Beta
×

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!

The GIMP Gets Ready for 2.2

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the photoshop-looking-worried dept.

The Gimp 478

An anonymous contributor writes "As promised, this time it didn't take another 3 years for a new stable GIMP version to be released. 8 months after GIMP 2.0 hit the road, GIMP 2.2 is almost done. The GIMP developers released 2.2-pre2 today and unless any major problems show up, the GIMP 2.2.0 release is going to follow later this month. The GIMP Wiki has a comprehensive list of new features in GIMP 2.2 and here are some screenshots of the development version."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Win32 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10879955)

Such an impressive program...hopefully we will see the windows version soon.

Gimp rocks

Re:Win32 (2, Informative)

dan dan the dna man (461768) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879966)

Erm.. I can't work out if you're trolling or not ;)

Clicky for Win32 goodness [sourceforge.net]

Re:Win32 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10879997)

I use both Gimp & Pan on WinXP, wish there're more GTK+ apps ported. Would be even better if there's a theme selector.

Re:Win32 (2, Informative)

ninthwave (150430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879968)

The windows version is in the screen shots, note it says Gimp 2.2 on Windows XP.

woo hoo (-1, Offtopic)

boudie (704942) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879956)

My first first post. Yeah, gimp's great.

Re:woo hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10879962)

Isn't that embarrasing?

Re:woo hoo (1, Offtopic)

boudie (704942) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879994)

Do I detect jealousy?

GIMP on Windows vs Linux (5, Interesting)

dan dan the dna man (461768) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879961)

I wonder if the GIMP is slightly more useable on Windows in its next incarnation? I have been raving about the GIMP to anyone who will listen, for most people I know it's a very worthy replacement for Photoshop.

However I recently set up a dual boot laptop for my gf (the only way she will boot into Linux though is to play FreeCiv ;)) and put the GIMP on XP for her. When she complained it was unusable, I didn't believe her - I've found it very intuitive under Linux. But after trying it on XP, it really does feel like a crippled version of the package I know and love - it's clunky, ugly and restrictive.

Now of course, she is using a commercial package derived from a bittorrent source, and my OSS evangelism has fallen flat on its face :/

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux (1)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879998)

However I recently set up a dual boot laptop for my gf (the only way she will boot into Linux though is to play FreeCiv ;)) and put the GIMP on XP for her. When she complained it was unusable, I didn't believe her - I've found it very intuitive under Linux. But after trying it on XP, it really does feel like a crippled version of the package I know and love - it's clunky, ugly and restrictive.


She just has to get used to a different interface way of doing things. Many people already have experience useing other things, but they aren't GIMP and if you want the power it wields then of course you need to do more than pick a colour from a button and then draw in simple dots and lines.

Make her sit down with the program for a month and not use anything else, and in that time you can be sure she will eventually find it the easiest thing she is using.

Take it from me it just takes time to get to know how it works and once you use it like that it is intuitive and very powerful

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux (1)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880024)

You missed the point of his post. He uses GIMP under linux and said the windows version is crippled some how, its not 100% the same.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux (2, Interesting)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880078)

Windows is what's crippled. On X you use GIMP on it's own virtual desktop, on windows you have to install some tackled on add-on to do the same. Without virtual desktops GIMP can be... dificult, if you use other programms at the same time.

You zealots are so funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880112)

Windows is what's crippled.
It's GTK+ that's crippled. The Windows port of GTK is a piece of shit (pardon my language) and just plain sucks royally.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880088)

If it takes a month to learn a UI, then its fucked right out of the box, period. Wise up.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux (5, Insightful)

Technonotice_Dom (686940) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880115)

Not necessarily. It's often said there are two important stages of the UI in a program. There's the initial time to learn it, get used to how it operates in relation to what's being done, and there's how well it operates when you're actually used to it.

Different programs have different focuses. If I was writing a piece of photo software - the sort that's thrown in with cheap digital cameras etc, then I'd probably strive to make it very intuitive when the user first used it, based on the assumption that people buying cheap digicams aren't well versed in graphics software. That may come at the cost of making very restrictive when the user wanted to use the program in the future and expand on what they want to do.

