Slashdot Mirror
GIMP Interface Proposals?
Anonymous Coward asks: "It would seem that naught but its developers themselves like the GIMP's UI. How would you like the GIMP to look? Reply with links to GIMPed (or Photoshopped, if you swing that way) screenshots. Individual features, the menu structure, or (preferably) default workspaces after you open up a blank new canvas." With the release of version 2.2 in the bag, 2.3 development should now be in full swing. What aspects of the interface do you think the GIMP team should make for the next release and for future relases down the line?
All I'd want is a proper MDI, all the windows in a main container, I hate having them all free, loose, and can fall behind everything else and.... ugh.
And I kinda like the GIMP UI. :-)
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
I like Gimp just as it is. Do you need screenshot of it???
I wouln't go back to PShop interface.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
At best, it should look almost exactly like the Photoshop UI, with a few annoyances fixed. I don't have too many ideas but I'm sure the GIMP devs can compile Photoshop annoyances and outdo it.
Open it up... provide an API to the backend and allow anyone to code their own interface.
Since day one, GIMP users have been complaining en masse about free-floating tool windows. And since day one, we have all been told "it's a feature not a bug". So why bother with even more feedback? It will only get ignored again.
The UI is non-intuitive, but once people use it they swear that it is better than every other 3d program available. Either Blender has the best UI in the world or it's just a tendancy of human beings to rationalise their decisions after they have invested in them significantly. Either way, Blender's complex non-intuitive UI has done a lot to build the Blender community. I believe the same is true of GIMP but to a slightly lesser extent. Why change anything?
How we know is more important than what we know.
As much as I'd like for the GIMP team to be innovative in their UI design, I believe that they will find that impossible, as the GMIP's feature-set has come to resemble that of Photoshop so closely that the two UIs will be VERY similar.
Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro have very different UIs because they are conceptually different (that's not to say that PSP is any good. I'm not a fan). The GIMP and Photoshop were both conceptually similar -- in other words, by copying features from PS, the GIMP team has forced themselves to make their UI very similar to Photoshop. In other words, copying the PS GUI exactly will create the most efficent UI for the gimp. In my mind, this is a bad thing.
But not all is lost. Here are my suggestions
1) Implement a darn menu bar and clean up the menus. The right-click system sucks.
2) Please handle pallettes like every other program does and NOT create an additional taskbar icon for every document, toolbar, and pallette.
3) Implement a Slices tool like ImageReady has
4) Rename the program. GIMP does not convey an image of a good, reliable program
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
I can't comment specifically on it, however the text interface and how you deal with text in gimp really needs to be worked on. Moving and manipulating text on that thing is simply confusing and frustrating
You can tack together the free-floating tool windows and make them one if you like. Admittedly, this should be one of the first startup tips and isn't.
So yes, they did respond to that particular feedback, even if you didn't find out about it yet.
It's also relatively trivial in most WMs to make those floating windows always-on-toppish like the PS ones (only more flexible).
It could also be stated with much fairness that PhotoShop users form a disproportionate population of those complaining about same. And that if you don't like it, you're at liberty create a fork or a parallel patch set to implement the windows however you like them. Before anyone OMFGs me, compare the amount of effort involved in doing that with the amount of effort involved in creating the whole GIMP in the first place, and remember that with PS it's pretty close to impossible to do anything of this nature.
BTW, my sister-in-law uses The GIMP heavily, and swears by the floating windows and the tearoff menus.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
There's nothing to change. It's fine as it is.
Sorry, but MDI interfaces are dumb. No one bitches about how Photoshop on the Mac has a very similar UI. GIMP 2.x has menubars on the image windows now (unless you turn them off, as I have) so no one can complain about having to right-click being non-intuitive.
The menu structure could maybe use a bit of a reorganization, but the interface has no major flaws.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Call it "PhotoShop Masque for GIMP".
Yes, I am serious. PS users in transition would just love it. And you'll die of old age waiting for a GIMP personality for PS.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This is simply not true. It's the same old effect that only those who really dislike a feature have the motivation to speak out about it, while those who have no problems with it have better things to do than to post about how they haven't had any problems with it today either.
Never, _ever_ judge something like this simply based on volume of posts - and the same goes for letter feedback to media and politicians, as well, of course.
I like the Gimp UI. And you can snap toghether or pull apart the windows in whatever combinations you want, so I don't see why people are still complaining about "free-floating" windows.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
The best thing they can do is simplify, simplify, simplify. Get rid of all those confusing filters or figure out how to combine them into one.
Figure out a clean way to handle "floating layers" I never understood that. Photoshop makes the most sense.
And PLEASE change the name. GIMP is an unprofessional name.
I miss it a fair bit when using PS.
Have you used GIMP 2.2 (or even a late 2.0)? They have menus on every image window. Purists will complain that it's cluttered, but I find it very handy to have a choice of right-clicking if you happen to be a long way from the menu bar, or clicking on the menu bar if it's not a function you use often (hunt and peck made easier) or the bar happens to be nearest.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I think the GIMP would be a lot better if it looked like this: GIMP.
- Add the Free/FixedAspect/FixedSize options from the Rectangular Select tool into the Crop tool.
- Add a "macro recorder" to make writing Script-Fu easier
- Add a simple "debug mode" to trace Script-Fu execution and/or hand off to the Script-Fu Console from the invokation dialog box
- Add a de-red-eye tool that's a bit more intelligent, specifically
- that identifies round or ovoid red-eyes rather than anything red
- that uses soft edges rather than doing scalpel-like total excision
- build a Script-Fu to do this either straight from the camera or with all of the layers in a designated image.
There's lots more, that's just what's on the tip of my mind right now.Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Well I for one think The GIMP's UI is fine just how it is. Then again, I learned its UI when I was 13 or so, around the time I got addicted to sloppy/strict mouseover focus. Being able to point at a window and save its document by just striking Control-S is very efficient.
:)
I thought GIMP was weird at first (I was a Photoshop 2.x user) but I rapidly came to appreciate its advantages. Basically, I love it because it's efficient and lightweight. If I want to do something to an image, I right-click the image. