I'll let the image speak for itself. While other issues remain, this is a massive and significant addition to the software. Let's watch how things unfold.
GIMP is perhaps one of the most well known imaging apps available in Libre software. Its virtues are endorsed by many in the Libre software community. In a practical sense however, within North American art and design circles, its uptake is effectively zero.
There are reasons behind this, although any attempts to tackle the issues have a tendency to erupt into nothing more than hyperbole and animosity, leaving behind the core issues at hand.
This is an attempt to outline three key reasons why some graphic artists and designers perceive GIMP as inadequate when it comes to its suitability in their imaging pipelines[1].
Precision
Update: There appears to be quite a bit of confusion regarding bit depth both for ingestion and for calculations. To this end, a follow up article was crafted to specifically explore some of the issues regarding bit depth.
Public bug reported in 2002 and covers deeper than 16bpc.
Pixels are stored in discrete units of bits. GIMP has a hard limit of eight bits per channel at its highest depth. This means that all colour is locked into 0 to 255 steps.
Why is this an issue?
Ultimately this is a question of quality. There is no arguing that insufficient bit depth will always lead to a degradation of image quality. Posterization is the most obvious impact of restricted bit depths.
Every action in GIMP throws data out. Import an inexpensive camera's output in RAW format and you throw out data, irreversibly forcing the 12-14 bit per channel data into 8 bit per channel internal resolution. Color selections, blurs, and every data related manipulation will be fundamentally restricted.
Pundits that suggest this is negotiable are simply and flagrantly incorrect[2]. Quality is quality. Good enough is not good enough given these constraints.
Performance
Related to this bug report from 2005, but likely covers a little more as it applies to purely round brushes as well.
Print work operates at a high DPI count. If we assume 300DPI as a baseline for work, we can quickly see how the numbers grow as our dimensions increase. A standard letter sized print at 8.5"x11" would yield dimensions of 2550x3300[3].
At those dimensions, large brushes are required. Setting a brush to a radius of 50 and working at a 1:1 resolution yields performance that is well beyond sub-optimal.
All manipulations on this size suffer. Multi-core processing may help, but ultimately this is the domain of less-than-glamorous profiling and optimizing. Graphics processor acceleration is device dependent and can yield inconsistencies across platforms or graphics cards[4].
Linear Light
As a result of cathode ray tubes and other legacy alchemy, the images you view on your computer monitor come preset and "baked" with various imaging variables. One of which is known as gamma.
When doing manipulations on images within this preset world, the math falls apart. You cannot simply add one unit of red to one unit of red and get to two units of red.
Linear light solves this by reversing the gamma present in images and formatting all of the pixels into a linear space. Certain image manipulations involving light based concepts such as light leaks are much more efficient to achieve using a linear light model.
In addition to this, a linear light option allows imaging pipelines to integrate with the system, as many higher end pipelines rely on linear light models.
The Long Road
GIMP is a valuable tool to hobby imaging. In its current incarnation, GIMP has many shortcomings that inhibit its usage by many talented artists. There are certainly an extremely rare and dedicated few that have created spectacular work using the GIMP, and those people are indispensable to increasing GIMP's credibility and acceptance. Unfortunately, personal and ethical software choices cannot alone create and evolve artist tools within a project.
With its inherent low ability ceilings, lack of industry support, and fundamental core issues, aspiring graphics arts individuals often simply skip over GIMP and move onto alternate options.
What is Wrong?
If we read and accept the current state of GIMP's development to be dire with only two principal developers left, we can see that the project might have a rough road ahead.
How is it that the flagship imaging application struggles along with only two principal developers working on it and an alternate project such as Blender is absolutely thriving in Libre software? To an outsider, this might be interpreted as a symptom of a lower level dysfunction.
Back to Audience
Are there any solutions out there for the GIMP dilemma?
It would seem logical that with GIMP's currently suffocating level of principal developers that an investment in priorities would be well spent.
Is GIMP seeking to be an advanced or professional grade imaging tool or is it a hobby grade application?
In a private discussion, Michael Terry of the University of Waterloo offered that the largest percentage of GIMP's user base was amateur and hobby individuals. Should GIMP perhaps alter its course to focus and elevate its usefulness to this audience? Even acknowledging an amateur imaging audience doesn't eradicate the above issues either, as it is more likely that an amateur photographer will require exposure correction that uses the deeper bit depth than a seasoned veteran.
If GIMP has aspirations to be a professional grade tool, then it indeed needs to prioritize the needs of the artists and technicians in those environments above all else. Is single window mode a priority over deep bit depths when the vast bulk of professional artists are working in a multi window Photoshop on an Apple Macintosh product environment?
The Future?
It is a sincere hope that GIMP finds itself in the near future. Current and, more importantly, future Libre artists rely on it extensively.
All that we can do is ask questions. Is there something wrong with the GIMP development model that prevents growth? Is there anything that could be done to help GIMP achieve the dedicated and passionate developer core that Blender currently has? What can we do as a community to ensure that Libre raster imaging software is a growth area?
GIMP's situation is troubling.
GIMP has factual and easily verifiable shortcomings as an imaging app. Arguing that fact is simply in the realm of delusion. This post has attempted to outline three potential show stoppers for digital artists.
Does GIMP have an identity crisis between the desire to be an advanced imaging editor and the practical reality of its ability? What would sharp and deliberate decisions about audience do to the project[5]?
Does GIMP have an eroding development model? Is there a similarity between GIMP and the erosion that happened at Open Office?
Is there anything that can be done to rectify this situation[6]?
Thank you all for reading...
[1] Interface elements have been left out. Indeed, some of the recent pursuits over single window mode seem glaringly strange given the lack of software ability. It also leaves out some obvious complicating deficiencies in the performance section regarding CMYK subtractive colour modelling for print.
[2] You cannot sandwich images together. Anyone that suggests this as a workaround is about as far away from a credible opinion as you could ask. Also, it still fails to address manipulations within the application such as masking, blurring, scaling, rotating, and other such tools beyond the scope of a RAW image editor.
[3] This obviously is a very basic value as you would most certainly have to include bleeds and like details in a pre-press image.
[4] This doesn't even begin to discuss the complexities of closed and open graphics card driver dilemmas.
[5] Krita recently has made this difficult decision and has been making what appears to be solid progress with a fresh and refined perspective.
[6] Please resist suggesting funding as this appears to be a community based issue. There are countless examples of funding that yields nothing, let alone the practical cost / benefit example of simply purchasing proprietary software. It is, in this context, a completely tangential discussion.
185 comments:
Thank you very much for this article.
"the vast bulk of professional artists are working in a multi window Photoshop on an Apple Macintosh product environment"
[citation needed]
@Lauro:
Please don't read this the wrong way, but if you _honestly_ require that, then we aren't going to make any progress.
I won't be able to find a link.
I will say that I've walked into more than a few art "war rooms" and the Apple products are exclusive. Period. Art all over the walls, and nothing but Apple Mac stations and laptops everywhere.
I apologize if this isn't common knowledge, but for those involved with art, design, and creative arts, it is a simple foundational element with historical and contemporary reasons.
I can see why it's an easy assumption to make (I work on a Mac in a graphic design studio, as do all my colleages), but I don't think it's fair to generalise, particularly since things have changed so much since the Macintosh domination DTP in the 90s.
Quite apart from that, why does the use or otherwise of a Mac make any difference to your argument (which was about floating windows in Photoshop)?
For the record, I can't stand floating windows so I tell Photoshop to use the application frame (or whatever it's called).
@Lauro "Quite apart from that, why does the use or otherwise of a Mac make any difference to your argument (which was about floating windows in Photoshop)?"
While you might turn it off, it is still an accepted and familiar paradigm. Certainly not a show stopper by any means, and possibly even comfortable for a good number as a default layout.
In this discussion however, it is about software development resources and GIMP's focus on delivering a single window mode over other areas.
It is about priorities.
As you likely know, the folks that use various bits of industry software have very particular requirements and priorities in terms of needs.
Does GIMP need single window mode with two principal developers or should those extremely valuable people be dedicated to other things such as bit depth or like details?
Tough questions for certain.
And I _do_ believe it is a relatively fair generalization regarding graphic design houses and pipelines, and likely for good reason.
GIMP's UI in general is stuck in the late 90s: a bunch of disorganized, scattered windows in a fashion completely foreign to Windows (can't speak for Macs), obviously GTK-based menus that are completely nonstandard and inconsistent with other Windows applications, and so on.
Photoshop's UI iterates rather too quickly (often changing cosmetically between revisions purely to look different) and it's not without small issues, but it's immensely cleaner and more functional.
GIMP is very obviously a tool written by and for Linux users, and other environments are an afterthought. As long as that's the case, it will never be in the running as a professional image editing application.
What prevents me from using GIMP is the lack of "Smart objects" -- resizable vector-objects to which you can apply layer effects.
24-bit color-mode would be nice. So would a better UI. I also cannot stand floating windows. Did not know I could turn this feature in PS.
I have tried to use Gimp many times. I can never get anything useful done with it. The UI is a basket case. It has nothing to do with the issues discussed in this article, I doubt many have gotten that far.
IMO, the main barrier to adoption for GIMP is not the color depth and precision issues. The users specialized in those form very small niche. It's the GUI. It's too different from what people are used to, which users regard as 'too difficult'. There have been succesful attempts to make it look more like 'traditional' image manipulation tools such as Photoshop, but I'm not sure why they haven't found their way back into mainstream.
GIMP is perfectly adequate for me. It took some learning and I hate the UI, but it does the job.
I tend to agree with Wladimir. While the UI does not affect functionality, it's the interface between the functionality and the user and has to be perfect. It's far far far from perfect. My biggest complaint is addressed by the article: the UI is simply not like what users are used to. This should be enough reason to change it.
The UI is becoming less and less an issue as the current beta version got a "single window" mode.
But on another hand photographer shouldn't use GIMP, UFraw should be better adapted to your workflow, or even cinepaint.
Import a $150 dollar camera's output in RAW format and you throw out data, irreversibly forcing the 12-14 bit per channel data into 8 bit per channel internal resolution.
Except that the camera you link to (1) costs more than $150 and (2) doesn't provide RAW output.
Personally, I would like to see the GIMP merged with blender! :)
There has been major work going on with GIMP and higher precision color channels and it should be available on new release versions. IIRC You need to enable it somehow to use it, but anyways it should already be there.
Please check out what has been done regarding the color precision in GIMP and then re-think if your criticism is still valid.
*sigh* Don't you just love it how everybody knows what GIMP needs and yet barely anyone contributes on even non-programming level?
Gimp needed deep color depth, color management, and color models back in 1996 at least, . Everyone knew this. People tried to implement this. You even had forks that did this (Cinepaint). The Gimp developers decided this was not a requirement, and were too arrogant to listen to anyone else. Patches to do this got dropped. Developers went away. Basically everyone who could program who also did serious graphics left, since the community was stifling.
Over the years, 8 bit RGB got more and more deeply ingrained in the architecture. While there is now a move away from it among Gimp developers, but I doubt it'll completely happen. I also doubt we'll ever see proper color management, or LAB color, or other critical features Photoshop had back in 1996.
These things are being worked on, the next version has the new interface and GEGL integration will fix the 8bit per pixel thing... of course it's open source so you'll have to wait.
Nice post.
@anonymous
No those things are not being worked. Just as always people are trying to defend GIMP for being GIMP, the great paladin of FOSS in the world of Graphics.
The UI design is bad in almost every aspect it could, its capabilities are outdated and worst of all it as a community of arrogant ignorants that don't take advice from anyone.
@g
Stop being picky about examples and answer the arguments this blog author made, your kind of people sicken me.
Proper color management and LAB color in Photoshop of 1996. Oh. My. Goodness. People just never learn to doublecheck facts. Of course, it's only to be expected — after all, why check facts when it's so much more fun to troll?
And of course there goes the usual bullshit about Cinepaint an GIMP. As if GEGL wasn't started to do what FimGIMP team did, but properly.
You know, there's nothing particularly bad about hatred as long as you remember to use valid arguments. But hatred + lies are road to nowhere.
From GIMP FAQ:
"When can we see 16-bit per channel support (or better)?
For some industries, especially photography, 24-bit colour depths (8 bits per channel) are a real barrier to entry. Once again, it's GEGL to the rescue. Work on integrating GEGL into GIMP began after 2.4 was released, and will span across several stable releases. This work will be completed in GIMP 3.0, which will have full support for high bit depths. If you need such support now and can't wait, cinepaint and krita support 16 bits per channel now.
It should be noted that for publishing to the web, the current GIMP release is good enough."