If the software was harder to learn, then it may be that when you're more used to it, you can use it a lot more fluently after you've gotten used to it, compared to if it had been easier to grasp. It isn't hard and fast though that an easy to grasp interface is restrictive later on, or that a difficult interface is more productive after a while - but it's a rough idea of two different approaches designers can have to an interface. Needless to say, there are interfaces that are both difficult to learn, and still crap when you've got used to it.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux (1, Insightful)

paulbd (118132) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880154)

did you even read the parent post? the writer said that they loved the GIMP interface. the complaint was that the windows version seems different in some important ways.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux (1)

Technonotice_Dom (686940) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880187)

I was replying regarding interfaces generally to an AC saying:

If it takes a month to learn a UI, then its fucked right out of the box, period. Wise up.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux (1)

schumaml (78970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880194)

Knowing these differences would be interesting - especially since some users complain that it looks and feels like the "unix version" on each platform.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux (1)

jokumuu (831894) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880017)

Well, for me.. I neer found the GIMP interface secially nice. I can get thins done on it, but have to struggle. I think it is because it has somehow allways been "so different" from other graphics software.

Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10879964)

Why is this is the "developer" section?

Can I not have so many floating boxes? (4, Interesting)

Magickcat (768797) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879969)

Gimp seems like a really good graphics package, but I still really struggle with the fact that it opens all these seperate boxes that I have to move around. I just want them snapped into a background.

I want the good old Photoshop/Illustrator/Dreamweaver layout, without having to shuffle 4 floating tool windows about that do different stuff. I'm sure that there is a really good reason to the layout, but I just can't get beyond this unusual interface, and just switch to windows graphics packages because of it.

Even if I make the image take up my whole screen, I don't like the fact that the tool window etc can wander around and aren't fixed - like every other graphics package that I've ever used. Why oh why does it have to be different?

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (1)

Bill_Royle (639563) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879979)

Absolutely agreed. I haven't used it in quite a while myself for that very reason - it's probably very useful for some people that multitask like mad, but for me I like to have all windows within an app nailed down to some degree.

Admittedly, though, this may have changed since the last time I used it? If such an option's been added, I'd be happy to chuck the alternative!

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (4, Informative)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880110)

As of Gimp 2.0, you can "dock" pretty much any window or toolbar in pretty much any other. It's pretty handy for keeping your workspace clutter-free.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (2, Insightful)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879984)

I can never quite understand this argument, no matter how many times I hear it. Take out the MAIN window in photoshop, the one that serves as a dock and menu interface, and you have several floating windows. Exactly the same as the gimp.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (2, Interesting)

interJ (653180) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880089)

That's just fine if you're only running Gimp. But if you have other applications running, you'll see them in the background between the gimp windows which is distracting (unless you bother to minimize them each time you switch applications).

Also, gimp clutters up the task bar, which makes it harder to switch applications, and means that when you want to switch to gimp you will have to click each of the gimp taskbar buttons instead of clicking just one.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (2, Insightful)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880117)

I'm going to assume that you have multiple desktops. Fairly common for a linux system, to a lesser extent in Windows even though the feature has been around for a while.

Go to a clean desktop, start gimp, do whatever you want to do. Use another desktop for running whatever else you need/want to run at the same time. Now, I know that in the window manager I use (fluxbox), tasks that are running on one desktop are not shown in the taskbar of another desktop.

With this setup (which seems intuitive to me) I don't have the problems you mentioned.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (2, Interesting)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880172)

Actually, I've found that in a lot of ways the floating windows are better than those in something like Photoshop. For instance, in Photoshop many of the windows are always on top of the image editing window, so they obscure the image even if you aren't using them. So I end up wasting a lot of time moving them, or turning them off entirely if they aren't used a lot. This is a HUGE pain though when I'm using the brush editing window while painting textures, since I adjust the settings pretty frequently.

With Gimp, particularly on Linux, this isn't a problem at all. I can completely hide all the other windows behind the main image window that I'm working on if I want. And a middle-click to the title bar will drop that window to the back so I can see the ones that were hidden. Though usually I just leave a corner sticking out and rely on my focus follows mouse and auto-raise to get at the tool panels.

Maybe it's time for all these Windows users who hate Gimp to try it the way it was meant to be used. Since it's pretty damn sweet when the operating environment doesn't suck.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (5, Informative)

Yorrike (322502) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879987)

I want the good old Photoshop/Illustrator/Dreamweaver layout, without having to shuffle 4 floating tool windows about that do different stuff.

Then drag the tools you want into the tool window. You have all the tools in one window and your image in another. It's a far superior layout to that of PS.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880012)

> Then drag the tools you want into the tool window. You have
> all the tools in one window and your image in another. It's a
> far superior layout to that of PS.

