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!

GIMP 2.4 Released

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the bring-out-the-gimp dept.

596

Enselic writes "After almost three years since the release of GIMP 2.2, the GIMP developers have just announced the release of GIMP 2.4. The release notes speak of scalable bitmap brushes, redesigned rectangle/ellipse selection tools, redesigned crop tool, a new foreground selection tool, a new align tool, reorganized menu layouts, improved zoomed in/zoomed out image display quality, improved printing and color management support and a new perspective clone tool."

cancel ×

596 comments

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

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21106657)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
goatse 2.4 released, click here for details [goatse.ch]

GIMP 2.3? (3, Insightful)

bvimo (780026) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106661)

How long since GIMP 2.3 was released or am I missing something important?

Re:GIMP 2.3? (4, Informative)

ScislaC (827506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106681)

2.3 was the devel branch leading up to 2.4

Re:GIMP 2.3? (3, Informative)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106711)

I'm guessing they have the unix version numbering, where even numbers are release, odd numbers are development.

Re:GIMP 2.3? (4, Informative)

Raphael (18701) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106805)

The stable GIMP releases have even numbers. The last stable release before 2.4.x was GIMP 2.2.x, starting with 2.2.0 released in December 2004. So that was almost three years ago. There were several bug-fix releases in the meantime, up to 2.2.17.

The unstable 2.3.x releases ended with the last versions becoming release candidates for 2.4.

What about... (5, Interesting)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106675)

CMYK colors and other functionality that keeps it from being able to replace Photoshop completely? Not to understate all the effort that has been put into it, but something like that does seem pretty basic for three years of development.

patents (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21106973)

A lot of the key algorithms, particularly for color space conversion, are patented. Guess who holds a bunch of those patents?

Re:patents (4, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107083)

And they can't release a non-US version that people in the US will "accidentally" download?

Re:patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107093)

Krita? :) Ohhh, or maybe CinePaint? Seriously, seems like other open source projects can do it. Is it hard to copy their code? CinePaint is even based on Gimp.

Re:patents (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107185)

Micro$oft!

(no that was not a serious answer)

Re:What about... (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107107)

Agree, although I am not a graphic designer (IANAGD?) I've got several friends who are (including my sister in law). Several of them have commented me that the lack of CMYK support is a *very* strong issue that prevents them from taking The GIMP seriously for their work. I do not know what exactly is although I believe it is related with the equivalence of the colors in the screen with the colors actually printed and without CMYK the equivalence is not accurate.

What I wonder is that I know there are other open source applications that support CMYK like Scribus, and I know there is a hack-yourself-through rudimentary plugin for GIMP CMYK... why haven't it been integrated and made usable in The GIMP?

SIOX ! (2, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107223)

On the other hand, Gimp 2.4 has SIOX [siox.org] builtin [siox.org] , the single best tool for manipulating photographs.

(For those who don't know : you make a coarse free-hand circle around your object, then you scribble on the object, and SIOX takes care to extract the object from the surrounding).

Re:SIOX ! (1)

nottoogeeky (869124) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107377)

This feature has been available in photoshop for years :)

Most important thing (4, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106683)

I hope they moved the gui closer to that of Paintshop. I can't tell you how many times I've been unable to edit an image for one reason or another, or the expected behavior is what happens. I know a lot of people love GIMP and its scripting abilities, but seriously, when they're trying to enter the market dominated by a few programs with that same gui and behavior, they should replicate it.

Re:Most important thing (5, Informative)

jklappenbach (824031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106783)

I don't know about Paintshop, but there's a Photoshop-esque makeover for GIMP called Gimpshop. It has a couple of rough edges, but it's a testament to the modularity of design that a self-declared novice developer could take the existing GIMP framework and remake it in PS's image.

The download link can be found here.

http://www.gimpshop.com/download.shtml [gimpshop.com]

Re:Most important thing (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107113)

GIMP needs a GUI makeover to be more like Krita.

Re:Most important thing (4, Interesting)

Raphael (18701) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107249)

GIMP needs a GUI makeover to be more like Krita.

You might be surprised to learn that some GIMP developers and Krita developers have been talking with each other for a while.

While the interface used by Krita is interesting, it is not suitable for everybody. In particular, several artists and graphics professionals using GIMP want to be able to use their dual-screen setups in the most efficient way, by distributing the image windows and the docks (with the tool options and other tabs) freely over both screens. This is difficult to do when everything is embedded inside a single large window.

