Slashdot Mirror
The GIMP Gets Ready for 2.2
An anonymous contributor writes "As promised, this time it didn't take another 3 years for a new stable GIMP version to be released. 8 months after GIMP 2.0 hit the road, GIMP 2.2 is almost done. The GIMP developers released 2.2-pre2 today and unless any major problems show up, the GIMP 2.2.0 release is going to follow later this month. The GIMP Wiki has a comprehensive list of new features in GIMP 2.2 and here are some screenshots of the development version."
Why is this is the "developer" section?
I can never quite understand this argument, no matter how many times I hear it. Take out the MAIN window in photoshop, the one that serves as a dock and menu interface, and you have several floating windows. Exactly the same as the gimp.
stuff
Doesn't the mac have a kind of "sheet of glass" model for applications? So it behaves as if each application is stuck on its own sheet of glass, stacked on the desktop, and you choose which one to bring to the front - so that clicking on any window in an app brings up all the application's windows?
That would be my ideal GIMP behaviour, anyway.
Having used both programs, it's not the toolboxes themselves that are the problem; whenever I use Photoshop, I move all the tools onto my second monitor so that there's nothing to obscure my view of the image I'm working on (so in that sense there's not much difference between Photoshop and the GIMP). What I feel gives Photoshop the edge is the refinement and consistency of the tools themselves. Having been around and receiving user feedback for so long, Photoshop's tools have been refined to the point where they are nearly as intuitive as they can be made for their specific interface, and behave fairly consistenly from one tool to the next. With the GIMP, the manner in which each tool gets used is not as refined, and it's sometimes not as clear how to make use of some of the tools.
Still, I'm very excited about this release, the GIMP seems to get better every time. I'm sure I'll play around with it a lot once it comes out.
Why are you all bitching about the interface? It works perfectly fine for me on linux with fluxbox; I just toss all the windows onto an empty virtual desktop. Perfectly useable and versatile too!
Stop complaining about the GIMP's interface just because your window management sucks. (This goes double for Windows users because, ironically enough, Windows' window management sucks balls.) MDI is a shitty hack, and the GIMP developers have already refused to implement it with good reason.
You will have no doubt noticed that this posted under DEVELOPERS.slashdot.org
Says something about GIMP, wouldn't you say?
Absolutely, completely agreed.
Having "grown up" with Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and Illustrator, the idea of having 4 totally separate windows for the toolbars doesn't sit well with me. I realise that their floating palettes are effectively windows, but they're different (smaller title bars, slightly different behaviour).
One thing that might help, if the single window model is impossible, could be if they "snapped" to, say, 2 pixels of the desktop edge (as they do in Photoshop) and remember their positions between sessions. This'd at least let me quickly impose order on my GIMP virtual desktop.
GIMP could be great. I'd use it all the time instead of Photoshop under VMWare (!), if I could get my head around its little annoyances.
Slackware user since 1997.
With the advent of digital cameras and inexpensive film scanners, processing of digital photographs has become the single greatest use of any image manipulation program. As a Linux user, I am using the GIMP as the primary tool for making basic adjustments to my photos. My usual workflow is as follows:
1. remove dust etc. with clone tool
2. rotate (if neccessary)
3. crop
4. levels
5. color balance, contrast adjustment (if neccessary)
6. unsharp mask
The GIMP fails to provide the tools I require in cases 2, 4, 5 and 6.
I haven't found any way to preview the rotating so that I just can rotate the canvas until I see that a line that I want to be horizontal (such as the horizont) is really horizontal. It usually takes me several tries to get a line straight.
Levels and color balance suffer from lack of 16-bit color. After basic levels or white balance restoration, the result seems pixellated. The fine tonality that was present in the original is usually gone. This becomes more evident if the picture requires more color manipulation. This is the one thing I would most like to see improved in the GIMP!
Unsharp mask tool doesn't have a preview. This means that I have to use select tool first to select an area that I wish to preview, and then do USM-undo-adjust-USM-undo-adjust cycle until I have found the right parameters. This is very much a hassle, but I actually expect USM preview to be present in the GIMP 2.2.
My message to developers is: keep up the good work! Just do not add any more of the ridiculous plug-ins and artistic filters. Keep working on digital imaging support!
- Ismo
No... no, it really doesn't.
There is a need for GIMP as an application, sure, but my god there is a very long way to go, especially with the user interface, and look of the app, before Photoshop even begins to show signs of 'falling'.
I applaud all of the hard work done on the GIMP, by the many undoubtedly talented people who have given their time, but we are still four or five years away from a comfortable PS alternative, and allowing ourselves to think otherwise is totally counterproductive to actually achieving a Photoshop alternative.
This sig has been deprecated.
Not necessarily. It's often said there are two important stages of the UI in a program. There's the initial time to learn it, get used to how it operates in relation to what's being done, and there's how well it operates when you're actually used to it.