Uhhh then it's exactly the same as photoshop can be.

Same != far superior.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880040)

That still doesnt fix the many many things in the taskbar, photoshop atleast does not show those

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880067)

Spoiled, whiny, bitch. Do you cry when it's too cold outside or some mean guy stole your seat at the lunch table??

Oh no, there are too many things in my TASKBAR!

God forbid!

Seriously, if you can't understand the concept of multiple desktops (and their use in seperating groups of running programs) I find it amazing that you can log on to the internets and fucking post such utter idiocy on slashdot.

Oh wait...

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880107)

I just click the blue "e". It always downloads nice toolbars for me.

Taskbar Grouping (4, Informative)

BigSven (57510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880100)

A lot of people like to be able to select individual windows from the taskbar. If you don't, then you can configure your taskbar to group all GIMP windows together. GIMP sets the same WM_CLASS property [tronche.com] on all it's windows (even on plug-in windows) and it has done so since GIMP 1.2. That allows the window manager and your taskbar to easily identify GIMP windows and treat them as a group. You can then minimize/maximize all GIMP windows in a single operation, move the window group to a different desktop or whatever else you want to do...

Now what would be nice if there was an equivalent window manager hint available for Win32. Perhaps there is, and all that's missing is support from the Win32 GTK+ backend?

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (1)

forgoil (104808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880010)

Same here, I want all the little windows inside another big window, just as in photoshop. Photoshop has a more "gimp" alike system on the mac, and it really really sucks ass bigtime. Same with apps like codewarrior. Fortunatly they gave taht one a "not one million little windows cluttering up everything" mode for windows, which made it as least useful.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (4, Insightful)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880029)

Doesn't the mac have a kind of "sheet of glass" model for applications? So it behaves as if each application is stuck on its own sheet of glass, stacked on the desktop, and you choose which one to bring to the front - so that clicking on any window in an app brings up all the application's windows?

That would be my ideal GIMP behaviour, anyway.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (1)

Vokbain (657712) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880082)

Palettes work that way in Mac OS X, but regular windows no longer do. They can be stacked in any order.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (4, Informative)

BigSven (57510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880125)

If you go the GIMP preferences dialog, select the "Window Management" page and enable the "Utility window" hint for the docks and/or the toolbox, your window manager is supposed to keep the docks and the toolbox above the image windows. So you basically get exactly that behaviour.

This is not the default because we got a couple of angry bug reports when it used to be the default in the 1.3.x series. Now what's missing is an equivalent setting that works on Win32. Perhaps one of the /. readers knows more about the Win32 window API and could help to implement this in the Win32 backend of GTK+?

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880136)

You just made GIMP twice as usable for me - thanks for pointing that out. It's now like an improved version of the Photoshop behaviour. Fantastic!

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (1)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880113)

Your options:
1) Install GNU/Linux or one of the BSDs and marvel at the "wonder" of virtual desktops.
2) But Photoshop and leave us alone.
3) Get out your text editor and compiler (or get something to do it for you, the GIMP developers aren't interested right now).

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (2, Insightful)

HoneyBunchesOfGoats (619017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880030)

Having used both programs, it's not the toolboxes themselves that are the problem; whenever I use Photoshop, I move all the tools onto my second monitor so that there's nothing to obscure my view of the image I'm working on (so in that sense there's not much difference between Photoshop and the GIMP). What I feel gives Photoshop the edge is the refinement and consistency of the tools themselves. Having been around and receiving user feedback for so long, Photoshop's tools have been refined to the point where they are nearly as intuitive as they can be made for their specific interface, and behave fairly consistenly from one tool to the next. With the GIMP, the manner in which each tool gets used is not as refined, and it's sometimes not as clear how to make use of some of the tools.

Still, I'm very excited about this release, the GIMP seems to get better every time. I'm sure I'll play around with it a lot once it comes out.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880185)

That's generally pretty true of Photoshop, except their brush editing panel, which is ass-to-ass. It's got lots of nice features for customising the heck out of the brush, but it's huge and unwieldy if you're doing a lot of adjustment to the brush head.

You're spelling it wrong, my friend ... (1)

danalien (545655) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880038)

but you are pronouncing it right :-)

The thing is, the org. Gimp'rs like the UI as it is (including me) - and 'them' & myself wouldn't like it to change.

