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."

Comments

GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[dan dan the dna man]

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

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

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

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[Technonotice_Dom]

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

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

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

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:GIMP on Windows vs Linux

[JustAnOtherCodeSerf]

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.

Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Magickcat]

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

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

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

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[Yorrike]

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

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

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[BenjyD]

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

That would be my ideal GIMP behaviour, anyway.

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[ubernostrum]

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

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[BigSven]

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

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

Re:Can I not have so many floating boxes?

[AstroDrabb]

Do you know you can change the Gimp interface? I have all my windows docked into one. It is _really_ easy to do and here is a quick little page I put up just now to show you. One window Gimp. You can get a nice installer for the latest Gimp from here.

The default Gimp layout is actaully the same as the default Photoshop layout under Mac. I personally do not like the Photoshop layout under MS Windows. If I maximize the image I am working on, all the other docked tool windows are always topmost and cover parts of the image. With Gimp, I have every tool window docked into one nice main tool panel. If I need to change a tool, I just alt+tab, select the tool and then alt+tab back to the maximized image with nothing covering the image.

Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Three steps before GIMP is taken seriously.

[arose]

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

More than 24bpp support

[Ace Rimmer]

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

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

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

Re:More than 24bpp support

[BigSven]

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

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

Taskbar Grouping

[BigSven]

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

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

Re:Very Nice

[Nexum]

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

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

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

Re:Tiny-fu

[BigSven]

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

Transformation preview

[BigSven]

Actually there's an easier way to correct for a misrotated image and it's in GIMP since version 1.2. The transform tools have a Corrective mode (available from the tool options). In that mode you rotate the grid so it aligns with the horizontal/vertical lines in your image and the tool will rotate the image in the other direction so that these lines become horizontal/vertical.

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.

Animated GIF

[Anonymous Writer]

Anyone notice that the eyes on the GIMP icon move? That's the first time I noticed anything animated on slashdot other than the ads.

you forgot

[michaelnz]

4. Change the name to something that can be taken seriously.

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.

Still no non-destructive editing abilities

[t_allardyce]

I looked in the feature list but i couldnt find this feature, its been aching to be in there for years and its one of the only major reasons i dont use GIMP: Non-destructive filters, i.e being able to apply a filter and then later go back and edit the parameters of that filter or take it away, much like photoshops adjustment layers and effects panel. Theres no excuse for not putting this in because it could fit in the existing structure and filters. As my final year project im writing something similar to that idea but a kind of hybrid with connectable blocks. I really wish they would put this in, they could easily do it better than photoshop and make GIMP serious competition. If they already have someone let me know?

Re:windows gui please!

[Queuetue]

If your company insists on using free software, then why are you running Windows?

CMYK support

[Craig Ringer]

Press and prepress users need it, as do print designers and layout staff. Ad agencies may also need it, if they submit ads in PDF form to be embedded into the final layout as-is (and generally they do).

A designer needs to be able to see out of gamut colour (colour that can not print on their output device / colour space), so they can adjust their image not to change too much when printed in CMYK. You see, the CMYK and RGB colour spaces do not both contain the same set of colours, so some RGB colours cannot be reproduced in CMK and vice versa. Additionally, some output devices have even more restricted colour spaces, such as a litho press for newsprint.

Having someone's blue shirt come out purple in print is an unpleasant experience that's to be avoided. CMYK support and colour management both help avoid this. If the blue-now-purple shirt is a full page advertisment, you'll care about this when the advertiser comes a-knocking.

In general, most colour adjustment for print should be done in RGB (it's easier to control colour in RGB) but previewed in CMYK so you can get a better idea of how it'll print. In the GIMP as things stand, you can't really see how your work will print.

Calibrating your display is only half the story. If you don't have proper ICC profiles for your output device (printer / press), then it does you relatively little good. If you do have a properly calibrated display and suitable output device profiles, plus tools capable of previewing your work according to the output profile, then you may stand a chance of getting decent quality, accurate colour in print.

CMYK support is a pre-requisite for press colour management support. CMYK by its self is helpful, especially with an out-of-gamut warning, but only really comes into its own when combined with colour management.

I think you'll find, frankly, that the majority of people who know what CMYK _is_ will have a legitimate need for support for it. Most people neither know nor care.

Re:Bitching

[David_W]

The world has moved on since 1995. It's just too bad that 95% of people don't realise this because they are stuck using a operating system with more limitations then they are aware of.

Not that I don't agree with the point you are trying to make (I'd like to see more intelligent window management in Windows too), but by definition, how can "the world" have moved on if 95% of people (in "the world") are using an OS that hasn't?

As the parent poster said, this is the wrong mindset for an application. The OS dictates the interface to the application, not the other way around. It's very nice that The GIMP provides a flexible interface that advanced window managers can take advantage of. However, sometimes you have to acknowledge the constraints placed on you by your environment (i.e., Windows) and work within those constraints. Changing to an OS with better window managers is just not an option for some people (plus, if that were really the goal there would be no Windows port), and once you are limited to Windows, changing window managers is pretty much not an option either.

As some of the other posters have said, I don't want to see The GIMP get rid of the interface they have. But offering other interface variations (like MDI) via a preference could really improve the experience on other operating systems.

Not an answer

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

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 /. 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.

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

Re:Top Reasons I hate Gimp

[BigSven]

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.

CinePaint does this

[sootman]

CinePaint, formerly Film Gimp, "...is a free open source painting and image retouching program designed to work best with 35mm film and other high resolution high dynamic range images. It is the most popular open source tool in the motion picture industry -- used in 2 Fast 2 Furious, Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter, Stuart Little and other feature films. CinePaint is used for painting of background mattes and for frame-by-frame retouching of movies. It is being extended to do film restoration. CinePaint is available for Linux, Macintosh OS X, Windows, and other popular operating systems... CinePaint Features: ... 8/16/32-bits of color per channel (up to 128-bits RGBA)"