Different programs have different focuses. If I was writing a piece of photo software - the sort that's thrown in with cheap digital cameras etc, then I'd probably strive to make it very intuitive when the user first used it, based on the assumption that people buying cheap digicams aren't well versed in graphics software. That may come at the cost of making very restrictive when the user wanted to use the program in the future and expand on what they want to do.
If the software was harder to learn, then it may be that when you're more used to it, you can use it a lot more fluently after you've gotten used to it, compared to if it had been easier to grasp. It isn't hard and fast though that an easy to grasp interface is restrictive later on, or that a difficult interface is more productive after a while - but it's a rough idea of two different approaches designers can have to an interface. Needless to say, there are interfaces that are both difficult to learn, and still crap when you've got used to it.
I'm going to assume that you have multiple desktops. Fairly common for a linux system, to a lesser extent in Windows even though the feature has been around for a while.
Go to a clean desktop, start gimp, do whatever you want to do. Use another desktop for running whatever else you need/want to run at the same time. Now, I know that in the window manager I use (fluxbox), tasks that are running on one desktop are not shown in the taskbar of another desktop.
With this setup (which seems intuitive to me) I don't have the problems you mentioned.
stuff
I paid nothing and get a high quality raster editot for non-print work, not nothing.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
did you even read the parent post? the writer said that they loved the GIMP interface. the complaint was that the windows version seems different in some important ways.
Gimp seems like a really good graphics package, but I still really struggle with the fact that it opens all these seperate boxes that I have to move around. I just want them snapped into a background.
Then get a better windowmanager. Seriously. That way, you will be able to get the boxes to do exactly what you want, irrespective of what the GIMP developers think is a good idea. Gimp is good at editing images and it should stay that way. Window managers are good at managing windows. Let each component do what it does best.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I like Gimp but I'm sorry, the name has got to go. If I'm proposing to my school to provide a piece of software on all campus computers it has to have a name that isn't this offensive.
To do this the Gimp needs to become nicer to use for the gimp newbs, I've used photoshop for ages, before that, I used Paint Shop Pro, the change from one to the tother wasn't painless, but it was still easy enough (ie. intuitive) to find out what I wanted to do.
However, any time I've used the gimp I stop after hardly any time, almost nothing makes sense. Maybe that's an exagguration, but that's exactly how it feels.
Of course people who learnt with the Gimp find it natural, that makes sense, I'm sure if I perciviered, so would I , but it would take a lot longer that the PSP->PS switch, and what for? not much really. PS is superior to PSP in that it's industry standard, more powerful(it is, although i've not looked at psp for a while) etc etc. Where does the gimp stand? it's free, that's the only real advantage I can think of for the normal PS user. personally I think most people are better off paying out for the usability of PS.
I'm aware that the Gimp's getting better, but for real acceptance I think it needs:
To be easy to migrate to from PS/PSP.
Thats it really, at the moment, the Gimp is not. And to all the people saying you can fix the UI with a better window manager, that's useless to the masses(who you need). If you have to do something using a seperate program/utility to make the program you want to use better, it's not working like it should. Especially for a program not aimed at tech geeks. That's my 2p. Also, the name could be better.
You, sir, are mistaken. CMYK and color management are both extremely important issues that I agree must be addressed. You're on the right track WRT mixing color, etc, but they *are* important in RGB colorspace as well. Even for "digital media," 8bits/color is necessary for nonlinear filtering. Just about any digital camera out there worth a shit can take pictures in RAW mode with generally 12 bpp of dynamic range. When you capture in JPG or think about touching in current 8bpp GIMP you throw out 16x (2^4) the available information in the photo. If it doesn't sound important, consider that standard monitor gamma is 2.2 and is *highly* nonlinear. Also, normal digital photo touchup procedures involve stretching brightness and contrast. If you start out with only 8 bits and apply a nonlinear filter, it has to re-quantize already quantized levels and will look like ass.
I agree that for the *final* image, >8 bits/color is pointless. Greater bit density is for keeping posterization and quantization errors down during processing.
Don't mistake my annoyance for paranoia, but I serve an IT role at a medium sized company. We have a bunch of GPL and other OSS stuff installed on our windows-centric network. When we deployed SP2 company-wide, about 30% of the OSS apps broke, and either had to be reinstalled or (in three cases) have SP2 rolled back for critical machines. not like most of it matters anyway since the machines in question are behind an honest-to-goodness, well maintained firewall, aren't used to recieve any email, and have IIS turned off by default.
mind you we did have about 3 proprietary apps break down as well.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
The issue of GIMP and multiple windows (lowercase w) comes up every time there is an article about GIMP. Initially it was blamed on GIMP being old and requiring a rewrite. Then it was a feature, designed into the GIMP. Now it is Windows fault for not having multiple desktops?!!??! Oh I forgot, if all else fails blame Microsoft.
you posted a workaround. The original problem still exists. I use 8 desktops and it is still a problem. Whether I use a desktop strictly for the Gimp, or I end up opening other applications (like my file browser to keep files handy for use in Gimp, like Composer to try out the file after editing, like other apps that get used at the same time as Gimp). Even if you use one desktop just for the Gimp, other windows of other apps often get opened and stay opened so you can work productively with the Gimp. And this problem gets magnified on screens smaller than 19".
