Slashdot Mirror
A First Look At The GIMP 2.0
An anonymous reader writes "Brice Burgess has given everyone a good peek at what's coming in 2.0 for the GIMP in his review over on NewsForge. Don't like the old UI? It's gone. All new. There have also been megawumpus improvements in the text tool. Brice says he sees some room for improvement still, but overall he is "very impressed."" (Slashdot and NewsForge are both part of OSDN.) The new text tools are a big step up, though the interface as a whole remains a love-it-or-hate-it thing.
I was pleased to read in the blurb that the interface was improved. Looking at the screenshot, though, it doesn't seem overhauled, it seems refined. Looks like the interface still is not too great.
"I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
Mod parent up. It's not a troll.
The author is asking whether GIMP is doing things that we don't see in commercial tools. I'm interested in this, too.
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
The UI is still clunky and cluttered looking, but overall GIMP is an amazing program for the right price. It may never be a substitute for Photoshop, CAD or Illustrator, but for the weekend graphics hacker who doesn't have 600 dollars, this is a step in the right direction.
IAALS.
GIMP without the GIMP Tool Kit. I don't think you'll be seeing that any time soon.
I know im gonna get marked troll, but I really would like the option of having the gimp ui as one cohesive window with moveable panels instead of 50 windows I cannot keep track of. I think there's a reason why there arent any other applications I can think of that use that layout anymore. They have all switched the the single window approach. It may not be as powerful or whatever, but it sure is easier for some of us folk. And no, I dont know enough to submit a patch and yes, I realize that the software is free.
Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt --Abraham Lincoln
They've also added a menu to each images, so no more right-clicking. This was a big complaint for new users...they didn't know where to find more options.
What's wrong with copying features as long as they're useful and the copyist doesn't claim inventorship (is that a new word?) of said features? How much does PhotoShop cost? If it's > 0, then I hope that's one ``feature'' the GIMP 2.0 developers didn't copy.
Why not save yourself a gazillion bucks and export it into the excellent (and Free) Sodipodi.
It's a fantastic vector graphics editor, one that reminds me slightly of Draw on the old Acorn, but more powerful.
Beep beep.
I have been waiting , obviouslly in vain for a version of the gimp to come out with REAL CMYK capablities. I personally know of about 10 people I worked with that would jump on the Gimp bandwagon. WHY in gods name hasnt this been implemented yet ?
Untrue, sometimes a competitor can learn from it's predecessor's mistakes and improve. That said, the Gimp still isn't up to photoshop's level, but it's good enough for many uses (and I will remain a PaintShop Pro man).
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Been using Photoshop for over 10 years. Hard to get out of that comfort zone. Been using Gimp for some stuff lately and kinda like it.
I'm sure the screenshots at Newsforge would be more impressive if the guy didn't have the ugliest desktop I've ever seen. I mean, a green background?
It should be noted that when you are trying to convince people that something is good, it helps when it also looks good.
Now, sure you can abstract the green theme (is that guy colorblind? maybe he likes red?) and see the improvements in the GIMP, but still. It just doesn't look very professional.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Docking doesn't count as "all new" re: the GUI.
Really, the fact that all tools are under a single window hasn't seemed to hurt the Adobe family of products from being wildass popular. So what, other than being different for the sake of being different, is the point? Copying popular Windows/Mac apps isn't a bad thing if it is what people really like about the user experience.
Folks seem to like the "one window to bind them" approach. Additionally I (and probably others) can't stand to use GIMP with its bazillion windows cluttering my taskbar (as it gets in the way of quickly ALT-TABing throug different apps).
Also, would it kill them to mirror the prebuilt binary/installer packages on a machine larger than a Casio calculator? I spend more time trying to get Gimp on Windows than using it.
Ok... that's it... #def rant 0.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Script-fu -- incredibly useful for automating content generation. Very clean, easy, and powerful.
I'm not a pro, but I use GIMP because I find it simpler and less daunting than Photoshop, and still almost as powerful.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
ok, I'll be the first to admit that a lot of people won't agree with me, but I know of plenty of others that definitely will.
I'm not a Photoshop user. I use the Corel line of products. Why? Corel puts everything into one window. I'm aware of the pains in programming an interface, but I don't understand why a separate option isn't there for the rest of us?