GIMP needs $ to hire more developers working full time.
If the main developers could have a strong job with cash garanties in some months this basic problems should be over.
Blender has four paid developers (2 part time/1 full time/1 almost full time) because of projects that are not at all possible with 2D programs like GIMP and Inkscape, namely the open game and open movie projects.
Pretty much everyone is aware that GIMP, at the moment, can not handle more than 24bit/pixel color. Those who don't know almost certainly don't care. For those of us who need higher pixel depth use UFRaw, Cinepaint, Krita, or even Blender.
I don't know *so* much about performance, other than that I have had more problems with performance in Photoshop than GIMP, taking a minute or two to open a file and lagging like crazy when panning etc. Or just crashing.
I would be hesitant to write that about linear workflow, as I am quite sure that the GIMP uses it- Google searches revealed that it uses a linear workflow in at least a majority of its code, and there is a place to load ICC profiles for your monitor, RGB, and CMYK.
In conclusion, you seem to have some sort of misplaced vendetta against the GIMP. I'm not really sure why else you would post this. You are entitled to an opinion and the right to express it, but due to the fact that just about everyone who needs to know is aware of these limitations, there was no need. You talked about there only being two dedicated developers like it was a defect in the GIMP, when if you had any respect for them you would be cheering on.
I use Gimp at least three or four times a week. I took the time to learn its interface, around 2003. Back then "Grokking the GIMP" was my constant companion :)
My area of use is primarily for on-line (web, e-mail) viewing (as opposed to print) and I have never found it wanting in this area.
As for the unintuitive UI, I have at times tried using Photoshop... What's intuitive about that interface?
There are some features that I would love to see in Gimp. Collapsible layers being the most important one for me, and better text formatting, the second most important one.
If this is anything to go by, Photoshop has its fair share of pirates: http://thepiratebay.org/browse/301/0/7. GIMP is free. Really free. If you want a better GIMP start participating. Shell out some cash and donate, or get involved.
The maintainers think they are god and are very rude to all the new comers who want to contribute patches. That's way.
The same is true to the mplayer project maintainters.
I honestly think the biggest thing Gimp has going against it is that it's free.
I don't completely understand it, but when an employee is tasked with choosing a company's graphical software - what they will dictate other employees use - it's far easier to choose photoshop and move on then it is to choose GIMP and have to defend the decision.
Perceived value? Something like that.
Articles like this make that decision easier.
@prokoudine Gimp had the chance to get into HDR and colour management pretty soon. The CinePaint released its HDR creation tool shortly after Adobes Photoshop. The question here is not competition among open source projects, but the users demand, which was not meet at the time. I started working on CinePaint in 2003 as a photographer because Gimp was not useful for 16-bit alignment for my panoramas.
@dsavi I am not sure, what the Cmyk setting in Gimp's colour management panel is about. If you can enlighten me, that would be wonderful.
I honestly think the biggest thing Gimp has going against it is that it's free.
And yet people would rather pirate Photoshop than legitimately use a freely given away copy of Duh GIMP. Same with how people are also more willingly to pirate, with all the associated risks of preinstalled rootkits, trojans, etc that come with many pirated versions, or even pay hundreds of dollars for Windows over a freely given away Linux distro. There's good reasons for this that the freetards have yet to grasp. And it's not because people worship Microsoft or Adobe or Apple, etc.
Gimp had the chance to get into HDR and colour management pretty soon. The CinePaint released its HDR creation tool shortly after Adobes Photoshop. The question here is not competition among open source projects, but the users demand, which was not meet at the time. I started working on CinePaint in 2003 as a photographer because Gimp was not useful for 16-bit alignment for my panoramas.
Exactly. Even if the FilmGIMP/CinePaint solution wasn't the perfect or "right" way, Duh GIMP would have at least HAD support for a feature that is basically the bare minimum of needed for professional work. Coming out of this could have been an army of programmers and funding from film studios, etc. Yet due to their arrogance they poopooed this and are now in the situation of being starved of developers where after 11 years we're STILL waiting for GEGL to be fully integrated and implemented in Duh GIMP.
Unfortunately Gimp's shortcomings aren't just in its limitations..
By itself Gimp is a really great and very capable FOSS software. But the second you compare it with another non-FOSS project (*cough*Photoshop*cough*), it's like you are comparing a Ford Fiesta with a Jaguar.
Now you can ask yourself, why is it that the Ford Fiesta is so slow or why its interior feel so cheap once you tried a Jag.
After all, both are cars designed to move people around and have similar features.
Well the comparison stops right there.
You are comparing a free software project maintained by two volunteer developers against other paid softwares that involve decades of developments hundreds if not thousands of well paid and dedicated developers.
And unlike Gimp, there is not only programmers who work on the project, there are UI/UX specialists, a marketing team, a quality control team, etc. etc.
But ultimately my fear is not that Gimp will never reach that kind of software quality, but that it *cannot* reach it due to software patents.
Because I think that what everybody's expecting of Gimp is to become the "Photoshop" of Linux.
For this reason I have more hope that Adobe will someday decide to port Photoshop to Linux than Gimp to become as good as Photoshop..
If it already runs on Mac OS/X .. why not ?
it's far easier to choose photoshop and move on then it is to choose GIMP and have to defend the decision.
Duh? One is an industry standard app with decades of use and development based on feedback from those working in the industry, tons of useful plugins, supports the workflows of professional users, and the other is some toy written by some academics that think it's better to spend 11 years on reimplementing their base graphics library than just accept some patches that add the features that people who would actually love to have used the Gimp wanted.
Perceived value? Something like that.
No, it has to do with the fact that when you buy a product from someone that there is actual accountability if the product is shit. You don't get this from groups like The Gimp developers. Besides, it's far more than "perceived" value that one gets from tools like Photoshop. It's increased productivity and that's well worth spending money on from a business perspective. Freetards tend not to understand this and this is why their offerings almost always fail despite protestations about how "MY PRODUCT IS TEH FREE!!!!".
Articles like this make that decision easier.
Boohoo? If the Gimp can't compete without having it's flaws being suppressed from public articles then it should get out of the game.
Because I think that what everybody's expecting of Gimp is to become the "Photoshop" of Linux.
That's because that's what freetards have been trying to claim it is for over a decade. It can't even support something as basic as adjustment layers (non-destructive editing) which has been a feature of Photoshop since 1996 or even something like 16-bit which has been in Photoshop since 1992.
If it already runs on Mac OS/X .. why not ?
Because there is not enough buyers on Linux to justify the costs of porting. I suggest you read this thread and the many postings from Chris Cox from Adobe.
"the domain of less-than-glamorous profiling and optimizing"
Whaaa? Is "I made this one small change and now it's 50% faster for everybody" not "glamorous"? What in all of software is more glamorous?
I get frustrated every time somebody says "this program needs unglamorous work X done" (it's always a different X, strangely). You are yourself declaring that it's unglamorous, and causing people to stay away!
No, his point is legitimate. Free software is plagued by people who love to initially crank out code, but then when they actually have to maintain it, debug it, or optimize it that's when they usually abandon the product because it's much, much harder than the initial code writing. That's why you see so many abandoned projects on sourceforge, etc.
I believe that a part of GIMP's non-acceptance is the fact that it fails to deliver a smooth UI on the Mac. The necessity to use the X11 window manager makes the software virtually unusable. I'm a Linux user, and quite enjoy what GIMP has to offer on the GNOME desktop. To be honest, I wasn't aware of the shortcomings you mention in the article. Thanks for that. I feel enlightened.
I believe that a part of GIMP's non-acceptance is the fact that it fails to deliver a smooth UI on the Mac. The necessity to use the X11 window manager makes the software virtually unusable.
That is definitely part of it. Almost no Mac users want to use X11 apps. X11 was only tacked on to get the UNIX certification.
Let me ask you something, Troy Sobotka. Why do you even bother to go on living? Why did your parents ever waste their time raising such a worthless, talentless, unaccountable waste of carbon as you? Think of all the food and water and oxygen that gets wasted on you, when it could go to more productive members of the world like the mosquitoes and cockroaches.
Your whole beef with Gimp is that it's not Photoshop.
Three words: It's Not. Photoshop.
In other words, you're such an entitled piece of shit that you insist on Photoshop, And then you're such a cheap son of a bitch that you refuse to pay the price for it. And then you're such a lazy sack of slug cum that you refuse to write your own clone. And then you're such a blood-sucking leech that you're raising ire and demanding that somebody else's free open source project bend to your whims, just because you asked them to. And then you're such a small-minded, petty, lifeless little basement troll that you have to spam this little bitchfest to every social news site that supports FOSS, and hire an army of asstroturfers to flame alongside you to anyone who dares simply say, "but I like Gimp. It works for what I want it to do."
That's - I don't know, I lost count - I think six different ways that you are a worthless piece of shit today. And I suppose you'll masturbate in the mirror tonight and smoke your weed and go to bed with a rosy smile on your face, proud of yourself for making the world a little stupider and a little shittier place to be today.
I'm damned proud of every word I say here and there's a lot more where that came from. Because I speak for truth, justice, freedom, and decency when I say that were there a supreme being in the universe with a sense of justice, it would have rained flaming brimstone on your mother the day she decided to open her legs to make you.
Oh, I see your cowardly ass jumped on the last comment and deleted it as soon as the pixels dried. Very well, I have a blog of my own...
Three words: It's Not. Photoshop.
And yet freetards far and wide portray it like it's a Photoshop killer. Yes, it's not Photoshop because it lacks basic features (like 16-bit and adjustment layers) that have been in photoshop for near 2 decades. It's so far out of Photoshop's league it's not even funny. Even a simplified program like Paint.NET blows Duh GIMP out of the water.
"freetards".
Yeah, that certainly fosters a civil discussion.
Yeah, nothing fosters civil discussion such as:
Why did your parents ever waste their time raising such a worthless, talentless, unaccountable waste of carbon as you?
In other words, you're such an entitled piece of shit...And then you're such a cheap son of a bitch...And then you're such a lazy sack of slug cum...And then you're such a blood-sucking leech ...And then you're such a small-minded, petty, lifeless little basement troll...
I think six different ways that you are a worthless piece of shit today.
Oh, I see your cowardly ass
Yeah, it was ME who was blocking a civil debate. My bad.
> "And yet freetards far and wide portray it like it's a Photoshop killer."
Actually, the exact opposite is the case. Actual FOSS users have been saying that the Gimp is the Gimp. Period. Phototards are the ones who want to pee in Gimp so it tastes more like Adobe and then they'll like the flavor.
See this? this is a URL...
http://developer.gimp.org/gimpcon/2006/index.html
There is a page on DEVELOPER.GIMP.ORG which, for those of you just tuning in after your salvia divinorum trip wears off, (including this blog's author), means the Big News that it COMES FROM THE PEOPLE WHOOOO MAAAAAKE GIIIIIIIMP.
There's the money quote right on the page:
> "What GIMP is not:
*GIMP is not MS Paint or Adobe Photoshop"
... It was never intended to be a Photoshop clone. They say that over and over in that page, making it more and more clear each time. They have a road map and a mission statement and none of them have ANYTHING TO DO with making a single, solitary Photoshop troll the least, tiniest bit happy. And I, for one, congratulate them for it!
Wait, don't go stupid on me now! Stay with the point, pay attention here:
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
GIMP WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP YESTERDAY.
GIMP WILL NOT BE SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP TOMORROW.
DO YOU WANT A FREE PHOTOSHOP? FUCK YOU. THERE IS NONE.
THAT MIGHT BE WHY IT'S $900 NOW, WOULDN'T IT?
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
You assholes will never get it.
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
A point which, if any of the retards on this page would allow it to be heard over their assinine braying jackassery, would blow away 100% of the FUD around Gimp. Indeed, if Gimp is truly falling on hard times, it is through none other than the fault of the Troy Sobotkas of this world and the 1000 slobbering idiots infesting this Earth insisting that Gimp has to be Photoshop.
> "Yeah, it was ME who was blocking a civil debate. My bad. "
The blog's own author comments as 'anonymous'? Wow, add sockpuppeting and having no imagination to Troy Sodotka's list of reasons why his life is a stage play called "Fail."
The blog's own author comments as 'anonymous'?
He might, but what does that have to do with my post? Which was laughing at your freetarded ass?
can you guys continue your slap fight somewhere else please
Penguin Pete is the reason that Duh GIMP has almost no developers. Exactly who would ever want to put up with such rabble?
Penguin Pete is the reason Linux users are viewed to be as crazy as Jared Loughner. You'd think someone in the FOSS community would tell him to get the help he needs.
Knock it off, jackass, and get help.