/. story are jumping on the people posting problems about the app, instead of acknowledging that the poster may have a point. That's not how things get fixed.
Another problem is gimp tool windows opening up underneath other windows.
The top poster is bringing up a problem. That's how they get addresses. Most of the gimp defenders in this
I use gimp exclusively because I can't afford Photoshop and won't use windows. And yes, Gimp does things differently than Photoshop. Many gimp defenders are saying to take a month and learn how to use Gimp properly. Wrong. That's not how it works. Either it is intuitive, like Photoshop, or someone moves on to something else that works for them. Today, and many times in the past, I've seen gimp defenders post that Photoshop seems counter-intuitive, and Gimp seems intuitive to them. Maybe if they've been using FOSS, GNU/Linux since it was a multi-floppy download. But intuitive Gimp is not. I'm not a graphic artist, nor a graphic or artistic professional. I use the Gimp for hobby purposes such as touching up photos for amateur web sites, touching up photos for printing, creating banners, buttons, and am starting to use it for slightly more involved image creation. But I still find old versions of Photoshop (4.0, 5.0, 5.5) easier to use for many (not all) actions. I'm no expert, and haven't walked through every page of every manual and guide on Gimp, but I have quite a few downloaded, and have gone through some of the ones that are laid out like a photo-manual. A good basic one is on that site where the guy goes nuts on Microsoft every once in a while, Mozilla magazine, or something like that. But with Photoshop, I can draw a straight line, I can pick specific images out of a photo and transfer just the specific images (without adjoining images or background from the same photo) to other photos, etc. I still haven't figured out how to draw a straight line (I know its documented elsewhere), nor have I figured out how to isolate and move specific images from a photo to another photo, or crop everything else out of a photo except the specific image in the photo. In Photoshop, my brother, who doesn't know what version of windows he's using, doesn't know how to access the web on his dsl account without opening AOL (byos) and using AOL's interface, doesn't know how to upgrade an app like firefox to the newest version, doesn't know how to install and use spyware detection tools, doesn't know much at all about computers is still right at home in using Photoshop to manipulate images for posting on ebay. He can draw straight lines, isolate specific images in a photo and transfer it to another photo or crop everything else, and do other simple and not so simple things that I find difficult or impossible to do on gimp without reading manuals or taking a course. He didn't read any manuals to figure out what to do in Photoshop.
Am I slamming Gimp? No. I'm pointing out that there are usability problems in Gimp, and they won't get solved if we keep our heads in the sand about them. If the Gimp developers go on believing that there is nothing wrong with the Gimp, and the problem lies with the user, there will continue to be usability problems with the application.
I'm not a developer. I'm not a programmer. I am contributing in my own small way to a few other projects though, as an end user. I've actually paid for Free Software. I've submitted bugs with detailed ex
The thing that makes GIMP unusable for me is the fact that the tool windows even if set as utility windows, in Gtk, have to be focused separately, and even with focus follows mouse, the GIMP shortcuts ARE NOT ACTIVE when the canvas is not highlighted. So you have to click or hover over the project window and then use the shortcut. That is incredibly unusable for me.
Let me comment on some of your points:
* load/save dialog, these are really just the standard Gtk+ ones with a single thumbnail, however for a graphic application it would be quite usefull to have full thumbnail view of all images, like you get in Nautilus or any fileviewer
Why don't you use nautilus or any other fileviewer then? The point of the GIMP UI is to allow you to use it together with other apps. So why don't you just open images from nautilus or drag them onto the GIMP toolbox? In GIMP 2.2 you can also drag them to an already opened image or into the Layers dialog.
It would be a terrible waste of time and efforts to duplicate the functionality of your favorite file browser if you can just use it with The GIMP.
* no quick&easy way to create brushes, ie. I would like to use a layer click a 'to-brush' button and then paint with it, however thats more or less impossible todo today
It is possible for a long time already by means of "Script-Fu->Selection->To Brush". Sure this isn't very intuitive and it is planned to improve this with the next version. Most of the framework that is needed to make this happen is in place already.
* developers seem to be quite hostile against any suggestions from the outside, both on IRC and on the mailing list
Look at your own posting. It is titled "Top Reasons I hate GIMP". Now do you seriously expect to get friendly response when you address volunteers in such a way? You get back what you throw at people.