Please?! If only the Gimp was like this, I would use it. It would be a learning curve, but I could do it. Instead, I have to make sure I have enough room on my desktop to fit all the tool windows I need, along with enough space to view the image I'm manipulating at a size bigger than 40x40. y'know? Every time I give the Gimp a try, I'm impressed with the features, but not impressed with the interface.
I just can't use it. "It's hopeless... utterly, utterly, hopeless."
It feels better I would say. I like the docking feature, and many people will like the fact that the menu is in the window now (you do not have to right-click). Better text tool allso.
Watch out Adobe, your days are numbered
Sounds fair. I use PSP for similar reasons. It doesn't have some of the higher end functionality, but I don't really use that anyway. PSP is fine for web work, and the $100 price is fair.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
But how does it handle RAW files from my digital camera? For post-processing this is critical.
When I first took a look at GIMP several years ago, the first thing that turned me off was all the seperate palettes are treated as apps. Saw the same thing in Sodipodi and Inkscape. Seemed that it was the trademark for open-source drawing applications. Didn't like having 5-6 tasks on my taskbar for just one app. On inkscape, if I mistakenly close the last image, the whole app closes down.
All I want are dockable or floating palettes that use a small font size(ie not screen hogs) just like PSP, Photoshop and illustrator use.
And on a second note, I don't wish to see my desktop peep through. A big gray dull background would be less distracting. I've grown way too used to MDI in Windows apps to comfortably use the open source SDI way.
Mod me down for said redunant comments.
You should stop looking and try to use it.
Feel of new Gimp GUI is completely different than the old one
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
One feature not included is the "Call the FBI when you scan in a $20" feature.
I like the way you can select the colour sampling in jpeg compression (4:2:2 4:4:4 etc) nice touch. It really really really really really really needs adjustment layers like photoshop at the very least, without adjustment layers you might aswell be painting on a real canvas in terms of later adjustability. I can live with out plug-in/filter previews although you could technically add that ability automatically without even needing to modify the current plug-ins - just make the plug-in work with a second version of the image while clicking ok would apply the plugin and imeadiately re-launch the window for tweeking.
If you then added a way of remembering the settings of that particular plug-in on a layer you could add the ability to go back at any time and adjust a plug-in/layer and have that adjustment filter through to the current image - that alone would out-do photoshop!!
Adjustability is what its all about, anyone else with me?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The gimp is a fine project as projects go, but it seems to me that there are a few things gimp needs before it will be able to really compete with Photoshop
First off, brushes, Photoshop 7 has a great brush system, being able to combine brushes is great. Photoshops size, color, shape dynamics as well as jitter control via pen preassure and tilt are great.
This brings up point number 2
This is just from my experience, but getting GIMP to work with a pen/tablet is like pulling the teeth of a grumpy aligator, it's just not worth it. I have a wacom tablet that supposedly works with drivers from the wacom linux project, although I can get it to work as a mouse in X, I have had 0 luck getting it to work with gimp
The last thing is a UI improvment
I haven't used the new version yet, and its hard to tell from the screenshots, but GIMP has some major usability problems when working with multiple layers, history editing, and things of that nature. I think the multiple document interface is a good thing, and the tool selection window is not bad, but having to right-click on the document to get the standard utility menus is a pain in the rear.
Because of the afore mentioned problems I have not used GIMP extensively for actual work, instead I photoshop on my mac, but it seems to have a solid painting engine underneath it, and many of the filters are better than those available for photoshop, even if some of them are a little to flashy.
All that said, I do graphics professionally and so perhaps I just put more demand on an application than the average user, but right now gimp seems like just a nice toy untill they get some of that stuff fixed.
I do prefer to use Open Source software when possible and wait eagerly for the day when GIMP or another project is a usable alternative to Photoshop, and I will be sure to give this new release a go, but I think we may still have a while to go.
Off Topic but, if anyone has had luck getting a Wacom tablet to work under Linux with GIMP and can let me know how to do so as well I'd love to know.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Dude, they wrote the software, it's up to other people to package it and make it easy.
There's no problem with a bunch of people donating time chosing not to support a platform, and they make it easy for someone who _does_ want to support the platform by releasing the code - all that would be required is converting GTK calls into Aqua calls and reimplimenting the libraries.