Regardless of the fact that GIMP isn't perfect, it is still quite useful. There are some niche cases and scenarios where it can't be used, and in some cases it is technically inadequate (for certain kinds of professional work). However, as a professional, I still manage to use GIMP successfully most of the time. When it comes to print, there are still options in open source aside from GIMP. However, GIMP is the most mature at the moment.
The main issue is that the underlying code is available to fix these issues, and implement all the features people most commonly complain are missing compared to Photoshop, but no one is there to hack them. There are no technical hurdles in implementing the technology, it just needs man hours.
In a day where Disney and Google can fund Wine with a crap ton of cash to get certain versions of Photoshop working, it's a shame none of that dough is making its way to improving open source offerings to take Photoshop's place. We're not that far off!
But, by the time we DO get the work done, there may be some new advance in image manipulation that makes us seem yet further behind.
It's just surprising to me that people are so concerned about DEs, and where Gnome is going, but they can't think to get back to basics with the program GTK itself was derived from- GIMP.
Desktop environments with ease of use and new ways of doing tasks are great, but they're a luxury. The actual ability to pull off those tasks is quite a bit more crucial. You can doll up and easify everything all you want, but if you're using a plastic knife to cut a steak, it's going to hit a bone and become useless. We need to focus on making some chainsaws, not merely a flexible knife.
There are only a few small pockets that open source can't fill, but while it can't, professionals will have a hard time using it fulltime for any serious work. And the fact of the matter is that people will learn the OS that's used in business, to prepare for it. And if that OS is only suitable for consumers, it's going to be hard to get anyone to take it seriously as a main OS, rather than a dual-booting plaything.
Penguin Pete is a troll who tries to make "Linux users" look bad, as if there were one type of Linux user!
GIMP has trouble attracting developers because the core developers are hostile and extremely hard to work with. You couldn't pay me enough to work with them, let alone do it for free. Blender on the other hand is very welcoming of any and all help. There are many IRC rooms filled with people that are happy to assist and guide you.
You might argue that Linus Torvalds in hostile and hard to work with, but that hasn't stopped Linux. Well, Linux has many paid developers, and is useful to a much broader audience. If GIMP is to shine, it either needs to attract paid developers, or its core developers need to pull the sticks out of their...
Having a little guidance from a UI designer wouldn't hurt either.
In a day where Disney and Google can fund Wine with a crap ton of cash to get certain versions of Photoshop working, it's a shame none of that dough is making its way to improving open source offerings to take Photoshop's place. We're not that far off!
When Duh GIMP still doesn't have features that are 14 and 18 years old in Photoshop you ARE a far way off. And things like non-destructive adjustment layers, for one, is a must for any serious work.
To further add to the above post: Why would you think they would WANT to replace Photoshop? Their entire workflows are built around it. The replace workflows such as ones in place at Disney requires HUGE infrastructure changes and retraining costs to move to another suite. That is why they will pay the comparable pittance to get it working in Wine over replacing their entire workflow infrastructure.
The above discussion has been an embarrassment.
From the viewpoint of a photographer, and a full-time Linux user, let me give my thoughts:
I am a strong believer in FOSS, but I don't use GIMP for anything, even for web-destined work. The reason is simple: loss of numerical precision. Even though 24 bit color might be enough for computer displays, image manipulations done at that precision guarantees you will have less than that when you are done. On top of that, GIMP throws away lots of precision from the RAW images coming out of my 5D camera.
Image manipulation in Linux is tough road. I have been using the commercial package Lightzone for tasks such as relighting images, and cloning out dust that is stuck to my 5D sensor - and it works well, but it has limited functionality. It does have non-destructive editing however, which I make use of.
Digikam, Fotoxx, are both impressive, but still lack in functionality.
My solution is to run Picture Window Pro under WINE. This works quite well - for manipulating digital photographs or scanned transparency film. Maybe someday this will change, and a simple-to-use FOSS tool will appear that does the job.
To all of you! just wait:
Darktable for RAW, Krita for HQ-digital Painting, Inkscape for Vectorgraphics, Scribus as Quarks alternative in the future, OpenRaster as Exchangeformat for LibreGraphics, OpenColour to replace Pantone as a libre standard to be used by libregraphics... and much more to come!
Just wait; and yes GEGL is being worked from 2001, and within GIT "SingleWindow", "LayerGroups", "TextEditingImproved" already implemented!. (Most significant change to Pre-GEGL are those filters like snn-mean or kuwahara, or cage-tool.... just have SOME! patience and send all your GTK experts to the GIMP Mailing List... Besides: check out libregraphicsmag.com and what is done within the world of libre graphics. Last but not least. GIMP has an UI-Specialist: Peter Sikking!.... cya... Don't try to use X11 (old version; get it from lisanet!), use LINUX and it will get much smoother than most of you expect.
So instead of using a couple of industry standard programs that have all the features that a professional needs ALREADY one should continue to wait in this Duke Nukem Forever type situation for GEGL to finally deliver what was promised since 2000?
Well, as a Gimp Developer and someone that has put a lot of work into GIMP brush performance for last stable and current development version, all I can say that I personally am deeply offended and saddened by the hurtful words. I spend my free time trying to make GIMP better for everybody and this is what I get. Thanks a lot, guys.
Here's a HINT, we are working on these issues. Yes, we do care. A lot of people are donating their free moments to GIMP because they care. Please understand, GIMP is not PS. It's not trying to be. It's trying to be best open source image editor it can. Currently it is inferior to PS in some aspects. I'm sure it has aspects where its superior, even if only in the small niche of portability. This inferiority may not be the state in the future. It evolves slowly because it depends on our free time but it does evolve. A bunch of people calling us names over the way we spend our free time doesn't help.
Repeat after me:
GIMP is free.
It isn't commercial grade software but is near enough for a lot of non-beret wearing users.
Don't like it, pay the money for PS.
Simple enough isn't it?
But no, here's yet another 'OMG a piece of free software isn't as good as a piece of commercial software' blog post.
Well DUH.
Go back to your pirated versions of PS and get back on your ivory towers.
@11 JANUARY, 2011 1:05 PM
Your comment would be warranted if not for the fact that it's trivially easy to find people claiming that Duh GIMP is as good if not better than Photoshop when this is simply false. The lack of adjustment layers is a huge strike against it. That's before getting into the fact that it's taken over 18 years for it to match Photoshop in the area of supporting anything great than 8-bit images (Photoshop had 16-bit support back in 1992 just FYI).
Gimp is good enough for all the uses where otherwise a pirated copy of PS would be used for simple tasks. It isn't PRO grade yet. It's trying to get there. NONE of the developers Ive met have claimed that it is there NOW. Only the silly people who sell stupid software mashup CD-s claim GIMP is photoshop replacement...
It could have been there more than 10 years ago had Gimp's duh-velopers not poopooed the patches from the FilmGIMP/CinePaint people. The fact that you guys are still struggling to get GEGL fully integrated into Duh GIMP after 11 years shows how misguided that was. The funny thing is is that Duh GIMP would have gotten an army of developers and a good chunk of money from the film studios to improve the problem if the duh-velopers hadn't been arrogant assholes. So instead of having an industry class program, Duh GIMP is stuck in a state that can't even compete with Photoshop 4.0.
@Anonymous who finds "[my] kind of people" sickening: I didn't "answer the arguments this blog author made" because I basically agree with them. I pointed out an error because it was there and I don't think any argument is improved by having mistakes in it. I don't know what you think my "kind of people" are, but I'm sorry that you were sickened by what I wrote.
(The author of the article has fixed the mistake now.)
The GIMP developers were not the people poo-pooing the patches from the FilmGIMP developers, it was the FilmGIMP developers poo-pooing their own hacky proof of concept that decided that creating GEGL and doing things properly from the ground up seemed like a more promising future. Others picked up the FilmGIMP hack and continued the work; later marketed under the Cinepaint name. Cinepaint gather an army of developers paid by the major studios? Or have they only surfed on the initial success of the original FilmGIMP developers that also originated GEGL and what might now actually become the future of GIMP?
Troy - Good light-shedding post. Unfortunately your second paragraph was so spot on it hurts :|
Two points to some of the above commenters:
1. There is a point to this whole free software thing. It's not all about what's easiest or what works best. It's frustrating and a sacrifice sometimes. There's no shame in that. But honest and fair criticism is useful, blind faith is not.
2. The put up or shut up attitude is so limiting. Grow a thicker skin and accept that you might be wrong, or that you might learn something new or better through some reasoned discussion. Drop the over-defensiveness. No one is undervaluing the hard work done on the Gimp. But that doesn't mean suggestions on improving its effectiveness are any less valid.
Richard Querin: it is not only about put up or shut up, it is read up and figure out what is actually being done to address the shortcomings instead of perpetuating both inaccurate and accurate well known shortcomings.
Yes you can see 25 steps. How about 255? You cannot see them. I have experimented enough to verify this. After seeing that, I did not read the rest.
Everybody needs to seriously chill out. GIMP is what it is, and is not trying to replace photoshop. It works for a lot of non-professionals and does a good job for us. If you need photoshop, use photoshop. But don't complain that something else isn't photoshop. Why can't everyone just use what works for them and be happy? Personally, I think this article was not needed, and only served to insight a flame war.
"Your comment would be warranted if not for the fact that it's trivially easy to find people claiming that Duh GIMP is as good if not better than Photoshop when this is simply false. "
You'd think by know people would realize that there is not such thing as a platonic good, especially when it comes to software. For some people and some purposes it really is as good or better. (Otherwise nobody would be using it) Whenever "good" is mentioned, it raises the questions "Good for who?" and "Good for what purpose" The same can be said of "better" as well.
"You'd think by know people would realize that there is not such thing as a platonic good, especially when it comes to software. "
This kind of nonsense is the reason Gimp still sucks after all these years.
following is in view of Linux or other free operating systems .. if you are on a proprietary OS .. you can buy that 600 $ image editor .
Not too long ago another open source project used to get tons of negative feedback mainly regarding its fundamental design philosophy ,interface and tools
.. a couple of months of development and its on par if not more powerful than any other programs in its category free and non free alike.
this project is blender
and look at it now ..
the GIMP is an amazing program i bit uncomfortable at first but feature packed.
i personally like that i can apply a filter or image transformation on a large image and let it process as i work on another image .. something u will possibly never be able to do in photoshop i feature the GIMP has since .. for ever
the quality is not as bad as this post makes it to be.
the GIMP needs to start something like a foundation.. or it would be awesome if maybe the blender foundation would take it under its wing, so theres some direction in the project as well as a way for the community to contribute financially to the GIMP.
.peace
Only one thing bothered me about the article, "lack of industry support". Given the number of passionate comments on this post, one would imagine an army of artists and coders building a robust open source competitor to Photoshop. If GIMP is suffering, it is because the community is not growing (or forking) it.
For the record, I am not an artist, very rarely use GIMP and have never used Photoshop.
I don't know why you don't like it but I love GIMP it's no photoshop but it does the job
@Jackie, you would know if you had read the freaking article.
Is there somewhere a more technical and objective discussion about the development of the GIMP? On http://developer.gimp.org/index.html I see no GIMPcon after 2006, so I guess the development is stuck somehow, and the discussion here tells me this frustrates people. Just a flame war or some real stagnation? Clearly GIMP couldn't completely realize it's big aspirations formulated in 2006, see: http://developer.gimp.org/gimpcon/2006/index.html
One program can't be everything to all people. I've been using GIMP since it first came out and the UI is well known to me and easy. People coming from other programs have to unlearn what they know and learn something new. If you have been using Photoshop for a long time, moving to any other program can be painful. Same goes for using GIMP for a long time and moving to some other program.
GIMP works for me and it works for millions of other folks too. Millions? Yes, probably tens of millions actually. Does it work for some high end graphic artists like the one that wrote this article? I guess not. That is why there are multiple applications to choose from... to meet different sets of needs.
Saying that it can't possibly work for me and if I think so I'm deluded... well, that's deluded... because it has been what I've used for all of my graphics for years.
Do I want GIMP to improve and have all of the higher end features that print folks want... and advanced photo editors want? Sure... and that continues to be the developer's goals. I'm guessing we will eventually get there... but yeah, it might take a few more years. Even after all of that is done, I'm sure it'd have a tough time stealing Photoshop's entrenched users who don't want to have to learn a different app.
I'm not saying your criticisms aren't valid... because they obviously are... especially for your use case. For me they aren't an issue.
To the person who said that when choosing between Photoshop and GIMP that Photoshop was the safer choice... well, there is a second option. Since GIMP is free (like anyone doesn't already know what), you can have both for the same price.