Allthough, I'm open miden (enough) to understand that others 'frown' on it. And that you're just used to a different set of mind - in contrast to 'us'. (I see nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite - a diverse culture is a good thing *IMHO*)

So, my proposal would be, to have a GIMP with a UI that can 'morph' between the too by checking for some settings in the Pref's.

So we both can have our 'way' and still get along :-)

s/open miden/open-minded/ (1)

danalien (545655) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880045)

*what a goofball mistake :)*

Re:You're spelling it wrong, my friend ... (1)

squoozer (730327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880155)

Have a look at the NetBeans Java IDE. It can do exactly what you suggest. It started out like the Gimp with windows all over the place (which I dislicked at first but am getting used to) and an option to have a single window display. The last couple of releases have focused on a single window display with panels that you can click into other places (eg you can make a tabbed pane of panels to les used tools). The flexability this offers amazing.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (2, Insightful)

mattgorle (807823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880046)

Absolutely, completely agreed.

Having "grown up" with Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and Illustrator, the idea of having 4 totally separate windows for the toolbars doesn't sit well with me. I realise that their floating palettes are effectively windows, but they're different (smaller title bars, slightly different behaviour).

One thing that might help, if the single window model is impossible, could be if they "snapped" to, say, 2 pixels of the desktop edge (as they do in Photoshop) and remember their positions between sessions. This'd at least let me quickly impose order on my GIMP virtual desktop.

GIMP could be great. I'd use it all the time instead of Photoshop under VMWare (!), if I could get my head around its little annoyances.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880057)

The gimp windows also have slightly different behavior. But it is left to your windowmanager to impose the slightly differentness.

GIMP does indeed announce to the windowmanager what kind of windows each window is, any snapping to screen boundaries, different title bar, stacking level etc. is not a GIMP task, but a wm task.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880190)

Gimp can already do that, at least it does if you're running it in KDE. Been a long time since I ran it on anything else, except Windows. And I think we all know how well that turned out.

Even better... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880048)

I'd prefer a 3D Studio Max-type layout, where it does have a single window, but plugins etc. can drop straight into the existing ui, and look like they've been part of the design all along. This kind of system is incredibly powerful.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (1)

augustz (18082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880102)

Couldn't agree more.

The transition cost is significant with all the floating windows. Found it frustrating when moving back and forth.

Realize everyone who uses gimp loves this setup, but for those of us transitioning from almost any other graphics toolset it is a bit of a difficult transition.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes? (3, Informative)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880152)

There is a reason, though it's not particularly a good one. Sort of the same reason that early version of the Visual Basic IDE and all the OSX software runs like that. And it's kind of dumb, but with a separate virtual desktop it really isn't that big of a deal, and hardly something that is really in need of changing.

Some things that do need changing about The GIMP are the filters and brush quality, which in general give very poor results compared to those in Photoshop. Also I'd really like layer styles (at least the stroke and overlay, and maybe drop shadow, the rest can pretty much go bugger themselves) and most importantly layer sets.

Working with an image that has 30 or 40 layers (which is really easy to do when texturing 3D models) is a huge PITA without the ability to sort them into sets.

As far as the interface war goes, I'm really inclined to side with GIMP now. Their brush editing panel is a lot easier to use than Photoshop's, which has tons of features but tends to get in the way unless you put it in that tabbed thing which makes it really difficult to use at all. With GIMP the panel just drops behind the editing window so you don't have to have it in the way, which works really well particularly with focus follows mouse and auto-raise, not to mention window shading.

I think it's time that the GIMP devels turn less toward new features and more toward really getting the quality behind the ones that they do have. Because Photoshop isn't advancing very quickly anymore and is past ripe for a take down. It's just a matter of someone stepping up to do it, though beating the Photoshop marketing and mindshare will always be tough.

You use Photoshop on Windows, right? (1)

Craig Ringer (302899) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880196)

I think you'd hate Photoshop on MacOS just as much. It also uses lots of floating palettes, etc.

I, on the other hand, flip out completely trying to use what I find to be a horrible MDI interface for Phoshop on Windows. I find both the GIMP and Photoshop/Mac <i>much</i> more usable than Photoshop/Windows.

On X11, GIMP's "native" environment, it's possible to control all this stuff at the window manager level (assuming your window manager is not too dumbed down to let you - grr). You can lock windows into layers, force them to be on top, make them sticky so they show on all virtual desktops, etc. It's a level of control that lets you match the MDI of Photshop/Windows if you want, or make the app work how _you_ like it.