The current GIMP user interface is far from ideal and all developers know that. But it is not so easy to redesign it without breaking some of the features that some users came to rely on. Some major improvements to the user interface are planned for future versions, though.

Re:Most important thing (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107379)

I had another idea: the main panel and layers ought to be combined into a single tabbed window and stuck the side like Google Toolbar does on XP (it makes maximized applications think that the screen is smaller, so it is never hidden).

But this probably wouldn't float because it has to work on so many platforms.

Re:Most important thing (1)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107237)

I have gimpshop.

to be honest, its not very good, it is still quite unusable for my needs.

how about some CYMK? honestly, photoshop has had that for how long now? 10 years?

and what about the ability to load large files. why is it that i can load a 10 Gb File in photoshop, and edit it without too much slowdown, but loading a 10 Mb jpeg causes gimpshop to crash?

I was reciently making a lame gif animation to use for a friends movie, of a red dot moving over a map of the earth. i couldn't do that with gimpshop. the 8Mb jpeg of the earth was too much for gimpshop. I had to edit the damn thing in paintbrush! if paintbrush can do something that gimpshop can't (in my case, load a jpeg file in a reasonable amount of time) then you have got a big problem.

The new version of Gimp did adopt a more photoshop style layout, and over all, 2.4 is a huge improvement, but it is still not of any use to me due to its missing features.

Re:Most important thing (3, Insightful)

domatic (1128127) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106837)

but seriously, when they're trying to enter the market dominated by a few programs with that same gui and behavior, they should replicate it.

But then there is this other group of people who will complain that GIMP is just being a PhotoShop wannabe and not innovating. If one wants something that acts Just Like PhotoShop then the thing to do is suck it up and buy PhotoShop.

Re:Most important thing (5, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106877)

But then there is this other group of people who will complain that GIMP is just being a PhotoShop wannabe and not innovating.

Yeah, but it's already not innovating. It's just not innovating with a crappy UI, as opposed to not innovating with a good UI.

BTW, a good UI doesn't (necessarily) mean Photoshop. Paint.NET for Windows has a pretty damned good UI, and it's not much like Photoshop at all.

Re:Most important thing (3, Interesting)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106981)

Gimp's UI makes more sense on a XWindows system where you can set the individual sections of the UI to stay on top. For instance, I can keep the image full-screen on one monitor while using the editing tools on a second monitor. I'd like to see a single-window app like Photoshop do that!

Re:Most important thing (4, Insightful)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107091)

Photoshop does this pretty well on my Mac :)

Re:Most important thing (4, Insightful)

GiMP (10923) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106983)

What exactly is wrong with the UI in the Gimp? I have always preferred the UI of the Gimp to Photoshop. I think the biggest complaint of users of Paintshop and Photoshop is that the Gimp does not use MDI. Yet, for many, this is an advantage as it works better with multiple monitors and allows for greater multitasking. (Linux and MacOS users tend not to maximize apps). Plus, if you really want MDI, just use a virtual desktop. Even Vista has them, and they offload the "window grouping" from the application to the OS, like it should be done.

Re:Most important thing (4, Funny)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107239)

Dude, your username is "GiMP". Would you seriously ever admit any shortcoming to a product so beloved you named your user account after it? Seriously.

Re:Most important thing (5, Funny)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107389)

Maybe he just can't walk. Let's have a little class, and not make fun of people for their disability or odd sexual proclivities.

Re:Most important thing (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106925)

A lot of GUIs are shit. MSN Messenger, AIM, WMP11, IE.

Should we go around and copy their UIs?

Re:Most important thing (5, Informative)

Hennell (1005107) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107035)

If you have actual ideas for the GIMP UI go mention them at http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] rather then just complaining here. They are aware the UI is generally disliked, they just need the best ideas of how to change it.
---
Did the Ancient Egyptians play stone, papyrus, scimitar?
---

Re:Most important thing (4, Interesting)

blhack (921171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107087)

IMHO:

Photoshop is going to soon suffer the same problem that i see for IBM. Open source is really starting to gain momentum. My fellow art nerds and I are all poor. We can't afford to go out and buy expensive software like photoshop; so what do we do? We go out and buy a wacom, get ourselves a copy of the GIMP and go to work. When we start getting ourselves into decision making positions, what are we going to choose? A very expensive and (imho) difficult to use piece of software like photoshop? Or a very familiar, and 100% free piece of software like the gimp?