I would rather see people using GIMP that pirating Photoshop... especially in a work environment... where they are in danger of getting busted by the BSA and having to pay heavy fines. Yes, it happens... but I know a lot of people don't worry about it too much. Being someone who is responsible for software licensing in my job.. I simply won't chance it. If we don't have a license available, the user gets GIMP... and that actually works for the vast majority of our users who have basic to medium needs. A few people do choose to cough up the funds for Photoshop and that's fine too. Just think how much money we are saving using GIMP for the people whose needs it meets just fine.
For some people Troy Sobotka has now become known as an enemy of volunteering, charitable work and other collaborative projects for greater good. I would suggest that the next targets to attack could be the red cross and amnesty for utterly failing to relieve any of the suffering left in the world by the evil gods that have crafted earth.
I second Scott. Been using Linux and Gimp for years and its great. I'm not a graphics person, just thankful for a useable image tool and respecting of the time that volunteers put in. Same thing w/ Linux in general. It began with volunteers and now your TVs even run Linux.
Frankly, I find PS hard to use because I never use it like most, but I dont go around bashing it.
Silly argument. Use what's best. However, if Gimp core devs are really anti-community then that's a shame. Gimp was originally a test application for GTK+.
@author
As an open source developer (not on Gimp, but on something completely unrelated in KDE) blog posts titled "why the piece of software you spent ages of your own time working on sucks" really helps no-one.
If you'd written the whole article with the same content but as "Where I hope the GIMP improves" you're far more likely to motivate someone to work on it.
How you (yes, you personally) can help the GIMP: Every time I post on my site about "some shiny new feature we're working on" I get 2 or 3 new developers show up in IRC the next day wanting to help out. You clearly know what you're talking about, praise the gimp for what it does well (which compared with anyone starting from scratch is a /lot/), and market what's coming up.
Also, give krita a try. They have a really active community going on, and a specific direction.
@David Edmundson
"If you'd written the whole article with the same content but as "Where I hope the GIMP improves" you're far more likely to motivate someone to work on it."
what a great point.
Though, (as I've felt for a while now) - the younger generation of folks exposed to all this 'free' software seem to have a general lack of appreciation for all the efforts of volunteer coders. That was what drew me into Linux at age 14 back in 1999. I was amazed people were doing it for free! I was also amazed that I could have an OS (unlike Win98) that would actually shutdown when I asked it to.
I hope the Ubuntu generation can simply appreciate people's efforts - esp. when they are not getting paid/etc...
At the end of the day, someone has to code it.
@David Edmundson
I guess one would hope people would actually get past a title and read the content.
In any case, Troy thankfully approaches these things with a critical eye and pulls very very few punches.. and that's a good thing IMO. And he has cited Krita for their focus in this post and in others.
I sometimes wonder why people always assume that anything other than singing praises is a no-no. We need this sort of discussion. Sometimes the emperor does in fact not have any clothes.
@Scott Dowdle
"Saying that it can't possibly work for me and if I think so I'm deluded... well, that's deluded... because it has been what I've used for all of my graphics for years."
I've re-read the piece and I can't find where he said that. He did however write this in his third paragraph:
"This is an attempt to outline three key reasons why some graphic artists and designers perceive GIMP as inadequate when it comes to its suitability in their imaging pipelines"
He outlined where he was gonna go and simply went there. This doesn't mean it can't possibly work for you, or me.
In fact I've done a few published print ads now using the Gimp as part of the process. But that doesn't mean I don't agree with his points.
GIMP was designed by Linux nerds, for Linux nerds. It's good for making graphics that will eventually make their way onto a website or into another "knockoff of a 20 year old Nintendo game" open source game, nothing more.
Wow - what an entertaining blog! Penguin Pete, you certainly have a way with words... and an all-too-obvious prejudice against drug users. While I do greatly admire the former though, I cannot agree with or condone the latter. Troy Sobotka, while I believe you do have some valid points to your argument, I also think that perhaps you could have stated them in a somewhat more tactful manner... instead of overly stressing your perception of the GIMP's inadequacies as failures.
As for the GIMP's user interface, I wish to state that I *like* it. I've not found floating panels to be overly-complicated at all; indeed, I very much LOVE being able to permanently assign the tool panels to one desktop, and the main window to another (in E17), because I can change desktops in order to select another tool and then return to the fullscreened work desktop very quickly, using either the keyboard or the scrollwheel - and with that method, they are _never_ in the way or taking away any of my work area, yet are always instantly *accessible* regardless. I would be greatly angered if the GIMP developers ever decided to take that away from me! Give it more colour depth and greater capabilities if you wish, but please leave the UI alone, thanks.
I am really glad that I don't have to develop or even maintain a complex imaging application that exclusively uses X11. My most generous estimate is that it would require twice as many developers as an application developed for a modern window server architecture.
You people, and i use the term loosely, seriously think that this kind of attack on a project is beneficial to anyone? I bet it's a real morale booster, this whole being told that the project you put your time into is irrevocably doomed to failure, thing.
Yes gimp is in desperate need of additional manpower, of that there's no question, can you help with that, or are unpleasant little attacks the best you have to offer?
On the subject of X11, gimp doesn't use the thing directly, gimp uses GTK, there are native ports for Windows and OSX, among other platforms, quite why no one's produced a decent distribution for OSX using the native port i don't know. Not that i'm suggesting that GTK itself doesn't have its issues, but X11 it ain't.
I cannot understands the rants about the floating window mode of Gimp. When I remember it correctly, then Photoshop is also using this mode when running on a Mac, which definitively makes sense when you are working with multiple screens. The single window mode would be more then counterproductive on such a setup, and we do not even talk about things like virtual desktops, that are just not yet invented on the Mac or Windows.
I can second the arguments about the GUI toolkit itself, I'd really like to see a Qimp instead of a Gimp.
@Roman then go to Gilles Caulier and push ShowFoto thats "cute"...
Just a note to mention that currently I use gimp all day every day. I produce custom printer circuit board RF layouts (yes, monochrome !). I've also used it for a couple of years for web page development with no issues so far. gimp is a very reliable application with a useful feature set. It can be annoying but the benefits seem worth the struggles, at least for me.
Most graphics hardware only has the facility for 8bits per colour channel. Its more than possible for functions like filters to use higher intermediate colour resolution but return a 24bpp result. Yes, some printers and a (very few) cameras support greater than 24bpp but so what, most image formats fail to support greater colour depth. 16 bits per channel seems a lot of work to benefit a minority of users who are just after a free photoshop clone.
Most real world sensors are non linear. Cameras may have >8bpp colour depth but this is not the same as having more than 24 bits worth of dynamic range - data after the colour correction curves is normally <=24 bpp on all but studio quality gear. The two least significant bits tend to be noise under a lot of camera conditions as well.
It should be noted that just like audiophiles graphic professionals tend to spout a lot of dogma and "group wisdom" that is often based on received opinion rather than firm facts or science. Colour depth seems to be the oxygen free cable of the graphics world.
Yes higher intermediate resolution in gimp would be useful, but I cant be bothered to try and code it, can any of you ?
I don't see how gimp people are anti community.
Sure, it's slow but 2.8 does have a new UI, with single window capability. Their engaging the community:
http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/
(In fact if you have *constructive* ideas on what the UI should look like (I get the idea that this may just be a screenshot of photoshop for a lot of people) then this is the place to submit them).
I saw someone say that it's not being worked on, but I don't see how much more you can want apart from the new UI + reorganisation being done for 2.8, and the integration of GEGL (to be able to handle the other colour systems).
GEGL isn't just about colour systems, but will enable much more stuff too (like a sort of "effects stack" so you can save/undo any effect at any point), also stuff like an equivilent to photoshops layer folders.
GEGL basically can enable most of the things people say are missing (it seems, except for "become photoshop").
This is open source, if you want the cool stuff you can either wait or contribute .. constructive criticism is welcome, but just saying the same old stuff people have been saying - seemingly having done 0 research, seems utterly pointless.
Oh I should mention ..
I really do like the GIMP + the floating panels, even when single window mode arrives I don't see myself using it.
Sorry, my 3rd post in a row. A cursory glance at the gimp website shows:
"In the face of all sorts of rumours and interpretations about the future of the project there is a call for clarification regarding development of GIMP.
Currently GIMP team is working on finalizing the new stable v2.8 with many improvements such as layer groups, improved brush dynamics, a new unique transformation tool, optional single-window mode and more. There are two big obstacles in our way right now: missing specification on the last change in user interface and broken graphic tablets support in GTK+.
We have already invested a lot of time into UI changes and brush dynamics, we treasure your continuous support for the project and thus we are determined to release v2.8 only when it's working out of box as expected for everybody.
After releasing v2.8 the focus of development will shift to deep integration of GEGL — our new non-destructive image processing core. Results of this work will enable many features considered critical for use of GIMP in professional environment which is part of GIMP's product vision. It's a lot of work, and currently we don't have enough developers to make this change happen very fast. If you want to help us to get there faster, we encourage you to join gimp-developer mailing list and/or the IRC channel to discuss how you could contribute."
4th and last post:
GTK is also going through major changes with GTK 3 on the way.
GTK3 will deprecate a lot of stuff, but also is a lot simpler to draw with (being a lot more cairo based) - this should make ports to MacOSX and Windows a lot easier and work generally better.
Great article Troy!
The whole post (as I read it) boils down to the question: Is Gimp aiming to become a software for serious/pro use? @Death says it is, and that's great!
That makes this discussion necessary. The issues that Troy addresses are very valid and voice what lot of artist/designers feel.
Quite often I see Gimp described as on par with PS (or even better). The fear is that the devs think of it as that as well. Very grateful that @Death stopped by to clear that up.
I really appreciate the hard work the devs put in into this (really looking forward to test that new brush technology @Death!) as I'm sure we all are, but if the software is to move forward it's the voice of people like Troy that needs to be heard. People experienced working with arts and design in pro environments.
Both this blog post and most of the comments seem a lot less unproductive than the discussion about this blogpost at http://lwn.net/Articles/422409/ which is more constructive.
Who invented the automobile? Ford? maybe... I'm pretty sure it wasn't Honda. And very sure it wasn't Kia... Is the statement - "Ford had 6 cylinder engines first, so Ford is the best." - vaild?? Just because Photoshop was ahead of the curve at some point doesn't mean it will remain there forever... In the overall longterm market, free software wins and wins big. So to all you people posting about "freetards" remember your economics and the supply-demand curves... over time the free software will be as good as needed for 99.9% of world users (most of the world populace has yet to get a computer) --- and due to economics, most of the world will choose free software...
OMFG! "GTK-based menus that are completely nonstandard and inconsistent with other Windows applications, and so on". You another anonymous user have just shown you're inadequate.
I will however eat my words if you come back and explain
1) how are Windows applications consistent with other applications? Microsoft Office is really consistent with previous versions and you don't even have to look when you navigate through Winamp menus and change your GPU settings?
2) Standards? You better have some hard data on those. Link to International Organization for Standardization site when you talk Windows and standards. It will be easy job, I promise. If you want more standards-compliant system in your hands, then go look Gnu/Linux. You need and also use both extensively in your daily life so why not? (Please don't)
3) How much you said you paid for Gimp?
Now that's a lot of comments.
The fact is that there is no such thing as a perfect software. Some constructive criticism can help. For my line of work, however, none of the flaws in post are relevant for my web design needs gimp bits the crap out of photoshop anytime and in spite having a legal copy of adobe cs5 web premium at my work, I still prefer gimp to photoshop. Of course everyone should use the tool that they can work best with.
I am in agreement with the author. Personally, the gimp's interface, while not the best, is just a matter of becoming familiar with it. In other words, it can be worked with if one is determined. However, there is not work around for the color and bit depth limitation. That is a show stopper for me, as a photographer. I have Photoshop CS3 available on my Windows partition. However, I found in digiKam all I need for my work. The only feature I sorely miss in digiKam is a proper clone tool. However, that can be worked around by leaving the speck cleanup as the last step in the photo process. Fortunately, the clone tool is the next feature to be implemented in the digiKam developers to-do list of priorities.
If not GIMP, then what?
The "redmond school" of computing has numerous amatuer image manipulation packages and several professional packages. Even those from the cheap seats are often quite powerful, and folks are able to do fantastic work with these cheap seats packages.
Very easy to criticize without an active contribution to the project. As pointed out, main issue is manpower. Instead of wasting time arguing on blog, why don't anyone including the author go after Gimp team so they can push its development further?
As for the UI, it will be hardly surprising the majority of comment never tried Mac version of Adobe Photoshop CS series that has not a single window mode by default when they request that feature. It is obvious familiarity is the main point. Then how come those comments overlook the ability to rename the key, the fact Gimp icon theme can be changed (for example, Gimpshop)?