I think a key issue is that Windows doesn't give you this control, so GIMP on Windows is quite a bit harder to use :-(

Gimp is uncomfortable (1, Troll)

lauPi (174498) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879970)

Everytime I have to use it, I must frown.
Its user interface is just so uncomfortable and annoying I really cannot honour the fact that it has many professional features and is very powerful.
But it's just so painful to use!

Re:Gimp is uncomfortable (1)

OffTheLip (636691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880011)

Depends on how Gimp is used. As an amateur I was able to locate the limited features I wanted and learned to use them. Really quite simple. Obviously Gimp is much more than what I use and professional graphic art needs drive the rest of the features. I assume they are relevant to more advanced users.

Re:Gimp is uncomfortable (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880018)

Its user interface is just so uncomfortable and annoying


I guess Gimp's name was inspired by its user interface. When newbies ask me, I tell them the Gimp can do anything one can imagine, but one just cannot imagine how.


A good starting point is Grokking the GIMP [gimp-savvy.com] , an online that's also available in paper. There you can follow step by step how some usual image editing tasks are done.

quick (1, Troll)

.silG.00 (683700) | more than 9 years ago | (#10879973)

quick question, is the GIMP on par with photoshop?

i really dont know as i havent used linux , windows 0wnz.

Re:quick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880064)

No. It's a perfect example of "you get what you pay for."

Re:quick (2, Insightful)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880124)

I paid nothing and get a high quality raster editot for non-print work, not nothing.

Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10879981)

  1. Someone clone the Photoshop interface please. Yes, OSS or not, the interface does matter.
  2. Yes, color (or if you prefer, colour) management is important.
  3. GTK widgets look about as good as OSX without Aqua. Yes, OSS or not, looks do matter, and our eyes will thank you for it.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously. (1)

jokumuu (831894) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880028)

The interface really matters, a friend of mine is a real GIMP evangelist, I think he has convinced everyone he knows to try it.. But.. people quickly turn to other programs, not because of the functions, but because of the usability.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously. (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880104)

I think it's a matter of preference and ability/inclination to learn a new way of doing things rahter than usability problem. Gimp does what it does just fine, and can rival PS in the hands of someone who is used to working with it. I'm not trying to say that photoshop is a crap product, far from it. I'm just saying that if you want free, open-source software to be prepared to learn a new way to do things. Either that or write some code to make it do what you want it to do and contribute it back into the project. If it's such a hassle for people to get over the fact that there is no MDI parent window or learning how to group tasks together so that all of them come up at the same time: buy photoshop.

One word comes to mind after reading your message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880120)

Rationalization.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously. (1)

jokumuu (831894) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880171)

I think you are missing the point, people willing enought to try GIMP are turned away because they do not like the interface.

Though the total sample I know of is only twelve or so the errormargin of this survey is very high at around 25% :)

Mod up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880059)

IMHO, these are exactly the things GIMP needs to work on right now. Mod this up.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880137)

Don't like the GTK+ widget defaults? Use GTK-Engines to skin them.

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously. (4, Insightful)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880147)

  1. Yes interface matters, don't break it, for those who grok it. Improvements like from 1.2 to 2.0 are the way to go.
  2. If you need it right now you'll need to look elsewhere. There are many, many applications for a raster editor where colour management does not matter.
  3. I love the Smooth theme, many swear by Industrial, others like the simple default. I also find Aqua too bright, the stripes bother me and the glass buttons hard to read. But if you can make a better GTK theme, by all means start up GIMP (lack of colour management shouldn't hinder you here) or Photoshop (if that's your preference) and get going.

Done to death (1)

Craig Ringer (302899) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880191)

This dicussion has been done to death in many previous Slashdot posts, but I'm going to bite anyway.

The Photoshop interface is far from perfect, too. I have new users at work who have been exposed to both the GIMP and Photoshop 7/MacOS, and they find things confusing and difficult in both. Users tend to be able to unable to find functionalty, and tend to be unable to retrieve palettes etc when they close them. It seems to be roughtly the same for both apps.

Of course, our experienced Photoshop users are lost in the GIMP. This is unsurprising - it's new and different, after all - and if you're an experienced Photoshop user then I don't doubt you'll find the interface difficult. I use both programs quite comfortably, myself, but I seem to be in the minority.

I _hated_ the GIMP 1.x interface, but I personally think they've done so much to improve usability in 2.0 that it's on par with Photoshop - just different.