Similarly, IBM has really shot themselves in the foot with the OS/400 platform. Here you have a a really really rock solid piece of software, arguably one of the most stable operating system/platforms in existence today, but you have a problem. If I wanted to go out and learn OS/400, I mean REALLY learn it (the way that i can with Linux/BSD) I wouldn't be able to. It is FARRRR to expensive for a hobbyist like myselft to get into.
Now ask yourself, if I, or my equally poor nerd brethren, go out into the job market and are tasked with building a database for whoever we start working for, what are we going to choose? Are we going to go with the familiar, very capable, and very FREE database called MySQL or Postgres (running on top of a *nix of course)? Or are we going to opt for a very cumbersum (I mean this from the perspective of somebody who has never developed on it before, it might be very elegant for all i know) very expensive, and VERY unfamiliar database such as DB2 (which is what runs on OS/400).

Both IBM and adobe have shot themselves in the foot in this regard. Today's hobbyists are tomorrows decision makers, and they are going to choose what they are accustomed to.

Re:Most important thing (1)

justin12345 (846440) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107273)

My fellow art nerds and I are all poor. We can't afford to go out and buy expensive software like photoshop; so what do we do? We go out and buy a wacom, get ourselves a copy of the GIMP and go to work. When we start getting ourselves into decision making positions, what are we going to choose? A very expensive and (imho) difficult to use piece of software like photoshop? Or a very familiar, and 100% free piece of software like the gimp?

I agree. Back in the day, 'they' would just snag a copy of Photoshop off one of the computers at work or school. It was copyright infringment, but it ensured that later, when they had real money to spend, they would choose Photoshop as it was what they knew. Now that Adobe has CS locked down like a copy of Vista, I wonder if OSS or maybe a commercial company might come in and knock them off their cloud.

Re:Most important thing (1)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107131)

Paintshop? You're joking, right? Or maybe you meant Photoshop? ...

Re:Most important thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107143)

i think the interface is "fucking awesome!"

Re:Most important thing (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107165)

when they're trying to enter the market dominated by a few programs with that same gui and behavior, they should replicate it

If you get an almost exact copy the differences in an almost identical workflow would trip people up. It is a different program and does a few things differently. The largest complaint seems to be about multiple windows - something that is very useful in X windows even if it is a bit of a pain in MS Windows.

Re:Most important thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107191)

GIMP isn't exactly that hard to get used to. Right click on an image, and every option is there organized in the menus. I can understand a person finding it different at first, because yes, it's different. But if you are unable to edit an image, then I really doubt you tried.

"Get off my lawn" is not a feature request.

Re:Most important thing (1)

SuseLover (996311) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107225)

I have never used Photoshop so I have no pre-conceptions of what an image manipulation gui should be like. I don't find GIMP that hard to use at all. It has been able to do everything I have ever needed to do to images an for free to boot.

No 16bit support (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21106703)

No 16bit per pixel support unfortunately. Cinepaint has added that, but Cinepaint is not as good for what gimp does. So the whole thing is kinda bad.

Layers? (0, Flamebait)

machineghost (622031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106735)

Nope, still missing. Guess I'm still stuck with Photoshop ... :-(

Re:Layers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21106821)

it's had layers for years. Have you used it ?

Re:Layers? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106823)

It's got layers currently, or were you needing something more specific?

Re:Layers? (1)

machineghost (622031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106885)

Sorry, I meant layer styles (end of the day = brain fried)

Re:Layers? (2, Interesting)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106887)

adjustment layers, which are one of the most important editing tools IMHO and have been missing from the gimp despite years and years of people begging for them (together with cymk and a more 'standard' gui) but as usual in the OSS world features developers care about are done first, not features important for users: I will be sticking with my CS2, thanks, and given Adobe's earnings I think others are as well (I don't think CS3 is worth $200 to upgrade btw, but that's just me).

Re:Layers? (2, Interesting)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107323)

GEGL, the new back end for GIMP, will add adjustment layers, deep color support, and all sorts of other awesome features that PS doesn't have. I am being patient, you should too.

Adjustment layers (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106947)

It's got layers currently, or were you needing something more specific?