Do you want Gimp to be better than closed-source Adobe product? Contribute more. GEGL seems interesting tool it needs more love.
Is everyone in the world a professional graphics artist or something? No? Then STFU already and just use what you need to get the job done. You haters are just born losers with nothing better to do than hate on everything. I would bitch slap all you f'ing haters if I could. You need to get lives.
vão tudo toma no cu
Thanks for the article, Troy. Good points, all.
To the FOSS advocates: When you want people to contribute to FOSS development in non-coding ways, this article is one of those ways. Troy took the time to point out in specific ways where Gimp is lacking for professional graphics work. He didn't rant and say "Gimp sucks!", he put together a list of suggested improvements from a professional artist's point of view. He didn't even really rail on the GUI, just brought up the question of "is the GUI really the most important thing to be working on next?"
Gimp isn't Photoshop. And it isn't supposed to be Photoshop. We get that. So here's my question:
I'm a professional artist. I need a native Linux based image processing and editing application. It needs to have deep bit-depth precision, linear workflow, work with at least HD res images (1920x1080) but ideally handle 3K x 3K images well, have a good brush system, have tablet support, have non-destructive filters, support for working with multiple layers and comping them together, easy access to individual channels (R G B A) and the ability to isolate/edit/duplicate/reorder those layers, support for vector masks (ideally with feathered edges), good editing tools (select/cut/copy/paste), a stamp/clone type brush, remapable hotkeys, and hopefully an easy way to script and extend the app.
What are my options? (And this is a need-list, not a wish-list. Nor are any of these requests all that out-of-the-ordinary or very new technology-wise. I have use for all of this functionality on a near daily basis).
Cheers,
Michael
It's been said already, but I'll say it again- the negativity of this article doesn't help a thing. Seems strange that someone would have such animosity towards a great free piece of software that empowers people to explore their creativity. The Gimp is robust, stable as hell, and has a great set of plugins available to get around many issues.
Most people in the graphics world know of it's limitations at this point, including the devs. Seeing as you get a lot of traffic here it would be more conducive to do a shout out for support/developers to address these concerns- find an interested dev and get a fund going, set up a bounty, learn the code, whatever.
A good photo will be a good photo whether done in GIMP or Photoshop. Same for a bad photo.
I do what I can IN CAMERA (I still use scanned film mostly). If You have to go through all these steps to get a decent photo from what the camera gives You. (a digital camera on "auto" is not photography in my book) it says more about the photographer than the software used.
I've been with GIMP for many years and appreciate the work that's put into it. I've also found the GIMP community very cool too. (That's a point in it's favor too).
"GIMP is very obviously a tool written by and for Linux users..."
Yeah.
And, for the most part, Linux users don't much care for the million-anonymous-little-buttons approach of Windows user interfaces. We like the freedom to lay out menus as we see fit.
The GIMP is free. If you want to use it, feel free to do so. But it's awfully presumptuous to demand that the people by and for whom the GIMP was designed--Linux users--be compelled to adopt a UI many of us find clumsy and counter-intuitive.
All the bitching about how Gimp isn't Photoshop, when it's not at all supposed to be, is clearly coming from people that would ditch Windows in a second if GNU/Linux had something on par.
CS3 runs fine in Wine. So, quit your bitching and move to GNU/Linux already.
Quit begging for permission or validation and just friggen do it.
-- Completely not an anonymous coward
Things you can do with Gimp:
http://www.jesusda.com/blog/index.php?id=412
Gimp resynthesizer (This tool works on Gimp 5 yeas ago. This tool comes to Photoshop in the last reslease)
http://www.jesusda.com/blog/index.php?id=405
GEGL is GPL. I think that counts against it hugely. Rather than being a library of image processing routines that can be embedded in a wide variety of apps, it limits itself to just GPL (or GPL compatible) software.
If I have a neat idea for a denoise algorithm, and I implement it in GEGL (and contribute it to the library of code), I'll have a hard time legally embedding that into a photo manipulation program such as Aperture to make a bit of money from my time.
I think the GPL license on this low level library dramatically reduces the developer base willing to contribute new algorithms and modes to the GIMP.
Of course the people spending the time can license their work how they want, I'm just suggesting a reason there's not much of a community around the product.
"If I have a neat idea for a denoise algorithm, and I implement it in GEGL (and contribute it to the library of code), I'll have a hard time legally embedding that into a photo manipulation program such as Aperture to make a bit of money from my time."
I don't quite see why that would be the case.
Dual licensing has been done for a wide range of projects (Ghostscript springs to mind), where a GPL'd version is made available under one set of terms and conditions and a closed or otherwise more encumbered (or, in principle but I don't think anyone has done this) less encumbered version is made available under another set of ts and cs. You're the copyright owner: you're perfectly entitled to sell the product to customer X and give it away, GPL it or whatever to customers Y and Z.
If you release your algorithm in a GPL'd version _someone_ _else_ can't incorporate it into Aperture by using your literal code, but if they re-implement the concept then the GPL is irrelevant anyway, as it relates to copyright in the code itself.
I started as a designer in 1996 and used Macintosh, for a while we use Photoshop and FreeHand, then it was terrible and capacities were limited, not as an artist it had limitations, they are not in the software rather the ability of each person. After several years I probably use Gimp and Blender, fatal to this time, but I kept spending my time trying to do in Gimp so before I could do with Photoshop. The truth never limit myself using floating windows and the Mac environment was similar, I have 15 years working professionally with Gimp and so far I have lived with some limitations that have been resolved. Gimp I have given workshops to many people, I believe that more than 300 professionals, beginners etc. Many professionals in Photoshop before criticizing my workshops Gimp and then end up loving it.
I think there is a lack of tool Gimp, for me you can configure and professional use.
It is true, Gimp is a little under Photoshop, but with a little creativity can solve the constraints. Thank you to distribute your code Gimp I could learn how things work and I even learned to do my small improvements is scripts for Plugins.
Xavier Araque | @Rendergraf http://rendergraf.wordpress.com
I'm a professional graphic designer. I use Photoshop and Gimp at a very high level of proficiency. Just to point out where I'm coming from. I like Pshop and Gimp for their different strengths, but some of the above arguments are wrong. Gimp certainly has room for improvement, but anyone that actually used Photoshop in 1996 knows that Pshop itself has come a LONG way in 15 years.
I would like to point out something that needs to be understood about the importance of bit-depth. I am constantly working with hi-res jpegs from a wide variety of professional photographers every day. You know how many of those files use 32 bits/channel? None. You know how many of those files use 16 bits/channel? None. They are ALL in 8 bits/channel. It's certainly great to have the higher bit-depth options, but the importance of that capability in terms of graphic design/manipulating images for press is greatly exaggerated.
Also, CMYK color space in Photoshop is misused by graphic designers because most of them know very little about color space and/or color management. Some of us know (I don't mean to offend anyone) but the majority of designers I have worked with are completely oblivious. I've even seen creative directors explicitly instruct their designers to select "discard color profile" when confronted with the "What should I do?" dialog in Photoshop. The need for CMYK color space, though useful and great, is also greatly exaggerated.
I also think the complaints about the UX are very subjective and usually only illustrate how little effort the commenter put into learning about and using the Gimp.
Two things that would greatly improve Gimp and many people's impressions of Gimp are:
- better image scaling/anti-aliasing algorithms
- layer groups and layer styles
Those two things are certainly complex, but if they were implemented, and it sounds like they will be soon, I would be extremely satisfied with Gimp's capabilities.
I think it's healthy to critique software, but the Gimp rarely receives praise for its remarkable capabilities.
" Every action in GIMP throws data out. Import an inexpensive camera's output in RAW format and you throw out data, irreversibly forcing the 12-14 bit per channel data into 8 bit per channel internal resolution. Color selections, blurs, and every data related manipulation will be fundamentally restricted."
Wait a second? Complain about RAW conversion into Gimp? Every tried Uraw and its Gimp extension? Unless someone has a reason, very few use that format/
"The maintainers think they are god and are very rude to all the new comers who want to contribute patches. That's way."
If this kind of thing is true (I don't know myself) i'd say that this is probably the true reason why GIMP suffers.
As for it being intuitive, I don't remember who said this but it is true:
"The only truly intuitive interface is the nipple."
Like someone above said, they started with GIMP and they find Photoshop unintuitive. Perhaps GIMP's version is actually more productive, and no one uses it because they are more used to photoshop. The point is, neither is "intuitive". I guarantee that experienced art people didn't immediately figure out how to use Photoshop without any help.
Personally, I've never found -any- interface to be "hard to use". With every interface, you just have to learn how to use it. People just don't like to learn.
"GEGL is GPL. I think that counts against it hugely. Rather than being a library of image processing routines that can be embedded in a wide variety of apps, it limits itself to just GPL (or GPL compatible) software."
Actually, it looks like GEGL is available under the LGPL license as well, which means you can dynamically link it to commercial proprietary applications.
I notice a number of photographers commenting that the current 8 bit per channel color depth is enough. And perhaps for a lot of photographers it is.
I work in 3D computer graphics, where 16 bit per channel color is common and needed. And since fire breathing dragons flying over misty mountains are difficult to photograph with real world cameras, the kind of work I do does require higher precision files, especially when you are repurposing depth maps, dealing with haze/fog, and working with pushing around HDRI images through their exposure range. Since FX work usually requires heavy compositing of layers, the precision, linear workflow, and performance for multiple stacked layers at 1920x1080 resolution matters.
Gimp is a pretty good medium-end image editor. Perhaps Linux simply doesn't have a native publicly available high-end image editor yet.
Cheers,
Michael
GIMP interface sucks. That's all there is to it. It sucks.
Since Linux does not have Photoshop (or any other decent desktop app, for that matter), we've been told for over a decade that GIMP was more than sufficient.
Zealotry and ideology will always try to justify technical shortcomings, now matter how many laughable the rest of the world finds those claims.
Few thoughts from an avid open source supporter, who will do whatever he can to get the work done in Inkscape before involving GIMP into workflow :) I do use GIMP but for basic stuff. I can produce a simple forum signature, but I have no idea about color corrections using histograms or the significance of various color spaces. So, shall we...
"I'M USING GIMP 2.7.1 ON WINDOWS"
- Since the week it has been released. Thanks to splitting Save from Export under File menu I don't have to change extensions TENS of times a day anymore.
- Single window UI is usable http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b68/Bucic/gimper_net/gimp271_themed_win7x64.png
- TAB keyboard shortcut to quickly hide docks is something!
- some other new features work already: layers grouping, pixel and alpha locking, brushes dynamics work... And that's what a noob can say from the top of his head.
- I am yet to whitness a crash - worth noting
"2 and a half developers, 80/20 rule and propaganda"
Propaganda: Someone stated that every time he posts details on some new features he works on a contributor or two contact him. Keep that in mind. If you do squat for GIMP, and since there are only 2 devs I can safely state that you all do squat, the best thing you can do right now is make a good face for the bad game and spread a good word. It's very bad if someone doesn't get it.
80/20: I'm sorry to say that but if GIMP devs had been working according to the rule, there would be more than 2.5 half of them.
- GIMP won't remember its size/pos under windows 7/vista and it looks either like monkey's ass (if visual themes are disabled in exe compatibility options) or like a VIOLET MONKEY'S ASS (by default) and GTK themes are in most cases PITA to apply
- there are probably much more elements that were repulsing at first for new users which could be avoided by relatively small effort
- 80/20 rule is especially important when the stake is high
"Who says GIMP is like Photoshop?"
Marketing guys (check some GIMP descriptions under add/remove programs in some distros) and reviewers. The GIMP team can't be responsible for all the people in the world, so shut up!
Probably majority of people who use Photoshop (probably 90% of those who crack Photoshop) do not use a single Photoshop's feature that GIMP doesn't provide. And that's the damn GIMP MESSAGE you should spread!
Conclusion: There's nothing you can do now aside from spreading the word.
Conclusion 2: If there are other tasks to do around GIMP other than programming, why the hell they aren't pinned up on the main site?! Dear devs, "Sign up to mailing lists and we'll tell you" is your approach? See 80/20 rule.
Keep up the good work GIMP devs! Don't give up and don't waste your time on flame wars, please. All the best to you! Make GIMP as good as Inkscape is ;P
Good article, nice to see someone actually picking up the fundamental differences, rather than just superficially comparing the Windows UI's (a newbie issue if ever there was one).
Now, seeing this as constructive criticism, what I'd like to see is a response comparing this with what GEGL has to offer, along with a roadmap... :)
Color menu -> Enable GEGL.
