortcomings is like using Bill Clinton's blowjob to excuse Bush's fuck-ups.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219717)

Oh, if I had but a penny for every thing that is exactly what's wrong with Linux and the OSS world in general!

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219881)

Ever think that maybe some of this stuff just might be right? Ever think that maybe these criticisms aren't something people have pulled out of their asses, but are rather genuine complaints based on their experiances? I can deal with a learning curve. I cannot accept a sharp, jagged peak.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219725)

Parent sums it up perfectly. Until OSS gets this through it's thick collective skull, they'll never have more than 1% of the market in something like this field. GIMP is, quite simply, a PITA to use. It needn't be, but it is. THAT'S why people still pay for Photoshop.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1)

Enselic (933809) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219837)

Why are you listening to him? He is a random person on the internet.

The train of thought rather usually goes like this: "It is already doable but rather awkward to use. I don't need this feature very often though, and I have more interesting/important things to work on."

The GIMP developers would of course not reject a patch that implemented this in a nice way.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (1)

mrrudge (1120279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219367)

It would be nice if it had a drop down of the names of all the people in the photograph too, maybe it could get their favourite ring colour from facebook ?

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219975)

Yep, just use the oval or rectangular selection tool.

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (4, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220095)

No really I want GIMP to be able to do this.

It can.

Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

Circle somebody: Ellipse select tool, select an oval. Stroke selection. Choose a line style, you're done.

Cartoon speech bubble: Ellipse selection, shift-lasso select the arrow (if you can't draw a straight enough line, convert to a path, edit the path to put an arrow in, then convert back to a selection). Fill with background colour using the paint tool (fill whole selection). Stroke selection, choose line style. Put the words in it with the text tool. If you're doing that a lot, make a generic text balloon and save it, then insert it as a layer when you need one.

These things should be single step operations from the main control pane.

Why? What's wrong with a 2-step operation? It's still relatively quick considering how often people want to do what you described (not very often; heck, the people who just want to do that generally get by with MS Paint).

Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25220083)

This is not an MSPaint, mmm'kay?

Still no high colour depth? (4, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25218991)

It's not completely clear from the release notes: does this mean that the GIMP can now load and save images with 16 or 32 bits per colour channel, or is it still limited to 8-bit RGB despite the new GEGL engine under the hood?

It's still essentially 8-bit. (3, Informative)

Glytch (4881) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219361)

It's a long story, but the short version is that there's a ton of archaic, horribly outdated 8-bit legacy code gumming up the works. Until it's all replaced with 32-bit capable code, GIMP will continue to be unusable for photography beyond the party snapshot level.

Re:Still no high colour depth? (1)

Beetle B. (516615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219533)

I suspect the answer is "No", because they say that a lot of the code still depends on 8 bit code. But I guess the implication was "They're getting there".

There really isn't much here to warrant a major release (at least for the end user). I thought they had declared that the next major release would have full GEGL integration. Maybe I'm wrong.

The future of GIMP (5, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219005)

Let's be honest here. I like GIMP, I generally prefer it over photoshop (for what I do). But it's not photoshop and it gets shit on for that reason. The solution: GIMP should ditch GTK/GDK and use GNUStep/Cocoa. This provides a number of advantages - free CMYK and pantone support, better font rendering, an improved UI, and direct access to artistic types. Photoshop on OS X is a dog -- the look and feel doesn't match and Adobe won't provide a 64-bit version until CS 5 (if then). An OS X native GIMP would kick it's ass.

Re:The future of GIMP (2, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219171)

Photoshop on OS X is a dog -- the look and feel doesn't match and Adobe won't provide a 64-bit version until CS 5 (if then).

Just what are you running on? A Newton? PS CS2 / CS3 is / are quite happy with any recent Mac this side of a mini. And PS for Windows isn't exactly snappy on anything but a reasonably fast, memory stuffed PC. As for the 64 bit version, you're just blowing smoke. It's a 10-20% speed increase, at best, on gigabyte sized images. If you do these routinely, well then, go get Vista. I often do 3 - 4 gigabyte panoramas. Even on an 8GB Mac Pro they take a while (10-15 minutes to stitch). 64 bit would shave a minute or two off that? W00t!

Even manipulating multi gigabyte images on the 'ol 32 bit platform is pretty snappy. 64 bits will be nice, I'll take it when it comes, but I'm not crying about it.

If you think PS on OS X is a dog, either you don't know your breeds or you don't know how to set up a Photoshop capable machine.

Re:The future of GIMP (3, Informative)

aurb (674003) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219509)

Ditch GTK? That's kinda funny, because GTK was created as the toolkit for GIMP (GTK stands for The GIMP Toolkit) :-)

Re:The future of GIMP (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219833)

It is not photoshop... However if anyone wants to use photoshop in Linux they tell them use the Gimp, it is just as good... Which is bad advice. My output with Photoshop is much higher then with the GIMP, it may be just me and how I approach problems but in general I can get much more done and look a lot better with photoshop vs. the GIMP. It is not that GIMP is photoshop or the developers are trying to make it like Photoshop, However it given as a replacement where it isn't.
Photoshop is only a dog when dealing with HUGE Images.