Adjustment layers. If you're not familiar with the adjustment layers that Photoshop 5 software introduced, they're layers that copy pixels from layers below them and run a filter on them, and they automatically update when the layers below them are changed. It's been said that GIMP is one of the best Photoshop 3/4 clones around.

Re:Adjustment layers (4, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107097)

> It's been said that GIMP is one of the best Photoshop 3/4 clones around.

Except Photoshop 3 supported CMYK.

GEGL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107217)

This is coming. The devs have previously stated that once 2.4 was released they will start integrating GEGL which will add the ability to do adjustment layers, as well as lots of other stuff. So just hang on.

But is GEGL like Spore? Or more like DNF? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107277)

The devs have previously stated that once 2.4 was released they will start integrating GEGL which will add the ability to do adjustment layers, as well as lots of other stuff.
They said this about 2.0. Did they also say this about 2.2 and 2.4?

Re:Layers? (1)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106839)

Gimp had layers for as long as I can remember.
You must be thinking of MS Paint :)

Re:Layers? (1)

Ankh (19084) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106857)

Gimp has layers, although not (yet) adjustment layers.

No other program will every be exactly like PhotoShop, so if you judge (as many do) other programs by how like PhotoShop they are, all other programs will fall short. The other programs may still be useful in their own right, though.

Best,

Liam

Re:Layers? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107109)

"The other programs may still be useful in their own right, though."

That's the part nobody's ever sold me on with the GIMP. I have Photoshop CS3. I'd love to be able to expand my toolset. What can Gimp do that Photoshop can't, OR, what can GIMP do better/faster so I can get more done in a day?

Re:Layers? (3, Informative)

machineghost (622031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106913)

Sorry all, I meant layer styles, those incredibly useful things that let you add various effects like outlines and shadows and then adjust them dynamically later. My brain was somewhere else when I wrote the original post.

Re:Layers? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107103)

My main complaint about photoshop was first total lack of undo and then a fairly limited undo. Different programs have different features and since I'm not a graphic designer the main stumbling block is trying to justify the price and since as a computer wrangler I get people asking for photoshop so they can crop photographs of their grandchildren when they should be working. The gimp is really useful for casual use - cropping, resizing and all the other bits xv used to be used for in addition to being able to do minor changes or simple web graphics. It is not photoshop.

Re:Layers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21106961)

Krita! Just don't save as JPEG if there's bright orange in the scene.

needs better tablet support (3, Interesting)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106749)

I've recommended some artists to try gimp instead of proprietary stuff. The major complaints were about drawing tablet support. Gimp has tablet support, but the options available to the artist are very limited. Also, there are no smoothing algorithms for tablet-drawn strokes - a pretty major drawback if you draw on the computer instead of scanning things in.
Other than that, gimp is awesome - and almost everything you can think of is available as a plugin - I've already tried the new context-sensitive resizing plugin (context-sensitive resizing has been mentioned a few months ago on /.)

Re:needs better tablet support ... inkscape? (3, Interesting)

pbhj (607776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107001)

Have you tried inkscape for tablet support? This appears to come from GTK so YMMV but is stated to support pressure and angle sensitivity.

I haven't, but I love the app. They've made considerable advances in the last couple of releases. I know there's a tutorial by a guy who draws and shades comics using it. Also that you can simplify lines or using some (built in python) scripts add jitter or add jitter as you draw.

If you've not tried it recently it's worth a punt.

I'm using Slackware 12 and installed the development release via autopackage (http://inkscape.org/download/?lang=en).

Grabbing my copy before it gets slashdotted (2, Interesting)

szyzyg (7313) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106753)

I do hope they've added support for colour depths greater than 8 bits....

Re:Grabbing my copy before it gets slashdotted (2, Informative)

szyzyg (7313) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106889)

WEll now it loads by 48bpp images without warning me that it's converting them to 24bpp images... and it converts them anyway. so a step back if anything in this department.

Re:Grabbing my copy before it gets slashdotted (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106991)

Sorry no such luck. That functionality is reserved for GEGL[1], or pretty much every other photo editing program.

[1] A new graphics engine that was supposed to go into GIMP 2.4 but has been pushed back to 2.6.

Huh? (0, Flamebait)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106787)

This isn't really breaking news: GIMP 2.4 was installed on my Debian sid machine along with yesterday's update.