This uses 32 bit color depth for operations where it is supported. Not all operations have GEGL implementations, which is why it's not the default yet, but this'll conserve bit depth on those that do.
Making GEGL implementations of standard effects is one of the "entry-level tasks" for new developers, so if you are a hacker wanting to contribute to GIMP, here's your chance.
Which filters are "GEGL enabled"?
Same with 3dsmax. If the artists learn that as their tool and they get hired. Guess which prog the company needs to buy?
Yes - GIMP is not photoshop - I have used both in the past but continue to use GIMP (and inkscape) for my work in web design. If I need CMYK output for a print job then I use Scribus. If I need a 3d object rendered then I use Blender. These are all just tools and an artist is the one who makes the most of the tools on hand including the most important tool - creativity.
I'd like to answer to J. Simanek... As for the bit depth, it is definitely a REAL issue, and that concerns me even if I'm a Gimp fan and very often use it in the final step (typical process is RAW image -> RawTherapee -> Gimp).
For sure, talking of graphic design on paper it may be not an issue because the quality of the colour in the photo may have a not-so-relevant value and often even gets in the mix of other issues, incl. printing limitations. But when you're talking photographer-to-photographer (which I've been for many years), the colour really matters, and matters even more in large prints, esp.lly on chemical paper. Nothing is more annoying than seeing bands of blue in the sky but that is precisely what you get, sometimes. The issue of bit-depth does not appear in all pictures, depends on the type of the picture, but when it does, it can really give the impression of a cheap work.
A lot of photographers did not digest the transition from film to digital and really are confused about a number of things. Also, digital photography, in the end, requires a different kind of knowledge. That is well known and that explains why you receive a lot of 8 bit-depth photos.
To me, colour depth definitley remains the main issue; other concern me less because I do not use much filters or so many Gimp features.
I'd like to answer to J. Simanek... As for the bit depth, it is definitely a REAL issue, and that concerns me even if I'm a Gimp fan and very often use it in the final step (typical process is RAW image -> RawTherapee -> Gimp).
For sure, talking of graphic design on paper it may be not an issue because the quality of the colour in the photo may have a not-so-relevant value and often even gets in the mix of other issues, incl. printing limitations. But when you're talking photographer-to-photographer (which I've been for many years), the colour really matters, and matters even more in large prints, esp.lly on chemical paper. Nothing is more annoying than seeing bands of blue in the sky but that is precisely what you get, sometimes. The issue of bit-depth does not appear in all pictures, depends on the type of the picture, but when it does, it can really give the impression of a cheap work.
A lot of photographers did not digest the transition from film to digital and really are confused about a number of things. Also, digital photography, in the end, requires a different kind of knowledge. That is well known and that explains why you receive a lot of 8 bit-depth photos.
To me, colour depth definitley remains the main issue; other concern me less because I do not use much filters or so many Gimp features.
Which filters are "GEGL enabled"?
Few thoughts from an avid open source supporter, who will do whatever he can to get the work done in Inkscape before involving GIMP into workflow :) I do use GIMP but for basic stuff. I can produce a simple forum signature, but I have no idea about color corrections using histograms or the significance of various color spaces. So, shall we...
"I'M USING GIMP 2.7.1 ON WINDOWS"
- Since the week it has been released. Thanks to splitting Save from Export under File menu I don't have to change extensions TENS of times a day anymore.
- Single window UI is usable http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b68/Bucic/gimper_net/gimp271_themed_win7x64.png
- TAB keyboard shortcut to quickly hide docks is something!
- some other new features work already: layers grouping, pixel and alpha locking, brushes dynamics work... And that's what a noob can say from the top of his head.
- I am yet to whitness a crash - worth noting
"2 and a half developers, 80/20 rule and propaganda"
Propaganda: Someone stated that every time he posts details on some new features he works on a contributor or two contact him. Keep that in mind. If you do squat for GIMP, and since there are only 2 devs I can safely state that you all do squat, the best thing you can do right now is make a good face for the bad game and spread a good word. It's very bad if someone doesn't get it.
80/20: I'm sorry to say that but if GIMP devs had been working according to the rule, there would be more than 2.5 half of them.
- GIMP won't remember its size/pos under windows 7/vista and it looks either like monkey's ass (if visual themes are disabled in exe compatibility options) or like a VIOLET MONKEY'S ASS (by default) and GTK themes are in most cases PITA to apply
- there are probably much more elements that were repulsing at first for new users which could be avoided by relatively small effort
- 80/20 rule is especially important when the stake is high
"Who says GIMP is like Photoshop?"
Marketing guys (check some GIMP descriptions under add/remove programs in some distros) and reviewers. The GIMP team can't be responsible for all the people in the world, so shut up!
Probably majority of people who use Photoshop (probably 90% of those who crack Photoshop) do not use a single Photoshop's feature that GIMP doesn't provide. And that's the damn GIMP MESSAGE you should spread!
Conclusion: There's nothing you can do now aside from spreading the word.
Conclusion 2: If there are other tasks to do around GIMP other than programming, why the hell they aren't pinned up on the main site?! Dear devs, "Sign up to mailing lists and we'll tell you" is your approach? See 80/20 rule.
Keep up the good work GIMP devs! Don't give up and don't waste your time on flame wars, please. All the best to you! Make GIMP as good as Inkscape is ;P
GIMP interface sucks. That's all there is to it. It sucks.
"GEGL is GPL. I think that counts against it hugely. Rather than being a library of image processing routines that can be embedded in a wide variety of apps, it limits itself to just GPL (or GPL compatible) software."
Actually, it looks like GEGL is available under the LGPL license as well, which means you can dynamically link it to commercial proprietary applications.
I notice a number of photographers commenting that the current 8 bit per channel color depth is enough. And perhaps for a lot of photographers it is.
I work in 3D computer graphics, where 16 bit per channel color is common and needed. And since fire breathing dragons flying over misty mountains are difficult to photograph with real world cameras, the kind of work I do does require higher precision files, especially when you are repurposing depth maps, dealing with haze/fog, and working with pushing around HDRI images through their exposure range. Since FX work usually requires heavy compositing of layers, the precision, linear workflow, and performance for multiple stacked layers at 1920x1080 resolution matters.
Gimp is a pretty good medium-end image editor. Perhaps Linux simply doesn't have a native publicly available high-end image editor yet.
Cheers,
Michael
" Every action in GIMP throws data out. Import an inexpensive camera's output in RAW format and you throw out data, irreversibly forcing the 12-14 bit per channel data into 8 bit per channel internal resolution. Color selections, blurs, and every data related manipulation will be fundamentally restricted."
Wait a second? Complain about RAW conversion into Gimp? Every tried Uraw and its Gimp extension? Unless someone has a reason, very few use that format/
I'm a professional graphic designer. I use Photoshop and Gimp at a very high level of proficiency. Just to point out where I'm coming from. I like Pshop and Gimp for their different strengths, but some of the above arguments are wrong. Gimp certainly has room for improvement, but anyone that actually used Photoshop in 1996 knows that Pshop itself has come a LONG way in 15 years.
I would like to point out something that needs to be understood about the importance of bit-depth. I am constantly working with hi-res jpegs from a wide variety of professional photographers every day. You know how many of those files use 32 bits/channel? None. You know how many of those files use 16 bits/channel? None. They are ALL in 8 bits/channel. It's certainly great to have the higher bit-depth options, but the importance of that capability in terms of graphic design/manipulating images for press is greatly exaggerated.
Also, CMYK color space in Photoshop is misused by graphic designers because most of them know very little about color space and/or color management. Some of us know (I don't mean to offend anyone) but the majority of designers I have worked with are completely oblivious. I've even seen creative directors explicitly instruct their designers to select "discard color profile" when confronted with the "What should I do?" dialog in Photoshop. The need for CMYK color space, though useful and great, is also greatly exaggerated.
I also think the complaints about the UX are very subjective and usually only illustrate how little effort the commenter put into learning about and using the Gimp.
Two things that would greatly improve Gimp and many people's impressions of Gimp are:
- better image scaling/anti-aliasing algorithms
- layer groups and layer styles
Those two things are certainly complex, but if they were implemented, and it sounds like they will be soon, I would be extremely satisfied with Gimp's capabilities.
I think it's healthy to critique software, but the Gimp rarely receives praise for its remarkable capabilities.
I started as a designer in 1996 and used Macintosh, for a while we use Photoshop and FreeHand, then it was terrible and capacities were limited, not as an artist it had limitations, they are not in the software rather the ability of each person. After several years I probably use Gimp and Blender, fatal to this time, but I kept spending my time trying to do in Gimp so before I could do with Photoshop. The truth never limit myself using floating windows and the Mac environment was similar, I have 15 years working professionally with Gimp and so far I have lived with some limitations that have been resolved. Gimp I have given workshops to many people, I believe that more than 300 professionals, beginners etc. Many professionals in Photoshop before criticizing my workshops Gimp and then end up loving it.
I think there is a lack of tool Gimp, for me you can configure and professional use.
It is true, Gimp is a little under Photoshop, but with a little creativity can solve the constraints. Thank you to distribute your code Gimp I could learn how things work and I even learned to do my small improvements is scripts for Plugins.
Xavier Araque | @Rendergraf http://rendergraf.wordpress.com
GEGL is GPL. I think that counts against it hugely. Rather than being a library of image processing routines that can be embedded in a wide variety of apps, it limits itself to just GPL (or GPL compatible) software.
If I have a neat idea for a denoise algorithm, and I implement it in GEGL (and contribute it to the library of code), I'll have a hard time legally embedding that into a photo manipulation program such as Aperture to make a bit of money from my time.
I think the GPL license on this low level library dramatically reduces the developer base willing to contribute new algorithms and modes to the GIMP.
Of course the people spending the time can license their work how they want, I'm just suggesting a reason there's not much of a community around the product.
All the bitching about how Gimp isn't Photoshop, when it's not at all supposed to be, is clearly coming from people that would ditch Windows in a second if GNU/Linux had something on par.
CS3 runs fine in Wine. So, quit your bitching and move to GNU/Linux already.
Quit begging for permission or validation and just friggen do it.
-- Completely not an anonymous coward
A good photo will be a good photo whether done in GIMP or Photoshop. Same for a bad photo.
I do what I can IN CAMERA (I still use scanned film mostly). If You have to go through all these steps to get a decent photo from what the camera gives You. (a digital camera on "auto" is not photography in my book) it says more about the photographer than the software used.
I've been with GIMP for many years and appreciate the work that's put into it. I've also found the GIMP community very cool too. (That's a point in it's favor too).
Thanks for the article, Troy. Good points, all.
To the FOSS advocates: When you want people to contribute to FOSS development in non-coding ways, this article is one of those ways. Troy took the time to point out in specific ways where Gimp is lacking for professional graphics work. He didn't rant and say "Gimp sucks!", he put together a list of suggested improvements from a professional artist's point of view. He didn't even really rail on the GUI, just brought up the question of "is the GUI really the most important thing to be working on next?"
Gimp isn't Photoshop. And it isn't supposed to be Photoshop. We get that. So here's my question:
I'm a professional artist. I need a native Linux based image processing and editing application. It needs to have deep bit-depth precision, linear workflow, work with at least HD res images (1920x1080) but ideally handle 3K x 3K images well, have a good brush system, have tablet support, have non-destructive filters, support for working with multiple layers and comping them together, easy access to individual channels (R G B A) and the ability to isolate/edit/duplicate/reorder those layers, support for vector masks (ideally with feathered edges), good editing tools (select/cut/copy/paste), a stamp/clone type brush, remapable hotkeys, and hopefully an easy way to script and extend the app.
What are my options? (And this is a need-list, not a wish-list. Nor are any of these requests all that out-of-the-ordinary or very new technology-wise. I have use for all of this functionality on a near daily basis).
Cheers,
Michael
Is everyone in the world a professional graphics artist or something? No? Then STFU already and just use what you need to get the job done. You haters are just born losers with nothing better to do than hate on everything. I would bitch slap all you f'ing haters if I could. You need to get lives.
If not GIMP, then what?
The "redmond school" of computing has numerous amatuer image manipulation packages and several professional packages. Even those from the cheap seats are often quite powerful, and folks are able to do fantastic work with these cheap seats packages.
OMFG! "GTK-based menus that are completely nonstandard and inconsistent with other Windows applications, and so on". You another anonymous user have just shown you're inadequate.
I will however eat my words if you come back and explain
1) how are Windows applications consistent with other applications? Microsoft Office is really consistent with previous versions and you don't even have to look when you navigate through Winamp menus and change your GPU settings?