In the meantime they gave you a working solution (install GTK etc - which then gives you access to ALL gtk apps, not just this one) - and you have the temerity to bitch about it?
Beep beep.
Does anyone know if v2 will support floating point or 16-bit image formats? We in the CG business could use a quality non-8bit paint package and properly supporting finer bit-depth data would go a long way towards making Gimp a standard production tool.
gimp16 looked promising, but it never went anywhere. Photoshop's 16-bit implementation is pretty weak; it can read it, but can't write it in any format other than a photoshop file and (last time I checked), it still only painted in 8-bit.
This may be news to you, but you can do that with Photoshop too. In fact, I have all my Photoshop palettes on my second monitor (my PowerBook's built in display), freeing up my entire external monitor for the document.
Mac programs are held to certain standard, and running on X doesn't cut it.
irb(main):001:0>
You're saying that probably because you were expecting a MDI interface like Photoshop's. GIMP will nerver have this, because of a GTK limitation/stand.
"Limitation" as in GTK doesn't implement a MDI-like interface. "Stand" as in they won't never implement it, because of their opinion on this - they think MDI is evil, and while at first I didn't agree, after working with GIMP for awhile (and the new interface *IS* better, but you have to use it to understand why), I've came to belive that MDI is not necessarily the best answer.
For Photoshop guys going to GIMP, maybe an MDI interface would be more friendly, but that's another matter
There have been a few comments from people saying that they prefer a MDI interface as used by programs such as Adobe Photoshop. In other words, they want the application to manage it's own windows. Surely this is a job for your window manager?
From what I can remember, Windomaker had the ability to deal with all the windows of an application at once. A window manager I used once allowed you to put windows into logical groups so you could perform actions on all windows in a group. Fluxbox has the option of grouping windows together and selecting them with tabs. Saving window positions is an option in a fair number of window managers.
There may be room for improvement with many parts of the interface, but how to organise the windows is not one of them in my opinion. The GIMP developers need to concentrate on creating a decent image manipulation program, not a windowmanager.
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.â"John Gaule
Using a window manager that supports grouping, etc. (like Enlightenment) is highly recommended as well I might add. Just because Windows likes to make big EXEcutables with meta-data and resources built-in and big MDI windows with lots of sub-windows doesn't make it the right way to do things.
I love being able to arrange my desktop of Gimp windows the way I want and not have a big blank "GIMP" window taking up space on my desktop.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Everything from text layout tools (Photoshop CS uses the new InDesign text engine) to color management (Gimp's is still very poor in comparison) to widespread plug-in support by third-parties to...
Why am I even bothering? OSS people will always think of inane reasons their OSS version is superior (i.e., the multi-monitor feature, which Photoshop also does anyway).
You know, you can tell a lot about a product from its screenshots. So let's take a look at this one. First, I should say that I am not a graphics artist, nor do I play one on TV. I do some mild photo retouching, web art, icon design, stuff like that. I've used Photoshop and Illustrator, and currently use Paint Shop Pro (hey, its only $89 and it works).
...? Xtns? I have no idea.
... no idea, actually, since I assume that the second one is new. The third is probably copy (why can't I copy a circle(11) by the way?), the fourth is delete, and the fifth is - refresh? How often do you need to refresh your brushes that it gets the bottom-right corner of the window all to itself? That's prime real estate!
What's the first thing that I see? Well, we have a bunch of little windows with a terminal manager peeking through. Annyoing, but I can deal with it. Hmm - they're all showing up on the taskbar, too. More annoying, but lets move on.
Looking at what I presume is the "new" Gimp interface, on the left, the colored icons are much easier to understand at a glance. The menus, however, leave a lot to be desired. One problem with small windows is that, unless you're using Mac style menus, you have small menu labels. Like these ones. File: fair enough. Help: likewise. Xtns:
Looking at the bottom of the docked options window, I can see some buttons. I'd guess that the first one is Save, the second (greyed out) is undo/back, the third is delete (delete my ink options?) and the fourth is... erm... undo again? You've got me. Hope that they have mouseovers, but they really shouldn't have needed them.