Re:Huh? (1)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107151)

Yeah guys, you are ONE DAY LATE. This is UNACCEPTABLE!

I wish to speak with a manager!

GIMP vs. Photoshop Thread (-1, Flamebait)

GroundBounce (20126) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106791)

Someone had to start one. Post here...

Why bother reading? (5, Insightful)

domatic (1128127) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106815)

Maybe 5 of the posts will have something actually illuminating. The rest of them will be GIMP and Photoshop fanbois going at each other. Let me save everybody the trouble.

GIMP has an unprofessional name! Waaaaaaaaaaah!
GIMP only does 8-bit color! Waaaaaaaaaaah!
GIMP isn't UI identical to PhotoShop on every menu 3 levels deep! Waaaaaaaaaaaah!
GIMP manages windows sucky! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Does not! Does too! Does not!.................

Re:Why bother reading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107031)

You forgot to mention all the posts predicting/deriding the contents of the other posts. ;)

Ask artists, not geeks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21106819)

for feedback when you develop a paint program. The GUI is horrible, and it only takes a five-minute interview with a Photoshop user to understand what needs to be done. I think GIMP is suffering from a serious case of bad focus.

Re:Ask artists, not geeks (3, Insightful)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107021)

Ask artists, not geeks for feedback when you develop a paint program.
Agree 75%
Artists are not the only people who ever use Gimp. Many users only use it to crop/resize images and maybe tweak the color balance a little bit. In other words, make artists your primary target, but don't ignore geeks' opinion, either.

The GUI is horrible, and it only takes a five-minute interview with a Photoshop user to understand what needs to be done.
Disagree 100%
Here's why: just because Photoshop is the "industry leader" doesn't mean it's perfect - nor does it mean that the UI is perfect. What it means is simply this: it's the "industry leader".
Gimp UI is actually pretty well thought out and is highly customizable. You can learn the UI inside and out in a day, even if you're really lazy/slow.

I think GIMP is suffering from a serious case of bad focus.
Agree 100%
As with many other open sourced projects, the developers don't follow the same common path, but instead spread out into their areas of interest. A perfect solution would be if some company used Gimp as a base and polished it to suit the most demanding users. Just like what CrossOver Office does with Wine.

Re:Ask artists, not geeks (0, Redundant)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107133)

just because Photoshop is the "industry leader" doesn't mean it's perfect - nor does it mean that the UI is perfect.
But it does mean that it's the standard.

You can learn the [Gimp] UI inside and out in a day, even if you're really lazy/slow.
I would disagree. I've learned the Photoshop UI in a couple of hours, the Fireworks UI in about one hour, and I've used Gimp for over 20 hours and still find the UI frustrating and stupid and completely ass-backwards.

Re:Ask artists, not geeks (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107325)

Yes but just because microsoft word is the standard, doesn't mean that some OOo interface changes are not intuitive (such as page setup- why is it on the file menu? because it always has been... really it should be on the formatting menu).

However, I find Gimp very painful after using Corel and Picture Perfect which both use more similar metaphors to Adobe I think.

I'll try gimp again with 2.4 but I expect to bounce off again.

I wish there was a way to select the features you want active and ONLY those options would display.

For example, today I want to color balance and morph. Tomorrow, I want to cut and paste parts of the picture around (which is where GIMP is most often painful for me- somehow the cut and paste model isn't intuitive to me).

Re:Ask artists, not geeks (1)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107365)

But it does mean that it's the standard.
And IE was the standard web browser. And most people lived with its UI. Except that Firefox came along and popularized tabs.

[I] still find the UI frustrating and stupid and completely ass-backwards.
Name one thing.

Re:Ask artists, not geeks (2, Insightful)

Raphael (18701) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107049)

it only takes a five-minute interview with a Photoshop user to understand what needs to be done

If you ask a Photoshop user, you will mostly get answers that suggest to copy Photoshop. GIMP is not trying to be a clone of Photoshop.

On the other hand, if you ask artists who have not been involved too much with Photoshop or graphics professionals who are able to dissociate the desired functionality from one implementation that they already know, then you can get a set of very useful ideas that can bring GIMP forward without being a copycat. Especially if these interviews and analysis of the user interaction are performed by experienced interaction architects.

And this is exactly what has been started for GIMP... Several professional artists, photographers and designers have been interviewed. Some of this analysis has already led to a redesign of the rectangle selection tool and crop tool in GIMP 2.4. Further changes will find their way into future GIMP versions.