2) Standards? You better have some hard data on those. Link to International Organization for Standardization site when you talk Windows and standards. It will be easy job, I promise. If you want more standards-compliant system in your hands, then go look Gnu/Linux. You need and also use both extensively in your daily life so why not? (Please don't)
3) How much you said you paid for Gimp?
Great article Troy!
The whole post (as I read it) boils down to the question: Is Gimp aiming to become a software for serious/pro use? @Death says it is, and that's great!
That makes this discussion necessary. The issues that Troy addresses are very valid and voice what lot of artist/designers feel.
Quite often I see Gimp described as on par with PS (or even better). The fear is that the devs think of it as that as well. Very grateful that @Death stopped by to clear that up.
I really appreciate the hard work the devs put in into this (really looking forward to test that new brush technology @Death!) as I'm sure we all are, but if the software is to move forward it's the voice of people like Troy that needs to be heard. People experienced working with arts and design in pro environments.
Sorry, my 3rd post in a row. A cursory glance at the gimp website shows:
"In the face of all sorts of rumours and interpretations about the future of the project there is a call for clarification regarding development of GIMP.
Currently GIMP team is working on finalizing the new stable v2.8 with many improvements such as layer groups, improved brush dynamics, a new unique transformation tool, optional single-window mode and more. There are two big obstacles in our way right now: missing specification on the last change in user interface and broken graphic tablets support in GTK+.
We have already invested a lot of time into UI changes and brush dynamics, we treasure your continuous support for the project and thus we are determined to release v2.8 only when it's working out of box as expected for everybody.
After releasing v2.8 the focus of development will shift to deep integration of GEGL — our new non-destructive image processing core. Results of this work will enable many features considered critical for use of GIMP in professional environment which is part of GIMP's product vision. It's a lot of work, and currently we don't have enough developers to make this change happen very fast. If you want to help us to get there faster, we encourage you to join gimp-developer mailing list and/or the IRC channel to discuss how you could contribute."
I don't see how gimp people are anti community.
Sure, it's slow but 2.8 does have a new UI, with single window capability. Their engaging the community:
http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/
(In fact if you have *constructive* ideas on what the UI should look like (I get the idea that this may just be a screenshot of photoshop for a lot of people) then this is the place to submit them).
I saw someone say that it's not being worked on, but I don't see how much more you can want apart from the new UI + reorganisation being done for 2.8, and the integration of GEGL (to be able to handle the other colour systems).
GEGL isn't just about colour systems, but will enable much more stuff too (like a sort of "effects stack" so you can save/undo any effect at any point), also stuff like an equivilent to photoshops layer folders.
GEGL basically can enable most of the things people say are missing (it seems, except for "become photoshop").
This is open source, if you want the cool stuff you can either wait or contribute .. constructive criticism is welcome, but just saying the same old stuff people have been saying - seemingly having done 0 research, seems utterly pointless.
@Roman then go to Gilles Caulier and push ShowFoto thats "cute"...
Wow - what an entertaining blog! Penguin Pete, you certainly have a way with words... and an all-too-obvious prejudice against drug users. While I do greatly admire the former though, I cannot agree with or condone the latter. Troy Sobotka, while I believe you do have some valid points to your argument, I also think that perhaps you could have stated them in a somewhat more tactful manner... instead of overly stressing your perception of the GIMP's inadequacies as failures.
As for the GIMP's user interface, I wish to state that I *like* it. I've not found floating panels to be overly-complicated at all; indeed, I very much LOVE being able to permanently assign the tool panels to one desktop, and the main window to another (in E17), because I can change desktops in order to select another tool and then return to the fullscreened work desktop very quickly, using either the keyboard or the scrollwheel - and with that method, they are _never_ in the way or taking away any of my work area, yet are always instantly *accessible* regardless. I would be greatly angered if the GIMP developers ever decided to take that away from me! Give it more colour depth and greater capabilities if you wish, but please leave the UI alone, thanks.
@Scott Dowdle
"Saying that it can't possibly work for me and if I think so I'm deluded... well, that's deluded... because it has been what I've used for all of my graphics for years."
I've re-read the piece and I can't find where he said that. He did however write this in his third paragraph:
"This is an attempt to outline three key reasons why some graphic artists and designers perceive GIMP as inadequate when it comes to its suitability in their imaging pipelines"
He outlined where he was gonna go and simply went there. This doesn't mean it can't possibly work for you, or me.
In fact I've done a few published print ads now using the Gimp as part of the process. But that doesn't mean I don't agree with his points.
@David Edmundson
"If you'd written the whole article with the same content but as "Where I hope the GIMP improves" you're far more likely to motivate someone to work on it."
what a great point.
Though, (as I've felt for a while now) - the younger generation of folks exposed to all this 'free' software seem to have a general lack of appreciation for all the efforts of volunteer coders. That was what drew me into Linux at age 14 back in 1999. I was amazed people were doing it for free! I was also amazed that I could have an OS (unlike Win98) that would actually shutdown when I asked it to.
I hope the Ubuntu generation can simply appreciate people's efforts - esp. when they are not getting paid/etc...
At the end of the day, someone has to code it.
@author
As an open source developer (not on Gimp, but on something completely unrelated in KDE) blog posts titled "why the piece of software you spent ages of your own time working on sucks" really helps no-one.
If you'd written the whole article with the same content but as "Where I hope the GIMP improves" you're far more likely to motivate someone to work on it.
How you (yes, you personally) can help the GIMP: Every time I post on my site about "some shiny new feature we're working on" I get 2 or 3 new developers show up in IRC the next day wanting to help out. You clearly know what you're talking about, praise the gimp for what it does well (which compared with anyone starting from scratch is a /lot/), and market what's coming up.
Also, give krita a try. They have a really active community going on, and a specific direction.
I second Scott. Been using Linux and Gimp for years and its great. I'm not a graphics person, just thankful for a useable image tool and respecting of the time that volunteers put in. Same thing w/ Linux in general. It began with volunteers and now your TVs even run Linux.
Frankly, I find PS hard to use because I never use it like most, but I dont go around bashing it.
Silly argument. Use what's best. However, if Gimp core devs are really anti-community then that's a shame. Gimp was originally a test application for GTK+.
One program can't be everything to all people. I've been using GIMP since it first came out and the UI is well known to me and easy. People coming from other programs have to unlearn what they know and learn something new. If you have been using Photoshop for a long time, moving to any other program can be painful. Same goes for using GIMP for a long time and moving to some other program.
GIMP works for me and it works for millions of other folks too. Millions? Yes, probably tens of millions actually. Does it work for some high end graphic artists like the one that wrote this article? I guess not. That is why there are multiple applications to choose from... to meet different sets of needs.
Saying that it can't possibly work for me and if I think so I'm deluded... well, that's deluded... because it has been what I've used for all of my graphics for years.
Do I want GIMP to improve and have all of the higher end features that print folks want... and advanced photo editors want? Sure... and that continues to be the developer's goals. I'm guessing we will eventually get there... but yeah, it might take a few more years. Even after all of that is done, I'm sure it'd have a tough time stealing Photoshop's entrenched users who don't want to have to learn a different app.
I'm not saying your criticisms aren't valid... because they obviously are... especially for your use case. For me they aren't an issue.
To the person who said that when choosing between Photoshop and GIMP that Photoshop was the safer choice... well, there is a second option. Since GIMP is free (like anyone doesn't already know what), you can have both for the same price.
I would rather see people using GIMP that pirating Photoshop... especially in a work environment... where they are in danger of getting busted by the BSA and having to pay heavy fines. Yes, it happens... but I know a lot of people don't worry about it too much. Being someone who is responsible for software licensing in my job.. I simply won't chance it. If we don't have a license available, the user gets GIMP... and that actually works for the vast majority of our users who have basic to medium needs. A few people do choose to cough up the funds for Photoshop and that's fine too. Just think how much money we are saving using GIMP for the people whose needs it meets just fine.
Is there somewhere a more technical and objective discussion about the development of the GIMP? On http://developer.gimp.org/index.html I see no GIMPcon after 2006, so I guess the development is stuck somehow, and the discussion here tells me this frustrates people. Just a flame war or some real stagnation? Clearly GIMP couldn't completely realize it's big aspirations formulated in 2006, see: http://developer.gimp.org/gimpcon/2006/index.html
It could have been there more than 10 years ago had Gimp's duh-velopers not poopooed the patches from the FilmGIMP/CinePaint people. The fact that you guys are still struggling to get GEGL fully integrated into Duh GIMP after 11 years shows how misguided that was. The funny thing is is that Duh GIMP would have gotten an army of developers and a good chunk of money from the film studios to improve the problem if the duh-velopers hadn't been arrogant assholes. So instead of having an industry class program, Duh GIMP is stuck in a state that can't even compete with Photoshop 4.0.
The above discussion has been an embarrassment.
From the viewpoint of a photographer, and a full-time Linux user, let me give my thoughts:
I am a strong believer in FOSS, but I don't use GIMP for anything, even for web-destined work. The reason is simple: loss of numerical precision. Even though 24 bit color might be enough for computer displays, image manipulations done at that precision guarantees you will have less than that when you are done. On top of that, GIMP throws away lots of precision from the RAW images coming out of my 5D camera.
Image manipulation in Linux is tough road. I have been using the commercial package Lightzone for tasks such as relighting images, and cloning out dust that is stuck to my 5D sensor - and it works well, but it has limited functionality. It does have non-destructive editing however, which I make use of.
Digikam, Fotoxx, are both impressive, but still lack in functionality.
My solution is to run Picture Window Pro under WINE. This works quite well - for manipulating digital photographs or scanned transparency film. Maybe someday this will change, and a simple-to-use FOSS tool will appear that does the job.
GIMP has trouble attracting developers because the core developers are hostile and extremely hard to work with. You couldn't pay me enough to work with them, let alone do it for free. Blender on the other hand is very welcoming of any and all help. There are many IRC rooms filled with people that are happy to assist and guide you.
You might argue that Linus Torvalds in hostile and hard to work with, but that hasn't stopped Linux. Well, Linux has many paid developers, and is useful to a much broader audience. If GIMP is to shine, it either needs to attract paid developers, or its core developers need to pull the sticks out of their...
Having a little guidance from a UI designer wouldn't hurt either.
Regardless of the fact that GIMP isn't perfect, it is still quite useful. There are some niche cases and scenarios where it can't be used, and in some cases it is technically inadequate (for certain kinds of professional work). However, as a professional, I still manage to use GIMP successfully most of the time. When it comes to print, there are still options in open source aside from GIMP. However, GIMP is the most mature at the moment.
The main issue is that the underlying code is available to fix these issues, and implement all the features people most commonly complain are missing compared to Photoshop, but no one is there to hack them. There are no technical hurdles in implementing the technology, it just needs man hours.
In a day where Disney and Google can fund Wine with a crap ton of cash to get certain versions of Photoshop working, it's a shame none of that dough is making its way to improving open source offerings to take Photoshop's place. We're not that far off!
But, by the time we DO get the work done, there may be some new advance in image manipulation that makes us seem yet further behind.
It's just surprising to me that people are so concerned about DEs, and where Gnome is going, but they can't think to get back to basics with the program GTK itself was derived from- GIMP.
Desktop environments with ease of use and new ways of doing tasks are great, but they're a luxury. The actual ability to pull off those tasks is quite a bit more crucial. You can doll up and easify everything all you want, but if you're using a plastic knife to cut a steak, it's going to hit a bone and become useless. We need to focus on making some chainsaws, not merely a flexible knife.
There are only a few small pockets that open source can't fill, but while it can't, professionals will have a hard time using it fulltime for any serious work. And the fact of the matter is that people will learn the OS that's used in business, to prepare for it. And if that OS is only suitable for consumers, it's going to be hard to get anyone to take it seriously as a main OS, rather than a dual-booting plaything.
> "And yet freetards far and wide portray it like it's a Photoshop killer."
Actually, the exact opposite is the case. Actual FOSS users have been saying that the Gimp is the Gimp. Period. Phototards are the ones who want to pee in Gimp so it tastes more like Adobe and then they'll like the flavor.
See this? this is a URL...
http://developer.gimp.org/gimpcon/2006/index.html
There is a page on DEVELOPER.GIMP.ORG which, for those of you just tuning in after your salvia divinorum trip wears off, (including this blog's author), means the Big News that it COMES FROM THE PEOPLE WHOOOO MAAAAAKE GIIIIIIIMP.
There's the money quote right on the page:
> "What GIMP is not:
*GIMP is not MS Paint or Adobe Photoshop"
... It was never intended to be a Photoshop clone. They say that over and over in that page, making it more and more clear each time. They have a road map and a mission statement and none of them have ANYTHING TO DO with making a single, solitary Photoshop troll the least, tiniest bit happy. And I, for one, congratulate them for it!