And, as always... the "solution" seems to be people telling you how they work around the problem (instead of admiting it's an issue and fixing it).
Appearently we're talking to a brick wall, but let's give this one more try....
Dear GIMP Developers... This is your #1 useabilty issue. YOU may like it, but appearently everyone else HATES it. Perhaps you might consider fixing it rather than telling us (how) to "deal with it".
I would personally love to use your software. I'd love to get all my friends hooked on your software, but I can't. This single issue alone prevents all of us from adopting your otherwise wonderful application.
-=sig=-
Well if it wasn't for that 'cheap consumer crap', Windows users would probably retreat from the internet sooner or later because of all the viruses they get.
That said, you seem to forget that something like The Gimp has thousands of functions and options, with a great deal of flexibility as to what the user can do. (An anti-virus program does only one thing.)
You'd better compare the quality of the Gimp's interface to the one found in Photoshop or its veritable replacement, Jasc PaintShop Pro. That means, you should look at consistency, adherence to operating system standards, responsiveness, and user trails, i.e. the workload a user has (number of clicks and mouse-miles) in order to execute a certain manipulation of the document.
In terms of OS standards, for example, the Mac OS X GIMP is worlds behind Adobe Photoshop.
Do I still have to click on every single tool twice in order to activate it? (Once to activate the window, once for the tool). (A global focus-follows mouse setting for X11 would bring up UI issues with all other X11 programs I use.) Is the menu bar in the 'real' menu bar on top of the screen now? Does it use the OS standard keyboard shortcuts (Apple-S, Apple-C, Apple-W etc.?)
I'd really like to use The Gimp, but the interface has been putting me off all along.
"GIMP 2.2 adds the often requested preview for transformations but actually Corrective mode is a lot more versatile and much easier to use especially when it comes to correcting perspective distortions."
But, but it's NOT like PS so it must be bad.
Seriously I'm showing the fallacy behind most of the arguments presented against the Gimp.
Clone the PS interface and a couple things happen:
1) Listen to accusations that the OSS authors aren't innovative (Tailight chasing)
2) Get locked into what the other guy's doing. (Adobe sneezes, we copy that. We sneeze, everyone runs to Adobe for a tissue.)
3) Open ourselves to numerous legal issues.
...but actually Corrective mode is a lot more versatile and much easier to use especially when it comes to correcting perspective distortions.
You have no idea. This is (IMO) the one single, most useful feature of the GIMP.
Arbitrary inverse linear transformations.
That and quick editing of masks/alpha channels. I love being able to "paste down" grayscale right into the mask layer, or an arbitrary channel.
Mix that with the "compose images" feature...
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
No it's your #1 useabilty issue, the GIMP is fine for the rest of us.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
That can't be true. Managing windows cannot be GIMP's number one issue, or GTK's, since they are not window managers but an application and a widget library. Could you tell us why, and how is GTK supposed to solve a problem in a completely different space ?
Handling windows is the job of the Window Manager, which is Windows under Windows, and can be anything under Unices. So if you have an issue with the way your windows are handled, just report the problem to your window manager's developers.
By blaming Gimp for a problem with Windows, you're asking them to break an interface that works in a way that cannot work. You wouldn't ask your car manufacturer to fix your car because of a hole in the road, would you ?
That's a poor design choice problem with GIMP not a Windows problem. Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro and thousands of other programs manage to write MDI applications without requiring their own seperate desktop to be usable. If the developers of GIMP want to gain much market on Windows they'll need to change the design. If they don't care, then they don't need to worry about it.
Count yourself lucky?? "here's a shit sandwich, be glad you're getting one at all". gee, thanks.
You mean to tell me that you're a Gimp developer, but you've never used Photoshop?!?!
There's your problem right there. No wonder Gimp is so hard to use.
No user interface designer or software developer should be afraid to use a competing product. It's your responsibility to know Photoshop cold before trying to write something that competes with it. Many of the users you're trying to win over certainly do.
No wonder you're having a hard time understanding why people think Gimp is clumsy and hard to use.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Dear non-GIMP-contributor,
Thank you for speaking for the rest of the world.
I for one (And checking the replies to your message, it seems I'm not alone) do not have a problem with the GIMP interface. in fact, I like it very much. I have a window on the left side for the GIMP controls, one on the right for layers, histogram, undo history, and other tools that I require then X number of windows for the graphics I'm working on. How this is more difficult to use than a single Word-style window eludes me. I've used GIMP on virtual desktops, on full-screen desktops, and even across dual monitors and it Just Works(tm). The biggest problem I have with it is on Click-To-Focus desktops that require that I click twice on icons in non-focused widgets and I fail to see how crippling the GIMP to satisfy their busted-ass UI model is going to make it better.
... And so it comes to this.