If you want a program that behaves like Photoshop, then please use Photoshop. I am happy to point people towards Photoshop when it is obvious that what they need is Photoshop. But if you want a Free Software program that can be used for high-end photo manipulation and that is easily extensible with plug-ins and scripts in various languages, then maybe GIMP is the right choice for you. Different people have different needs, and GIMP does not try to please everybody.

Re:Ask artists, not geeks (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107257)

On the other hand, if you ask artists who have not been involved too much with Photoshop or graphics professionals who are able to dissociate the desired functionality from one implementation that they already know, then you can get a set of very useful ideas that can bring GIMP forward without being a copycat.

This doesn't make sense. Trying to find a digital artist who doesn't use Photoshop would be like trying to find a writer who doesn't use a keyboard. And getting a graphics professional to switch away from the best program Adobe makes will be an exercise in frustration. The only reason to switch away from Photoshop would be to use a tool which does a better job. There is no other reason. Doing things this way sounds, to me, like a plan to keep the GIMP constrained to a tiny niche forever.

high-end photo manipulation

"High-end"? Without the ability to work in, or convert to, a printable color space, or without full support for ICC profiles? I'm not sure what your definition of "high-end" is.

Re:Ask artists, not geeks (0, Troll)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107289)

GIMP is not trying to be a clone of Photoshop.
It's not doing a very good job at not being that. It's a near exact copy of (ancient) Photoshop, just with a worse GUI.

Re:Ask artists, not geeks (1)

logicassasin (318009) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107245)

I must wholeheartedly agree with this. I've been using Photoshop for about 14 years (first few years were on IRIX, then moved to Win32 in '97) and must say that it has a very functional interface where I can get things done quickly. The basics of the interface haven't changed much over the years, so I'm just as comfortable on, say, 4.0 as I am on 8/CS (which was the last version I upgraded to).

Using The Gimp, however, always ends up with me scratching my head wondering "why did they do it like this???". I use it on Linux and Windows, but limit my time in it if I need to do more than a quick resize or something like that. Stuff like a simple copy and paste is frustrating in The Gimp. In PS, I can select a random sized area, copy it, and hit new, and it will have populated the dimensions of the image I have on the clipboard to the dialogue. Not so with The Gimp.

I really hope they can get the UI issues worked out, I can see The Gimp being a powerful tool, but it needs to be made for artists, not techies.

I use photoshop v5 from 2000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21106827)

It's still better than Gimp. And I keep trying Gimp because I have to use windows if I want to use Photoshop.

Re:I use photoshop v5 from 2000 (2, Informative)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106883)

It's still better than Gimp. And I keep trying Gimp because I have to use windows if I want to use Photoshop.

Crossover Office has run Photoshop (through PS7, which I routinely use, *alongside* GIMP) in Linux for something like six or seven years now. That people still say "I have to use Windows if I want to run Photoshop" is beyond me.

Re:I use photoshop v5 from 2000 (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106943)

I'm running photoshop 7 under wine. Its worked forever.

Still needs a critical update... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21106845)

Of its name. Seriously, can't someone come up with a name that doesn't have connotations of a physical handicap?

Re:Still needs a critical update... (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107059)

I think as long as the program remains unattractive to professionals, they may as well keep the unattractive name. All the more incentive to fork the project, I guess, and it's got a built-in incentive to give it a new name.

Oh hey, they put in a new scheme interpreter, good for them. Clearly artists have been clamoring for THAT feature for ages now.

Awesome new features! (-1, Troll)

Harik (4023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106859)

Hey look they've got CMYK support and more then 8 bit color too! Wow, a modern version of gimp!

Oh sorry, I was using photoshop. Gimp is still worthless for anything that'd you'd want a serious tool for.

Re:Awesome new features! (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106971)

The rhetoric of this post is a little overstated. ANYTHING you'd want a serious tool for? Please, there are plenty of "serious" activities that do not require such color channels. Sure it's a drawback, but to call the program worthless over this one shortcoming is going a little overboard.

Re:Awesome new features! (1)

deftcoder (1090261) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107157)

"All generalizations are false, including this one."

Re:Awesome new features! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107005)

And instead of helping them get there, you bitch and moan about it on slashdot. This is the great irony of the Gimp, those people who bitch the loudest about it to not being as good as Photoshop have absolutely no desire to help them get there.