Looking at the "Brushes, Patterns, Gra" window. Ooh, nice title. Anyway, these seem pretty reasonable, although the weird icons at the bottom are back, and different. I guess the first one is
Okay, now onto the main window. Heh - they can't seem to draw their rulers correctly so that you can see the stops and read the numbers. Oh, well. Again, we have the problem of the window size - this time the menus are readable, but one of them seems to be "La" - possibly "Lay" - and who knows how many are inaccessible off to the right? Its good to know that I can cancel my picture, however - or could in some situations whenever the button is enabled.
All in all, from a first glance (which is all many prospective users will ever give it), I'll stick with Paint Shop Pro, thankyouverymuch.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
If Mac users are going to throw hissy fits then let them. "Proper Mac" or not (and I think some Mac users have to get off their philosophical high horse), the fact that the Gimp developers are taking the time to release an OS X version ( and probably won't make a dime as a result, instead getting flames from the likes of you) tells me that they aren't as lazy or deceitful as you would lead people to believe. It's one thing to make a constructive suggestion, but it's totally another to be a trollish flamer.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Think about it for a minute ... a new interface is never as intuitive as the old one you are used to, let alone more intuitive. Maybe, once you get used to it, it will be better, or maybe not ... but it is going to take a fair investment in time and energy to figure out if moving ahead is good or bad, and a real pain to move back if you made a mistake.
Looking at the writeup, I saw only ONE improvement that I really, really want - the multi-line text tool. And the reviewer was careful to point out that other goodies (like a multi-COLOR text tool) were NOT implemented.
Personally, I'd be just as happy if someone would retrofit that new multi-line text tool into 1.2 and forget about the rest of it. I've taken the time to get used to right-click menus and floating toolbars and such, it wasn't that hard. So pardon me if I don't enthuse for changes that disrupt all the current users just to make things easier on a few newbies!
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story
Historically, Linux has survived just fine with neither.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Everyone likes Mozilla's tabbed browsing, right? Well, that's just another form of MDI. It's windows-within-windows, but done right.
What is evil is MS's old brain-dead MDI where you have a blank useless desktop with icons on top of it that can be hidden. Tabbed browsing just this trimmed of some extra features.
What Mozilla does also right is that the whole SDI/MDI model not an either-or choice anymore. Want all pages in different windows? Fine. Want all pages in one window? Fine. Wants some pages in some windows? Fine. I showed Mozilla to various family members who usually use computers, and they all immediately love tabbed browsing.
MS doesn't seems to understand which is better. They keep going back and forth between SDI and MDI when the answer is both!
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
I haven't used PS elements in years, so I can't advise there. I've owned PSP 5-7, (and maybe soon 8), and more or less stuck with 'em.
check out appdb.winehq.org for compatibility questions. At this point I pretty much use windows for graphical work, and linux for programming.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Before everyone starts falsely claiming otherwise, Photoshop DOES do multi-monitor support. Honestly, you think Photoshop wouldn't after all these years?
Really, I see no reason for having eight taskbar buttons open for one app. I have to devote an entire desktop to Gimp. You can argue with me how "bad" MDI is supposed to be until the cows come home. It hasn't affected the success of Photoshop, and it's what people want.
I've been using PS for many years and as new features are implemented I recommend PS to people but the price is prohibitive to say the least. This is where Gimp owns the competition and particularly PS. Although Gimp isn't a dupe of PS it is very, very powerful and intuitive and with the price how can it lose?
Personally I am moving into Gimp from Photoshop as well as Openoffice from MS Office because I'm just tired of the ridiculous upgrades to keep compatibility issues in check.
Open source is the single greatest thing to happen in a very long time. It has opened up a new horizon for me and the people I recommend software to. I am our company's "IT Guy" for our state and my top recommendations of late are Firefox, Openoffice, Gimp, and SuSe for those looking for a change. This is coming from a strictly Adobe/M$ house. I figured I could use the "$" now since I'm an open source fanboy now!
It's pretty cool when I can move 100's of people in the direction of open source and this filters down to their families too so I am doing my part.
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
A toolbar is very useful for single-click access to perhaps a dozen currently-open documents or apps... or at least it would be if it not for the GIMP cluttering it with buttons which are neither apps nor docs, and which serve no useful purpose there... or on a cascading menu that groups windows by application.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Not flaming, but how many features *are* there to put into an image manipulation app, anyway? GIMP and Photoshop are two programs that do basically the same thing. Of course there are going to be similar features.