Re:The future of GIMP (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219885)

The solution: GIMP should ditch GTK/GDK and use GNUStep/Cocoa. This provides a number of advantages - free CMYK and pantone support,

Wow, GNUStep has pantone support?

better font rendering,

How? from what I've seen, GTK's font rendering is as good as X's itself, same as GNUStep. Care to mention any difference?

an improved UI,

You can improve an UI solely by porting an app to a different toolkit? and one that's designed around UI conventions that don't apply to any other desktop in existence?

and direct access to artistic types.

Artists use GNUStep?

An OS X native GIMP would kick it's ass.

Ohh, that explains it, you want TheGIMP to switch from being a multiplatform application to one designed around an OS that's neither Free nor dominant in the desktop market. Sorry, not gonna happen.

Re:The future of GIMP (2, Insightful)

paulbd (118132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219985)

It would cool if Photoshop made the same move too, eh? Its not written with Cocoa either, which is giving Adobe a few headaches now that Carbon has been even more officially deprecated than it used to be. Seriously, you simply don't seem to understand what is involved in switching an program that it totally rooted in its GUI from one GUI toolkit to another. People say this as though its a simple recoding. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even porting from one version of a toolkit to another can be traumatic, let alone porting between two different 'kits. Much more optimistic is the fact that the GTK/Quartz port gets better every week, allowing the GIMP guys to offer a "native" (non-X11 based) build with very few code changes.

I just love Gimp (-1, Troll)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219059)

I just love Gimp. But why does Gimp have to separate the windows like that? Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?

Oh, and I noticed that images created with Gimp have a smaller size than Adobe Photoshop.

Re:I just love Gimp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219163)

Some of us like the separated windows.

Re:I just love Gimp (2, Interesting)

Beetle B. (516615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219253)

I just love Gimp. But why does Gimp have to separate the windows like that? Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?

I thought that was the whole point of:

This enables window managers to do a much better job of managing the GIMP windows, including omitting the Toolbox and Docks from the taskbar and ensuring that the Toolbox and Docks always are above image windows.

Frankly, I liked it as it was. I hope there's an option to get back the old behavior. I often have different images in different work spaces.

Re:I just love Gimp (2, Informative)

Tx (96709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219853)

In Photoshop CS3 you have the best of both worlds, you can undock the various elements and have them independently anywhere on the screen, or you can dock them in the main application window. That's always been the problem with the GIMP UI, those of us that don't like the default behaviour don't have the option of changing it (short of becoming a GIMP developer and forking the code, anyway). It doesn't look from the screenshots as if the old GIMP UI behaviour has really changed in the way implied anyway, but maybe I'm missing something.

Re:I just love Gimp (5, Insightful)

Glytch (4881) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219293)

I just love Gimp. But why does Gimp have to separate the windows like that? Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?

Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.

Re:I just love Gimp (2, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219911)

[note: I won't have a chance to try the new version until later tonight, so this post is based on earlier versions. This sounds fair to me, since the "MDI/SDI" debate has raged for centuries, and has, until now at least, been completely inapplicable to Gimp, which is neither]

Got it. Agreed.
Now show me ANY window manager which handles such a thing as well as, say, Photoshop's MDI for a single application.

It seems that everyone who makes this argument seems to be of the "virtual desktop" bunch (usually 1 application per desktop). ie: Those who don't actually use the primary feature of a windowed environment: Windows!

Meanwhile, GIMP tries to have it both ways, sharing arbitrary windows whose context depends on the last window selected, while (arbitrarily) putting "cross-window" features in [not a shared interface, but instead:] EVERY WINDOW.

There's MDI, there's SDI, and then there's GIMP, which has taken the worst features of both.

When I get home, I'll download the latest version, which may have actually addressed all of these complaints (the release notes tease more than any previous versions' has. I still expect it to be usability hell; but, for example, removal of the menu bar from the toolbox window sounds very promising.

Re:I just love Gimp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219915)

Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.

Helloooo, tabbed interface?

Re:I just love Gimp (5, Insightful)

TheBig1 (966884) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219307)

Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?

Please, no! Multiple windows are great for multiple monitors and / or multiple documents being edited at once. I can't stand programs which force you into one window. If you want, you can combine all the tool docks into one, and thus have just a document window and a tool window, but please don't force us to do so!

Cheers

Re:I just love Gimp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219487)

afaik there exists a extension or patch to do that.

16bit depth support, yeah! (2, Interesting)

davFr (679391) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219939)

This is good news for us photographers! 90% of the time, photographers only set constrast/brightness/level/curves of their photos. These tasks cause lots of color aliasing in 8bit mode, but they are just fine in 16bit mode. With Gegl support, I can use gimp for my photo flow :)

But does it look like Photoshop yet? (1, Troll)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220147)

I try and try to use it as a photoshop replacement, I really do, but I am lost without it looking a lot more like Photoshop. And what's with all those top-level windows anyway? I use a multitasking OS because I multi-task. I don't want to have to minimize 7 windows when I want to minimize gimp.

I'm a smart guy. I can use image editors, but the layout and thinking of Gimp is just left of center, far enough to make me uncomfortable in it. Am I alone in this? Is Gimp not getting users because of it? Is this in turn slowing Linux adoption?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...