Most importantly, I'd strongly prefer different but good to the hideous mostly-similar ugly kind-of-works interface cloning approach of OpenOffice.

I wouldn't mind a Photoshop interface _option_ for the GIMP, but I think the core GIMP developers probably have much better things to do with their time. It's a good thing for the (apparently many) people who want one to think about getting together and writing. Yes, I _do_ speak from experience, having pulled out my thumb and started working on issues that really irritate me in Scribus [scribus.net] .

As for colour management, /there/ I entirely agree with you. If you're not just doing web development, colour management matters. Perhaps even more critical for many uses is proper CMYK support (this generally ties in rather tightly to colour management support). There is primitive support now via a plug-in, but I'm not aware of any good, solid colour management / CMYK support for the GIMP yet :-( .

As for the widgets ... that's just not a GIMP problem. Gtk widgets can be changed using gtk themes and engines. Anyway, as you seem to feel the strong desire to replace the entire UI, that'd be an ideal opportunity to replace the widget set too ;-)

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880193)

Well, I've heard that color management should be coming soon but it'll be a few more years for colour management.

Grits for your Gimp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10879991)

first to pour hot grits down gimp's pantz

Copy and paste (3, Interesting)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880015)

Improved ability to copy and paste between GIMP and other applications, including OpenOffice and Abiword.

Yes! The number of times I've seen Linux newbies ask "Why can't I copy and paste from GIMP" is huge. Looks to be a great release

Very Nice (0)

theolein (316044) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880022)

Bit by bit, the Photoshop fortress falls.

Re:Very Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880073)

Yeah, let GIMP take the talentless nerds out of the Photoshop userbase, the real professionals won't miss them.

Re:Very Nice (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880081)

What prey tell is wrong with Photoshop, it IS the industry standard for image manipulation for professionals and deserves to be so?

Re:Very Nice (4, Insightful)

Nexum (516661) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880105)

No... no, it really doesn't.

There is a need for GIMP as an application, sure, but my god there is a very long way to go, especially with the user interface, and look of the app, before Photoshop even begins to show signs of 'falling'.

I applaud all of the hard work done on the GIMP, by the many undoubtedly talented people who have given their time, but we are still four or five years away from a comfortable PS alternative, and allowing ourselves to think otherwise is totally counterproductive to actually achieving a Photoshop alternative.

Re:Very Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880178)

> There is a need for GIMP as an application, sure, but my god
> there is a very long way to go, especially with the user
> interface, and look of the app, before Photoshop even begins
> to show signs of 'falling'.

Not to mention the simple (but unpopular) statement that... Gimp is just not comparable to Photoshop in features at this time.

Gimp is good, it's very good, it's got its faults and so does photoshop, but saying gimp is going to overthrow photoshop is like saying George Bush will overthrow George Michael, just because they're both Georges

Re:Very Nice (1)

Yorrike (322502) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880180)

If I had the ability I would mod your post to -10^100 frustratingly redundant.

Read the manual and discover the power and wonder of virtual desktops [sourceforge.net] .

GIMP IS a viable alternative to PS, but not if you're so stubborn to belive that PS is where every such application should be.

Here's a challenge, come up with one problem with GIMP that isn't the skipping record of UI complaints (which are, in my opinion, due to a mix of ignorance and stupidity) or lack of CYMK (which is a patent issue).

Re:Very Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880121)



this is complete nonsense.

anyway, for the crowd that gimp might appeal to, the photoshop fortress fell a long time ago. perhaps if you came out of your itsy bitsy world, you would have noticed.

not to mention that a lot of people DON'T LIKE photoshop. i've shown them the gimp, and there reaction? it's photoshop but worse.

gimp has it's niche. anyone who has used photoshop for a living (meaning not one of the gazillions of people who have dicked around with it a bit because they bought an edu copy or stole it) for a few years and tried gimp will not give up photoshop.

sure i'll use gimp in a pinch, but why should i give up my beloved photoshop?

life is too short to shoot myself in the crotch in an attempt to apply some idealogy to every single decision i make when concerning software.

that's just plain stupid.

Bitching (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880032)

Why are you all bitching about the interface? It works perfectly fine for me on linux with fluxbox; I just toss all the windows onto an empty virtual desktop. Perfectly useable and versatile too!