To put it another way: My Honda has a steering wheel on it, just like a Ford. It has a gear shift, and tires, and pedals too! It's so unoriginal. Are any of the features of the Honda NOT copied from Ford?
The biggest issue with the GIMP that I see, is that the majority of people out there making money with photoshop have no desire to learn something new. I include myself in that...I have been using photoshop now since version 2, and can use the app practically in my sleep. There is no need to think about "now how will I do that? What menu/palette/option is that?"
I have played with the GIMP off and on, and while I think it is a great program. I see no reason to switch to it for my main app. Especially as 2 hours of billable work pays for an upgrade to photoshop.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
Not really. I find using multiple desktops for this much clumsier than the MDI capability of Windows. In fact I tried multiple desktops in Windows years before switching to Linux and after about 6 months found the whole capability annoying. The only reason I use multiple desktops under Linux is because so many applications have been written in such a way (may windows popping up in an unstructured and independent way) that there is no viable alternative.
I don't get this insistence that you find among Linux GUI developers that "multiple desktops" enables you to do everything that some other alternative window management strategy allows you to do. It doesn't, unless you look at it on a massively over-simplified level. Different window management strategies have different strengths and weaknesses, and some people find one strength or weakness better than others.
But the greatest weakness is forcing a particular desktop management strategy on other people when it may well not be the best for them.
Not that I expect anything else - the "multiple desktops roolz" camp is a fundamentalist religion, not open to rational discussion.
Adobe has integrated Photoshop and Illustrator to the point where they might as well be the same application. Photoshop's
This vertical integration extends from fonts and color management at one end to printing at the other, with the applications (Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive, InDesign) in between. The Gimp might get awfully close to Photoshop's feature set, but until there are mature and stable open source vector graphics and page layout packages, all the Gimp will do is steal market share from PaintShop Pro.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"Why that? What can you do with Photoshop that you can't do with the Gimp? Gimp now has the CMYK color scheme, so the only real pro-Photoshop argument has faded..."
Faded? A few days ago, a buddy of mine decided to venture into the wonderful world of Texturing as it related to 3D animation. He took a digital photo and wanted me to help him make a textur. He didn't have Photoshop, so he downloaded Gimp. I use Photoshop on a daily basis, I've gotten to know virtually all the features in it. I've learned quite a bit about how to do some of the things you need to do. I don't mean just what buttons to push, but what is being done to the image to get to the result. I sat down at his computer and started flipping through the features in Gimp and.. ouch. It felt like Photoshop lite. It was very limited in what transparency modes it had. There was almost none of the workflow shortcuts that PS has, like Layer sets etc. My experience trying to paint or smudge was... inconsistent. It's like they didn't tune it to what an artist would use it for.
That was about as far as I got. GIMP is not in a state right now where it'd save me $150 for the next PS upgrade. Not only that, but Adobe's chugging ahead with new stuff as well. (I can't believe what an upgrade 7 was from 6...)
I'm going to be honest with you: I think most of the peeps that are dependent on Photoshop are terribly interested in voicing in on this argument, thus the perception that it's "faded". No, it's not Photoshop. But that's not really the question, is it? It's "is it Photoshop enough for you?" Well that's a different deal. You can do your cropping, color balancing, contrasting, etc. That's fine. Just don't get too general about this. Photoshop is a $600 tool. Mastering it can earn you a living. Apps like that are very difficult to keep up with in the Open Source world.
"Derp de derp."
I agree 100% that the GIMP is not a Photoshop replacement but it sure as hell offers a huge amount of features, and finally, a decent GUI, for $0.
I have just waded through about 20 +5 insightful modded posts about how bad GIMP 1.2's GUI was. Sigh, I know this is slashdot, but is even reading the editor's comment to much, even if RTFA is?
How on earth can you say that the GIMP 2 is crap unless you've tried it. I can see this working quite well for web graphics and standard home printer stuff, and the new interface with dockable palettes and menus in the image window saving one from having to right-click all the time are fantastic.
I don't know what pisses the PS people off more: the fact that the GIMP is finally improving or that they spent an enormous amount of money on Adobe's tools that they only use for web graphics in the end.
