Slashdot Mirror
GIMP 2.2 Released
wongn writes "Several weeks since the splash screen contest was first announced, the latest milestone release for GIMP has come about - GIMP 2.2.0 has just been officially released. Only the linux binaries and source have yet appeared. From the website: 'The GIMP developers are proud to announce the availability of version 2.2.0 of the GNU Image Manipulation Program. About nine months after version 2.0 hit the road, we have completed another development cycle and can bring a new stable GIMP to our users' desktops.'"
There is one feature that Photoshop has, that GIMP is seriously lacking.
A $650 price tag!
Seriously though, nobody is going to take The Gimp too seriously until it costs $650. High prices for software bring a placebo effect that simulates quality.
If GIMP was not open source, would you use it?
No.
If linux wasn't open source, would I use it?
No.
If firefox wasn't open source, would I use it?
No.
If X wasn't open source, would I use it?
No.
I think you get the picture.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Overall, GIMP is an incredible feat of OSS, so I dno't want it to seem that I'm being completely negative.
But, there's two problems I have with GIMP, and one of them might have been fixed and one definitely hasn't.
First is the interface. Much has been said about it, but it really is not intuitive at all. A UI overhaul would be very helpful, and could go a long way to get a lot of Adobe enthusiasts to check it out. I've been using Mac OS X a lot lately, and it's really pointed out a lot of the really horrid UI decisions that have been made with Linux-grown software. The right-click menu is horribly unintuitive, there's too many options cluttered on one screen instead of giving them a heirarchy of use and seperating them by tabs or other methods. There's a whole bunch of things that could be done to make the the interface better, enough to fill a whole research document, so I'll leave it at that.
Second is the name. It needs to change. This is not about being PC, it's about reaching out to as many people as possible, and getting them to try out the GIMP. Will universities ever teach classes in a program that's called 'the gimp?' Will companies ever take seriously an employee who says that he wants to install 'the gimp' on his computer? Y'all have to have gotten the same weird looks as me when you've suggested that people try 'the gimp'. Have you ever told it to someone who uses a cane or crutches or is in a wheelchair?
If you have, you probably felt like a real jerk right after it slipped out of your mouth.
C'mon, change the name, we're not kids anymore, alright?
See http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html.
Seriously, do you think a perponderence of people even use the features that Photoshop has over Gimp? My department, for instance, bought two licenses for CS so that we could crop and size some photos, and do some very basic web graphics.
The boss turned down my suggestion, I think, because of the usual suspicion and fear that surrounds GNU software: "What? It can't be free. There must be some catch. It might even be illegal." The only downside that Gimp has is the annoyance of, "Oooh I don't like it the interface is all different" from my coworkers. But like they say, nobody ever got fired for buying (insert your favorite 800-lb gorilla corporation here).
For that you should have bought Paint Shop Pro, though admittedly every version since 6.0 has been junk.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
"Seriously, do you think a perponderence of people even use the features that Photoshop has over Gimp?"
/. jeans thinking you're an Art Director just yet ;)
Yes, the _preponderance_ uses the features not found in the GIMP. This is mostly due to the fact the preponderance of people using the GIMP are not entry level web weenies in need of a better crop tool. The PS native format PSD files are standard for AE, Print design, 3D imports and exports. I can edit my PSD and have live updates posting out to my media work.
Photoshop isn't just the 800lbs gorilla for web, it's the 800lbs gorilla work _all_ media work.
It integrates with just about anything an artist needs to work with. From Greg Martin, to SKG, Photoshop's utilization goes far beyond web work and is flexible enough to accommodate the movie industry, the print industry, advertising, multimedia and web.
Ask any artist, if he can only have two tools to do all his work: video, print, advertising, tv, dv, web... It will be Photoshop and After Effects, hands down.
The GIMP is very good at what it does, but don't go jumping out of your
As much as I like the gimp, it's seriously handicapped when it comes to even moderate digital camera photo processing, because it can only handle 8 bits per color channel (for the math-handicapped out there: "8 bits times 3 three color channels" is "24-bit color"). Good digital photo processing often needs at least 12 bits per channel (actually, to be "future proof", programs should probably suport at least 16-32 bits). In other words, moderate digital camera photo processing needs at least 48 bits per pixel, if not more.
Unfortunately, this is one area where photoshop is significantly better than gimp. (And, yes, I do know about CinePaint, but it seems to be virtually dead.)
My problem is that I do not use the gimp daily, and therefore I forget where things are hidden. But, surely, it needn't be so difficult to guess.
One thing I do a lot is to edit the contrast of an image that I've scanned. But, every time, I have to try a lot of menus to find that function. Image? Layers? Tools? Dialogs? Filters? All of these seem to be likely candidates. So, each and every time I want to adjust the contrast, I click each of these things, often a few times, missing the brightness/contrast function I'm looking for.
Does it really need to be this difficult?
I am not writing to suggest a reconfiguration of the menus -- folks have got used to the present state -- but rather to suggest something simpler. How about a menu action that stores recently chosen menus? In my case, a buffer of previously-selected menu items would contain just 3 items: "open", "brightness/contrast" and "save as". I imagine quite a few folks would have a small list of recent commands.
Q: is it technically feasible to store recently-used commands in this way? It would seem to be, since so many applications have recently-used file menu items.
I've never used Photoshop and I never will because I don't have $650 to spend on a photo retouching program. I'm amazed that so many people here on slashdot have paid $650 to touch up their digital photos which is basically all I use the GIMP for.
/. they're like 50% of the population.
I mean professional graphic artists make up less than 1% of the population but judging from
So anyway, GIMP works fine for me. I have no idea about PS and suspect I never will.
Sorry, I use photoshop quite often, and GIMP is, among other things, exceedingly slow; filters that take a second or two in Photoshop CS take a half minute in GIMP. I got tired of watching the filter progress bar all the time, and switched right back.
Professionals buy new $3k Macs when there's a new model out if there is even 2-3 seconds difference in how long a task takes. Why should they "save" $650 on something that will take them ten times as long?
Nevermind that macros in GIMP are a royal pain in the ass. In Photoshop, you just do the action while recording it, and Photoshop makes the macro for you. You can then apply the macro to images in the image browser instantly, control where things go, have a report generated on failures/successes, the whole nine yards.
If the GIMP team wants Photoshop market share(which I don't think they do), then repeat after me: productivity, productivity, productivity. They'd do well to sit down with a bunch of pros and write down everything they say, and weigh it very heavily into future plans.
Please help metamoderate.
The only reason Adobe charges so damn much [for Photoshop] is because they know a certain number of people will buy it regardless.
Sorry, but this is a patently false argument. There's a lot of really incredible engineering and mathematics that has gone into Photoshop. Consider the optical kerning engine - simply the best typographical kerning mechanism ever invented. It analyzes the shape of every letter and determines on a per-character basis what degree of kerning is necessary to prevent collisions and preserve a consistent look. Brought to you by years of analytical geometry. Or consider the cloning brush - a tool in Photoshop that blends dischordant pieces of an image with its surroundings. Brought to you by lots of doctoral-level calculus. The list goes on.
The expertise that produces the engineering and math marvels found in Adobe products does not come cheap. You can criticize Adobe for spending too much on marketing or unnecessary litigation, but you can't claim that Adobe charges a lot of money "just because." They have a very high salary line in their annual budget, and the quality of their products reflects this.