Re:Awesome new features! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107127)

8 bit color is fine for online graphics and CMYK is only needed for prepress. If I wanted to process digital photos I'd use filmgimp, if I want CMYK I'd not use a raster image editor anyway. Perhaps you should get a DTP package (eg: scribus) and decent RIP?

Re:Awesome new features! (4, Insightful)

arashi no garou (699761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107219)

Despite your lame attempt at humor, you make a very good point. Photoshop is a tool, and a very versatile one at that, which is used by professionals to get the job done right. It's expensive and complicated, and for good reason.

The GIMP, on the other hand, is a comparatively simple tool, though still very useful and quite versatile in its own right. It is what us amateurs use because the pro tools are overkill and/or too expensive. It also happens to be free, in more than one sense of the word, which makes it ideal for its target audience. For example, I do web graphics sometimes. Why in the world would I spend close to US$500 for something that is rarely used and would be overkill to boot? I'd rather use my free image program with more tools in its toolkit than I would ever need for that task.

This is why I will never understand the PS vs. GIMP debate. GIMP will never be a Photoshop killer because there is no need for a Photoshop killer. Those who need the power of Photoshop will buy it (or steal it), those who don't will use GIMP or another simple tool.

I tried a release candidate and was annoyed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106903)

I tried a release candidate of GIMP 2.4. It's clearly optimized for photos, not pixel art such as icons or sprites. I use the rectangle tool to drag out a selection. Then I try to drag the selected area to move the pixels inside the selection, which is a common operation in pixel art when making something bigger or smaller. Instead of moving the selected pixels like every single other paint program on earth, it makes another selection! In order to actually move pixels, I have to move my right hand from the mouse, press Ctrl+Shift+L, then move my right hand back to the mouse.

Is there an easier way to nudge the pixels in a selection in the final release?

Re:I tried a release candidate and was annoyed (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106989)

In order to actually move pixels, I have to move my right hand from the mouse, press Ctrl+Shift+L, then move my right hand back to the mouse.

Is there an easier way to nudge the pixels in a selection in the final release?


Keep your left hand on the keyboard and hit ctrl-shift-L with it? ;)

It's still a contortion (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107321)

Keep your left hand on the keyboard and hit ctrl-shift-L with it?
Pressing Ctrl and Shift with my left pinky and L with my left thumb is still a contortion [wikipedia.org] . What is so compelling about GIMP 2.4 compared to the GIMP 2.2.17 that I already use that would justify making such a common operation into 1. an extra step, and 2. an extra step that's such a contortion?

Re:I tried a release candidate and was annoyed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107123)

no, sadly, it's optimized for bad snapshots, not general photo editing. It needs higher bit depths and Lab mode to be optimized for photography work. And I'm sure the prepress folks will tell you it needs CMYK too.

Tools are much improved. (2, Informative)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21106907)

I've been using this in the debian unstable repo for a few weeks now and I've found the redesigns are both intuitive and useful. I especially like the new selection tool, it's much easier to select an area and then change the selection after you realized you didn't hit the right pixel. Kudos to the GIMP team!!

P.S. Although the GTK2 (i.e. GIMP Tool Kit) file picker is still slow as molasses in directories with large numbers of files. I had to hack firefox to get it to use it's native file picker once again because I got tired of waiting 30 seconds or more each time I wanted to save a file.

Moving pixels within a selection (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107017)

especially like the new selection tool, it's much easier to select an area and then change the selection after you realized you didn't hit the right pixel.
But what's the fastest way in GIMP 2.4 to select an area and move the pixels within the area by a distance of a few pixels? In GIMP 2.2.17, this involved dragging a rectangle around the area and then dragging inside the area by the distance that I want the pixels moved. I really want to upgrade from 2.2.17, but I tried a release candidate and it felt clumsy for the pixel art that I do.

+ .2 in 3 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21106931)

It took 3 years to go from 2.2 to 2.4? And the new features are underwhelming compared to closed source products. Where's the innovation? They can't even play catch-up at a decent speed.

Great poster child for OSS. :(

Compare Linux 2.6 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107045)

It took 3 years to go from 2.2 to 2.4?
Linux 2.6 is two months shy of being four years old, and Linus doesn't seem to want to fork a 2.7 any time soon.