"You can't do that so easily with Photoshop unless you've already invested the time and money to make it common practice. (Which, sadly, a lot of firms do. It's easier to commit to trudging an extra couple of miles in familiar territory than risk learning something new.)"
This might be a killer app if artists tended to be heavy into scripting. About the only thing most of us would use it for would be automating a bunch of repetitive tasks, and Photoshop has a wonderful macro recorder that handles that with a nice useful UI.
The R&D for GIMP is coming from a software engineer's perspective, not an artist's. I don't really have an issue with that until people start asking why us "stupid people would pay so much for an app." It's sort of like asking why somebody would drive with a manual transmission. Frustrating, iddn't it?
The R&D for GIMP, if it has aspirations to compete with Photoshop, need to change gears. Those of us that make livings off the software want our healing brushes more than we want perl scripting.
"Derp de derp."
I fought this argument for quite a while at my last employer. I agree with everything you say - except the Microsoft bashing. MS was completely wrong with their MDI implementations of 1987. MDI implementations in Program Manager, Word (until Office 2000), Excel, VB (until v6?), and other programs all sucked bad. But Microsoft did sort things out. They now recommend against MDI in traditional terms (they don't seem to agree with your definition of MDI).
Meanwhile, they started transitioning office to SDI (which is appropriate for most Office apps). They also use both MDI and SDI in Outlook (you can switch views with the navigation on the left, or open an entirely new window).
But the topic that started this all: Photoshop. The Windows version of Photoshop uses the traditional MDI windows for the images (which is a pain in the ass for multiple monitors), but separate panels for the tools (which are NOT constrained to the MDI interface). The Photoshop tool panels are even an improvement over the Gimp, as they don't show up as separate tasks in the task bar. Photoshop for the Mac beats them both however. EVERYTHING is treated as it's own window, but the pallets can still be hidden quickly, accessed on demand as a pull down or arranged on a another monitor.
So I guess it's hard to judge the interface accurately and without bias
Just a little info.
I was intensive user of Photoshop from 2.5 up to 5.5 (in that time I even worked for graphic company). When they completely rearranged menus in 6.0, I just didn't wanted to bother, because Gimp has already overtaken my Photoshop needs. But then again I never needed CMYK (after I left that job) and Photoshop just didn't feel well with multiple monitors (3), for that kind of monitor layout MDI is a real NO GO. I even tried to switch to Apple, because Apple hasn't got MDI, but having menu on one screen was to clumsy and I trashed my Apple&Photoshop high hopes.
But to dump about being unbiased, I still support some DTP companies so I couldn't avoid 7 and CS. And there's nothing better about them either.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
The other area that Photoshop is currently way ahead is interface. It remains to be seen how much of that gap will be closed by the new version of the Gimp.
Well, that's what you think. I think the Gimp interface is better. Why? Because I've used Gimp far more than Photoshop, so I'm used to the "weird" Gimp interface. In fact, it goes so far that I don't even like the look and feel of Photoshop.
This is one thing that has always annoyed me about certain Open Source packages. GNU - Oh, that's so clever I forgot to laugh!
Do you think that Adobe would have sold Photoshop if they had named it "The WIMP" (Windows Image Manipulation Program) or "The APP" (Adobe Photo Program).
I mean, "Photo IMP" or almost anything else would have been better.
Try to appreciate GIMP for what it is and give the maintainers some support instead of going on about things photoshop has that gimp doesn't.
GIMP isn't trying to replace photoshop, and I feel people don't give it as much cred as it deserves.
Drawing bezier lines in Photoshop is useful for any number of bitmap editing reasons. You wouldn't do a full on vector based layout with it, it's not designd for that. But bezier shapes that can be resized without resolution loss are great for masking, selecting, using as templates, vitural frisket for airbrushing, etc...
Since isn't a bitmap editor it wouldn't have served the poster's wife's needs at all.
Unfortunately until graphics artists learn Perl or C, which is not likely to happen...ever, this will not exactly be a good selling point for them. Its a bit like trying to convince them they should be using Linux instead of a Mac because they can view the source code. They make their money from designing graphic art, not coding.
I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
Two major things are missing:
1) proper colour management for the workflow (X, Gimp, scanning and printing).
2) no 16bit per channel support. This indeed very important for higher end cameras, scanners and printers.