Stop complaining about the GIMP's interface just because your window management sucks. (This goes double for Windows users because, ironically enough, Windows' window management sucks balls.) MDI is a shitty hack, and the GIMP developers have already refused to implement it with good reason.

Re:Bitching (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880036)

Just to add to this, it's a cinch to dock all of the toolbars together so you only have one window with all your tools lined up + open images.

Re:Bitching (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880085)

MDI is a shitty hack, and the GIMP developers have already refused to implement it with good reason.

No, they refused to implement it because it's too hard and it can't be implemented by hobbyinsts.

Not just that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880129)

The "bitching", as you so eloquently put it, isn't just about the MDI windows. The interface to the tools themselves also suck major ass. After all, how many levels of menus must there be under every tool? It's just one of several major drawbacks to using GIMP, X or Windows.

developers.slashdot.org (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880039)

You will have no doubt noticed that this posted under DEVELOPERS.slashdot.org

Says something about GIMP, wouldn't you say?

Re:developers.slashdot.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880183)

Uh, I think it means that the developers of gimp are about to release a new version of their software. What do you think it means?

More than 24bpp support (5, Interesting)

Ace Rimmer (179561) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880044)

Yeah, fine, nice features but I wonder why there is nearly no interest in supporting more than 8bits per color. There is a lot of digital cameras out there, I scan my photos in 48bit mode. It's pretty annoying to to the basic color adjustments in (unstable and ugly) cinepaint which I have to restart after each load/save to avoid a crash and then to continue editing the image in gimp2. If more features are added it will be even harder to make everything properly work in a greater color depth.

Another thing that I miss for a long time is 'macro recording' similar to MS Office or Photoshop actions. Why do I have to write some weird script-fu skeletons and look up for functions and their parameters? It would be much easier if I could record my actions and then to parametrize them some way...

I asked about this at mailing list but the replies were a bit vague about those topics (or even angry)...

Re:More than 24bpp support (4, Informative)

BigSven (57510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880071)

Both features you ask for are on the TODO. The GIMP developers are fully aware of the need for higher color depths. Color management is scheduled to be added in the next development cycle. Whether this also means support for 16bit per color in GIMP 2.4 remains to be seen. At some point it will definitely be added.

Macro recording needs a major redesign of the PDB but there are plans to finally address this. Nothing promised because this is entirely a volunteers' project. New features are added if and only if someone's capable and willing to put some time and effort into it.

Re:More than 24bpp support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880093)

"New features are added if and only if someone's capable and willing to put some time and effort into it."

And that's the problem. That's why professionals don't use it.

Windows (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880055)

why the windows version has the buttons switched like in Gnome? It's very irritating...

Tiny-fu (1)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880065)

Not much on the new scripting engine. Is it still scheme? I'm fairly open minded as far as languages go, but scheme is the most horrifying I have ever seen.

I would like to be able to write scripts using another language, maybe using something like SWIG if it is really needed.

Re:Tiny-fu (4, Informative)

BigSven (57510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880134)

Besides Script-Fu and its successor Tiny-Fu, there's Perl, Python and Lua [gimp.org] for you to choose from. There also used to be Java bindings and probably others but I am not sure if these have been updated for GIMP 2.x yet. Generally, all the functionality is available in a well-defined API and it is not a big deal to write a binding that allows you to write scripts/plug-ins in your favorite programming language.

Re:Tiny-fu (3, Informative)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880162)

Python scripting is in since 2.0 AFAIK.

Give us 16-bit color! (2, Insightful)

puusism (136657) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880075)

With the advent of digital cameras and inexpensive film scanners, processing of digital photographs has become the single greatest use of any image manipulation program. As a Linux user, I am using the GIMP as the primary tool for making basic adjustments to my photos. My usual workflow is as follows:

1. remove dust etc. with clone tool
2. rotate (if neccessary)
3. crop
4. levels
5. color balance, contrast adjustment (if neccessary)
6. unsharp mask

The GIMP fails to provide the tools I require in cases 2, 4, 5 and 6.

I haven't found any way to preview the rotating so that I just can rotate the canvas until I see that a line that I want to be horizontal (such as the horizont) is really horizontal. It usually takes me several tries to get a line straight.

Levels and color balance suffer from lack of 16-bit color. After basic levels or white balance restoration, the result seems pixellated. The fine tonality that was present in the original is usually gone. This becomes more evident if the picture requires more color manipulation. This is the one thing I would most like to see improved in the GIMP!