Re:Compare Linux 2.6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107307)

Linux is mature, feature-rich and mission-critical.

Gimp is old, playing catch-up with Photoshop and NOT used by anyone who requires a state-of-the-art graphics app for professional work.

You can hardly compare the two.

sick of gimp :( (-1, Offtopic)

xonicx (1009245) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107027)

Do these gimp guys ever see what they are they making?

Look at the screenshots http://www.gimp.org/screenshots/ [gimp.org] page. They are using some junk javascript which doesn't even resize even properly. How can they do it? They claim to have best image editor on Linux but they don't know how to present those images? I am really frustrated.

GIMP lacks Quality assurance not only in application but website too.

Re:sick of gimp :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21107253)

They are using some junk javascript which doesn't even resize even properly.

That javascript doesn't even work for me, the only way to view the screenshots is to right click and open in a new window. I'm using Firefox 2.0 on RHE4.

Still no white-balance function (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107167)

...that you can control with a sample area. Instead we still have that mickeymouse auto-white balance thing which is useless.

I am constantly amazed how consistently this project misses the mark on the most basic qualities and features, even while trumping up some of their arguably less desirable additions. Show me their requirements and use-case documentation and blow me over with a feather ('cause I'd swear they never used such a thing).

Fake! (3, Funny)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107197)

The linked site looks 'shopped.

Re:Fake! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107363)

The linked site looks 'shopped.

Adobe's site [adobe.com] and Corel's site [corel.com] are even more obviously shopped. Corel even managed to use the same initials as PlayStation Portable ;-)

Needs lolcat mode, SRSLY! (1)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107201)

The gimp should have a lolcat mode where you can automatically append impact text to pictures.

Perl script to automatically garble grammar and mispell would be nice, too.

Meh (2, Interesting)

nrgy (835451) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107283)

Like many will say where is greater then 8bit support, where are the layer filters and so on. I won't lie for the average joe and minor tasks gimp is probably just fine.

My beef is that as of the present day Linux utterly blows when it comes to anything that fits the bill of a Photoshop style of application. And I say Photoshop because quiet frankly its the dominate player for what it does.

I will admit however that I am a little surprised at Krita. If any OSS application has me wishing that it has good fortunes its Krita. Better then 8bit support and the UI is a SDI not a MDI like gimp. One thing I've never liked about gimp is that when you click on a window that belongs to gimp all the other windows don't come forward as well on the desktop. If there is an option for this I would gladly welcome to hear where it is.

I don't personally use gimp. I either use Photoshop 7 running under Crossover Office or Krita. However the times I have played with the filters etc I couldn't help but notice some of them are mind numbingly slow and work in weird amount of passes. I went and looked through the source code for some of the filters and I must say some of them are writen with performance not in mind. I write plugins for a film compositing application that works strictly in float. Import a jpg and it is converted to float for working in the compositor. Working with 2k film plates and huge compositing trees I work at the speed gimp idles at. If I wasn't so busy with work, personal life and my own plugins for the compositing application I use, I would probably pick up gimps source code and fix all the slowness that the current filters work at. Its a shame really. Why an 8bit applications filters go so slow you can actually watch the application doing the work is beyond me.

So in the end I'm cheering for Krita. It's already got greater then 8bit support, a great looking UI, and its part of KDE so hopefully it has some backing. Gimp is an ok tool and I'm sure some people have put there hearts into it. But that doesn't mean that it just isn't up to par for where it should be. Gimp isn't some year or two old application, it has been around a while yet its progress moves at a snails pace. For the average Joe gimp is ok and probably is all they need. For us power users on the other hand we are still waiting for a decent fully featured image manipulation application for Linux. I could care less about the year of the desktop, just give me a bloody image tool I can use for all things on Linux. :/

No more GIMP vs Photoshop, please! (4, Insightful)

Erikderzweite (1146485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107331)

GIMP was NEVER intended to replace, duplicate or mimic photoshop. Neither was it created to draw users from photoshop. Unfamiliar doesn't mean bad or uncomfortable. They go their own way. Some like it, some don't. You are free to use gimpshop if you like to. I really see no points in this interface discussion.

Ubuntu (1)

ePlus (1041568) | more than 6 years ago | (#21107387)

As I am already on Ubuntu (7.10) and GIMP is already installed and the version (at the moment) is only source code, do I have to uninstall the old version and then compile the new one?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>