3) no LAB or CMYK support.
I use these daily and they are an absolute nessessity, unfortunately.
MDI != tabbed browsing
Tabbed browsing is having one single window with tabs to switch between views.
MDI is having multiple "fake" windows of various nature (tool palettes, document views, etc) inside one big window. The reasons why MDI sucks (and why Apple has always diaproved its use):
1) Windows in windows are confusing.
2) The "grey void" in that big window is a total waste of display real estate. With a multiple window app, you can actually see (and use) other programs under that app.
3) It's not multi-head friendly. With, say, The GIMP, or any Mac OS app (no MDI on Macs), you can freely drag the various windows to different desktops.
Interesting note: MDI was created by Microsoft (and therefore mostly seen in Windows programs), but even Microsoft has now gradually stopped using it. Look at later versions of Word: each document now has its own window (and toolbar).
I'm rather shocked to see all the complaints about the Gimp here. The comments seem to be divided into two categories:
1. I've never used it, but from the screenshots it looks scary! It sucks!
2. I've used it, and it didn't work exactly like Photoshop. It sucks!
As a person who has used Photoshop (and a bevy of other paint programs, all the way back to the days of DPaint) extensively, I feel the Gimp is by far the best program available for creating (pixel-based) graphics, especially in the realm of web imagery.
I have used it to create from-scratch graphics for countless websites, including: this, this, this, and this. I have also used it to do many print items, such as this flyer. (Amazingly enough, CMYK is not really that necessary if you don't mind slight variations in the color on the final product. If you are doing serious print work, you should really be using a vector illustration program for everything but photo retouching anyhow.)
I think perhaps the Gimp's strength is how a non-artist (ie, me) can create pretty nice looking art with it - as I believe the links above will attest. It has a number of features not found in any other paint program, such as highly configurable tablet sensitivity.
Unfortunately, the hardest thing about using it for someone who has switched from Photoshop is that it looks _very_ similar to Photoshop, but yet it is really not very similar at all. Much like an expencied Windows user switching to KDE, they will find themselves fooled into expecting the interface to behave exactly the same way - and it doesn't. It's a different program, with a different interface.
But those who either have the patience to un-learn their Photoshop habits, or are not burdened by them to begin with, will find the Gimp to be one of the most powerful graphics tools available today. It is also quite likely one of the most impressive and mature applications available in the realm of free software - on par with Mozilla, OpenOffice, and Evolution. I'm not sure why it doesn't get the same respect that these packages do.
Anyhow, I was very impressed with it. Admittedly, there are some things that are still rough around the edges, but this is a significant improvement over previous releases. Things I especially liked:
- Relocation of the line stroke button that makes it easier to use Bezier curves and the like.
- Better resizing and resampling algorithms that produce that nice, anti-aliased effect.
- Quick, no frills approach to plugins and features.
Things that I still think need improvement:
- I think that rather than have a smattering of premade brushes with the option to make your own that Gimp should adopt a system like Paint Shop Pro where the menu for the paintbrush (and other relevant tools) lets you adjust the brush size, density, step, etc. in one convenient panel, rather than having to go through the effort of making an entirely new custom brush for the task. The current approach is functional, but unnecessarily clumsy.
- Have something akin to the Browse feature in Paint Shop Pro. This feature analyzes all graphics in a directory, produces thumbnails of all of them, and displays them in a window where you can pick and choose which ones to open. It's like a pictoral file selector.
- Implement more features that can be done with Layers, like adjusting gray channels for example and allow layers to modify layers beneath them (e.g. a Multiply layer or a Screen layer). If this ability exists, I haven't found it.
- I'm not still not a huge fan of the MDI approach. If you have related taskbar icons cluster in Windows or Linux, it's not too bad however, and there are pros and cons to both approaches.
But it's not at all bad. For free, it's a remarkable product. As an example, I selfishly submit this plug for my webcomic whose most current chapter was done with Gimp (true until this Sunday, unless I decide to use Gimp again): http://dragonangel.keenspace.com
It's just that with Paint Shop Pro already costing about $60 on sale (as low as $15 for previous users), and being more substantial and feature packed than Gimp, I don't have a reason to switch to Gimp (unless PSP 9 is a similar flop), but I would certainly recommend it for the graphic artist on the cheap.