GIMP 2.2 Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Sunday December 19, 2004 @08:05AM from the bring-out-the... dept.

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.'"

21 of 577 comments (clear)

Re:icon by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-12-19 08:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Consider it a GIF from the Gods.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Seriously... Why would you use this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-19 08:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

If GIMP was not open source, would you use it? Does it have anything over Photoshop in terms of Functionality or Ease of USe?
1. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-19 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by happyemoticon · 2004-12-19 08:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It runs on Linux, and it doesn't cost $650.
  
  Adobe really is an 800 lb gorilla. Even their educational prices for Photoshop are $300. By comparison, Macromedia Director Pro is $100 (educational), with the full suite for only 150. Even if you factor in the base price of Director, it's a helluva better deal. The only reason Adobe charges so damn much is because they know a certain number of people will buy it regardless.
3. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by MrRuslan · 2004-12-19 08:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well I can tell you for me it worked great. I use it for banners and logos and it is much easier to use than PS plus it works on windows and linux so thats a big plus. for me photoshop is overkill but gimp is just right.
4. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by happyemoticon · 2004-12-19 08:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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).
5. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-19 08:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Does it have anything over Photoshop in terms of Functionality or Ease of USe?
  
  Yes, the GIMP supports the does-not-get-russian-programmers-unfairly-arrested plugin.
6. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by csritchie · 2004-12-19 09:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Seriously, do you think a perponderence of people even use the features that Photoshop has over Gimp?"
  
  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 /. jeans thinking you're an Art Director just yet ;)
7. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by darrylo · 2004-12-19 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  (And, for the comprehension-impaired out there: "processing" is not the same as "printing" or "displaying").
  
  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.)
8. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by msevior · 2004-12-19 09:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  I mean professional graphic artists make up less than 1% of the population but judging from /. they're like 50% of the population.
  
  So anyway, GIMP works fine for me. I have no idea about PS and suspect I never will.
9. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by KilobyteKnight · 2004-12-19 11:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  When did Adobe release a Linux port of Photoshop?
  
  I was at a Photoshop seminar last week here in Memphis. I spoke with the instructor during one of the breaks and asked him if he though there would be a native Linux version of Photoshop. He said as he shook his head up and down in a very expressive affirmative manner that due to certain non-disclosure agreements he had signed he couldn't say what he knew.
  
  The rumor is "soon".
  
  --
  When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
10. Re:Seriously... Why would you use this? by EchoMirage · 2004-12-19 16:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
What's New in 2.2 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-19 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Details of the release: http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew2
Download? by jeffkjo1 · 2004-12-19 08:13 · Score: 5, Funny

GIMP 2.2.0 has just been officially released

Anybody have a link to a torrent?

Oh.... wait
Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies by Dano+Watt · 2004-12-19 08:25 · Score: 5, Funny

You forgot one important statistic: 0% of the people here will take you seriously.
Re:My problems with GIMP. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-19 08:31 · Score: 5, Funny

I agree that the biggest problem GIMP has for widespread acceptance is the name. Frankly, it has labored without the benefit clever self recursion for far too long!

So, in the interest of its long term viablility, I formally propose a name change:

GIMP Isn't Microsoft Paint

will, I believe, catapult GIMP onto desktops around the world.
Splash screen by mstefanus · 2004-12-19 08:32 · Score: 5, Informative

The splash screen that won the contest and some others that worth mentioning.
Re:My problems with GIMP. by agent+dero · 2004-12-19 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

Most of us know we're talking about an application if we ever mention "The GIMP" to a handicapped person, and are mature enough to handle it.

That's almost along the lines of getting nervous about talking about the civil rights movement with a black person.

Give me a break, we're not kids anymore, remember?

--
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Re:My problems with GIMP. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-19 08:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Please no, not again!

Gimp developers seem obsessed with user interface stuff, scripting langugage stuff, etc. Not that I'm saying they are getting everything right the first time, but please, please do the important things first:

1.) My consumer digital camera delivers 12bit color channels. I hate being forced to throw away 4bit of image information before I even start editing a file in Gimp.

2.) Sometimes I want precise control over the colors in my prints. With Gimp this is impossible: It doesn't do color managment, so the colors I see on the monitor are never the same as those in the printout. That's especially annoying when printing portraits.

These are real, important, technical limitations of the Gimp. I really don't care for the name, and I'm capable of learning where to click. But when it comes to making use of all the information in an image and to correctly display it on the monitor I have much trouble making compromises.
Re:I for one... by lastberserker · 2004-12-19 08:56 · Score: 4, Funny

GIMP developers ROCK!!!
PAPER!!! I win.

P.S: Lameness filter is soooo lame :-/

--
My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
$650 is nothing if it's faster by SuperBanana · 2004-12-19 13:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only reason Adobe charges so damn much is because they know a certain number of people will buy it regardless.
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.