Wait, don't go stupid on me now! Stay with the point, pay attention here:
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
GIMP WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP YESTERDAY.
GIMP WILL NOT BE SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP TOMORROW.
DO YOU WANT A FREE PHOTOSHOP? FUCK YOU. THERE IS NONE.
THAT MIGHT BE WHY IT'S $900 NOW, WOULDN'T IT?
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
You assholes will never get it.
GIMP IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PHOTOSHOP.
A point which, if any of the retards on this page would allow it to be heard over their assinine braying jackassery, would blow away 100% of the FUD around Gimp. Indeed, if Gimp is truly falling on hard times, it is through none other than the fault of the Troy Sobotkas of this world and the 1000 slobbering idiots infesting this Earth insisting that Gimp has to be Photoshop.
Let me ask you something, Troy Sobotka. Why do you even bother to go on living? Why did your parents ever waste their time raising such a worthless, talentless, unaccountable waste of carbon as you? Think of all the food and water and oxygen that gets wasted on you, when it could go to more productive members of the world like the mosquitoes and cockroaches.
Your whole beef with Gimp is that it's not Photoshop.
Three words: It's Not. Photoshop.
In other words, you're such an entitled piece of shit that you insist on Photoshop, And then you're such a cheap son of a bitch that you refuse to pay the price for it. And then you're such a lazy sack of slug cum that you refuse to write your own clone. And then you're such a blood-sucking leech that you're raising ire and demanding that somebody else's free open source project bend to your whims, just because you asked them to. And then you're such a small-minded, petty, lifeless little basement troll that you have to spam this little bitchfest to every social news site that supports FOSS, and hire an army of asstroturfers to flame alongside you to anyone who dares simply say, "but I like Gimp. It works for what I want it to do."
That's - I don't know, I lost count - I think six different ways that you are a worthless piece of shit today. And I suppose you'll masturbate in the mirror tonight and smoke your weed and go to bed with a rosy smile on your face, proud of yourself for making the world a little stupider and a little shittier place to be today.
I'm damned proud of every word I say here and there's a lot more where that came from. Because I speak for truth, justice, freedom, and decency when I say that were there a supreme being in the universe with a sense of justice, it would have rained flaming brimstone on your mother the day she decided to open her legs to make you.
it's far easier to choose photoshop and move on then it is to choose GIMP and have to defend the decision.
Duh? One is an industry standard app with decades of use and development based on feedback from those working in the industry, tons of useful plugins, supports the workflows of professional users, and the other is some toy written by some academics that think it's better to spend 11 years on reimplementing their base graphics library than just accept some patches that add the features that people who would actually love to have used the Gimp wanted.
Perceived value? Something like that.
No, it has to do with the fact that when you buy a product from someone that there is actual accountability if the product is shit. You don't get this from groups like The Gimp developers. Besides, it's far more than "perceived" value that one gets from tools like Photoshop. It's increased productivity and that's well worth spending money on from a business perspective. Freetards tend not to understand this and this is why their offerings almost always fail despite protestations about how "MY PRODUCT IS TEH FREE!!!!".
Articles like this make that decision easier.
Boohoo? If the Gimp can't compete without having it's flaws being suppressed from public articles then it should get out of the game.
I honestly think the biggest thing Gimp has going against it is that it's free.
And yet people would rather pirate Photoshop than legitimately use a freely given away copy of Duh GIMP. Same with how people are also more willingly to pirate, with all the associated risks of preinstalled rootkits, trojans, etc that come with many pirated versions, or even pay hundreds of dollars for Windows over a freely given away Linux distro. There's good reasons for this that the freetards have yet to grasp. And it's not because people worship Microsoft or Adobe or Apple, etc.
Blender has four paid developers (2 part time/1 full time/1 almost full time) because of projects that are not at all possible with 2D programs like GIMP and Inkscape, namely the open game and open movie projects.
Pretty much everyone is aware that GIMP, at the moment, can not handle more than 24bit/pixel color. Those who don't know almost certainly don't care. For those of us who need higher pixel depth use UFRaw, Cinepaint, Krita, or even Blender.
I don't know *so* much about performance, other than that I have had more problems with performance in Photoshop than GIMP, taking a minute or two to open a file and lagging like crazy when panning etc. Or just crashing.
I would be hesitant to write that about linear workflow, as I am quite sure that the GIMP uses it- Google searches revealed that it uses a linear workflow in at least a majority of its code, and there is a place to load ICC profiles for your monitor, RGB, and CMYK.
In conclusion, you seem to have some sort of misplaced vendetta against the GIMP. I'm not really sure why else you would post this. You are entitled to an opinion and the right to express it, but due to the fact that just about everyone who needs to know is aware of these limitations, there was no need. You talked about there only being two dedicated developers like it was a defect in the GIMP, when if you had any respect for them you would be cheering on.
And of course there goes the usual bullshit about Cinepaint an GIMP. As if GEGL wasn't started to do what FimGIMP team did, but properly.
You know, there's nothing particularly bad about hatred as long as you remember to use valid arguments. But hatred + lies are road to nowhere.
These things are being worked on, the next version has the new interface and GEGL integration will fix the 8bit per pixel thing... of course it's open source so you'll have to wait.
Import a $150 dollar camera's output in RAW format and you throw out data, irreversibly forcing the 12-14 bit per channel data into 8 bit per channel internal resolution.
Except that the camera you link to (1) costs more than $150 and (2) doesn't provide RAW output.
It's just not photoshop. I do prefer window management to be really a job for the desktop environment's window manager (there are many options for linux, I don't think that's the case on windows) rather than have some sort of redundant window management for sub-windows within a "window container". Instead I use gimp usually on a single desktop, with eventual auxiliary programs on different desktops, but I can drag them to gimp's desktop and have all the windows to work as determined by the window manager, like having some window that is kept above gimp's tools but not over gimp's image window and such things.
I tend to agree, more or less, even though I've found one or another interface easier to learn and even more resourceful than the other in the end. Like konqueror as a file manager versus anything else. And when I'm used to something like konqueror, then everything else is simply despicable and "hard to learn". While with konqueror specifically I'd argue that it really has a superior gui (at least if you customize it according to your taste), the others may not even be that bad, but being used to something different just make them look terribly worse.
I've "always" used gimp and in the almost single time I've put my hands on photoshop, I've actually taken more time than I'd expect to just be able to make a random squiggle with the brush. Probably just some unusual, non-default setting, but still. A better comparison would be inkscape and corel draw. I prefer ten times to use inkscape than corel draw, even though it has its limitations, like single-page files and such things. I think I'd never use multiple pages on corel draw anyway, even with a single page it can get quite slow... control + c ... waits.... control + v ... waits.... I wish I could make it a "copy ten times" and go out for a cup of coffee. And this is on a decent machine, not bleeding edge stuff, but decent, and no other software hogging memory or anything.
PS.: I'm not saying inkscape and gimp are totally better than photoshop and corel draw and all the hypothetical semi-denialist apology. I prefer some stuff on those I tend to use the most, and I'd love if they could be further developed, gradually eliminating their weaknesses.
When you get used to it, you don't want it to be different. I suppose those who prefer are usually linux users and have multiple virtual desktops and other customizations that are more easily available (like making a window "always on top" with a simple mouse gesture like rolling the mouse wheel on the window title or some shortcut key binding), so gimp can have its own or still be used alongside with other software in different way than you'd use if all the windows had to be within a huge container window.
I'm glad some guys do that, even though they also don't have to. :)
And a really good work, I may add.
I'll be the #th guy to second that.
Can't a bunch of friendly cooperative developers just take over GIMP's code, rename it to something like A(another)GIMP and develop happily ever after, not ever having to deal with the quarrels of the core developers of GIMP again? Isn't this one of the big advantages of open source?
I'm not trying to be gratuitously provocative or insulting here, but that's just something I'd do if I knew anything worthwhile about programming and I was interested on developing GIMP.
what?
Thanks for sharing a wonderful information.It is great posting and also it help to my career to shine my life.I really like to say more thanks.
Great idea.Nice explanation.I am happy to write comments.It is inspiration to me.Thanks for making such a cool post which is really very well written.will be referring a lot of friends about this.Keep blogging.
I am happy to found your blogs.It is really great.I learnt new things from your website.I like your thoughts.Thanks for making such a cool post.
Hello!
GIMP certainly needed single window mode. Now it is more appealing and usable for many users. The reason for that is that majority of people have single monitor systems on which to have many floating panels for one app is just a hell. That is why I recommend all developers if they are making an app, make both single window and loose window modes available. Majority will use single window mode while pro users will be happy to spread the app via assembly of monitors.
I believe GIMP is heading the right direction. I only wish the color depth would be increased and some additional features would come and some enhanced.
As a pro photo editor I can tell that GIMP has most of the needed tools for pro retouch of photos and is really valuable considering it is free.
Of course it has its lacking but it is there ready to go together with other tools and compete.
GIMP is a fine app. Hopefully more devs will join the development because it deserves to be recognized with a good word.
Kind regards.
LOL gimp beats photoshit, why? because GIMP is user friendly and NOT hard at all, a GIMP pro that knows everything about the gimp *Exp* can beat a Photoshop user in a heart beat, i'm a graphic designerArtist and GIMP gets the jobs DONE! not my fault your a hater, Photoship & gimp do the samething..both can do ART & both can do graphics but when it comes to user friendly easy to use....GIMP beats Photoshit. FACT! btw i d did have Photoshit & gimp side by side 3 years but found GIMP better so i trashed Phtoshit.
it come across you don;t know what you're talking about about alpha.
i save most stuff in 24 bit png, that's 8 bits per colour channel RGB this is
i am no graphic artist but isn't the reason that there is only 8 bit alpha because the eye may see 256 graduations possibly, but with software to smooth the alpha channel and certainly the age old technique of dithering, i don't imagine the human eye can see to be honest I imagine your tests are designed to highlight the banding artifact making them a bit biased.
Anyway a 32bit png, that's 24 bits colour, 8 bits alpha, what you are asking for is a 40bit image which was probably considered overkill,
this is especially irrelevant to most gimp users being artists concerned with what the eye can see and not what the numbers say
"isn't the reason that there is only 8 bit alpha because the eye may see 256 graduations possibly"
Human vision will adapt, but it is generally accepted that it can see more than the 256 gradations. That said, the discussion involves the manipulation of data, of which having more data granularity is paramount. See http://troy-sobotka.blogspot.ca/2011/01/bit-depth-and-confusion.html for more information.
"Anyway a 32bit png, that's 24 bits colour, 8 bits alpha, what you are asking for is a 40bit image which was probably considered overkill,"
Not at all. In most imaging, as with where GIMP is headed, standard current practice is a 32 bit per channel float value. That's four bytes for each R, G, B, and A. Further, float guarantees a greater degree of accuracy than simple integers.
"this is especially irrelevant to most gimp users being artists concerned with what the eye can see and not what the numbers say"
The numbers dictate what you see, and the manipulations of those values is where the issues arise.
If you'd like to continue this discussion, feel free to email me via the email address in the header.
GIMP is too difficult to use! That is it's mayor issue. It's not user friendly at all and confuses newbies. Also the editing of layers is horrible! Make it easier to use! No one wants to use a software that forces you to get a doctor's degree in it first. Also way are so many editing options not drag & drop? If want to fuse two pictures i should be able to fuse them via drag & drop without having to deal with the complicated layer system, that nobody understands!
Thanks for explaining it in such a nice way. Keep updating such a great stuff.
If one can use PS and can't use GIMP (and vice versa) that must have learnt the software by rote
Good news from gimp.org (2012-12-27 entry):
"Unstable version of GIMP is now capable of working in 16 and 32 bit per channel modes, both integer and float. Color management has been improved as well, and thanks to support by AMD and Google the GEGL library can do GPU-side rendering and processing with OpenCL."
"Two things that would greatly improve Gimp ... are:
- better image scaling/anti-aliasing algorithms
- layer groups and layer styles"
I totally agree with you. Fortunately layer groups are reality since 2.8. Using them actively and happily day by day ever since.
The blog is
absolutely fantastic. Lots of great information and inspiration, both of
which we all need. Thanks.
http://www.samiflabs.com/hire-magento-developer.html
Thanks for taking
the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on
this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your
blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me
http://www.samiflabs.com/psd-to-magento.html
Awesome interesting post share here.
http://www.samiflabs.com/hire-magento-developer.html
The post in really informative for GIMP users and they can now able to take their decision.
Post a Comment