Unsharp mask tool doesn't have a preview. This means that I have to use select tool first to select an area that I wish to preview, and then do USM-undo-adjust-USM-undo-adjust cycle until I have found the right parameters. This is very much a hassle, but I actually expect USM preview to be present in the GIMP 2.2.

My message to developers is: keep up the good work! Just do not add any more of the ridiculous plug-ins and artistic filters. Keep working on digital imaging support!

Re:Give us 16-bit color! (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880131)

You can measure the angle between the actual horizontal and the line you want to be horizontal with the measuring tool and then rotate by this angle.

Of course, photoshop handles this better by making the previously measured angle the default in the rotation tool when you bring it up.

Re:Give us 16-bit color and Colour Management! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880182)

16 bit per channel is greatly needed, but without colour management, any photgraphy editing and correction is totally useless. We need proper colour management in GIMP for it to be used as a photo-editing application. There is nothing to argue about. This is a show stopper.

Re:Give us 16-bit color! (1)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880184)

You shouldn't complain about lack of rotate preview in this article (hint, it's in there now).

It's in the works. You might wan't to look into Cinepaint for now.

Probably there, I'm at work now and can't check.

The new GTK file chooser? (1)

wertarbyte (811674) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880079)

Oh no, they are using the new gtk file chooser. I really liked the old one, since you could quickly traverse through your directories via keyboard. I know that I can get a textbox to input the path via some key-combination, but I really liked the old open-file-fialog.

Re:The new GTK file chooser? (2, Interesting)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880189)

I like the new one better. In the onld one you had to either tab our mouse into the textbox, now you just press Ctrl+L. Not to forget the nice layout, bookmarks and simplyfied save dialog.

windows gui please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880090)

my company insists on using free software, and hence as a programmer I only get the gimp. It's frustrating as hell as I'm used to photoshop, etc, and the gimp, well basically just lives up to it's name.
Give us a windows gui & copy the ps interface like all good other shareware ps clones, please!!!

Does this mean I'll be able to (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880126)

easily draw a straight line?

Or intuitively select a specific image from a picture and crop everything else or move that specific image to another picture?

I know these two things can be done with Gimp, but I haven't been able to figure out how to draw a line yet (without reading a book), and I have a great deal of trouble isolating images from a picture (I'm sure I'm doing it wrong/manually by erasing pixels, etc.) after trying out every option I can find in gimp, in the meantime my brother can easily do both in photoshop 4.0, and he doesn't even know what version of windows he's using, or how to access the internet without using the AOL interface (we have a persistent dsl connection).

Not meant as criticism. Just pointing out that Gimp still has usability issues because a non-technical user can easily figure out how to do things in Photoshop, and doing the same simple things in Gimp is very difficult in some cases. Working in these areas will help Gimp spread farther and faster, which is better for everyone, including Photoshop users because it will increase competitive and pricing pressure on Adobe.

Thanks to all the gimp contributors for their work to date, and I hope it continues getting better and better!

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10880157)

Gimp 2.2 will introduce more features, including increasingly confusing menu systems, with even more nested submenus than before! Want to find a line tool? Good luck. Want to do something else? Yeah, you're fucked again. You'll still have easy access to all of the wonderful Script-Fu commands, however, as they are the only fucking thing you will ever find in the menus on a consistent basis!

You wanted more? You get more with Gimp - The GNU Insane Menu Project!

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to (3, Funny)

flatface (611167) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880181)

Step 1: Find your mouse. Step 2: Put your hand on your mouse. Step 3: Move your mouse across your mouse pad or desk until the cursor on your screen to where you want the line to start. Step 4: Press down the left mouse button. Let go. Step 5: Hold your shift button for the next 2 steps. Step 5: Move your cursor on your screen to where you want the line to end. Step 6: Press down the left mouse button. Let go. Step 7: Let go of the shift button.

Re:Does this mean I'll be able to (1)

flatface (611167) | more than 9 years ago | (#10880186)

Dammit, I knew I should have previewed. Someone should tell me how to post on Slashdot.

Step 1: Find your mouse.
Step 2: Put your hand on your mouse.
Step 3: Move your mouse across your mouse pad or desk until the cursor on your screen to where you want the line to start.
Step 4: Press down the left mouse button. Let go.
Step 5: Hold your shift button for the next 2 steps.
Step 5: Move your cursor on your screen to where you want the line to end.
Step 6: Press down the left mouse button. Let go.
Step 7: Let go of the shift button.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?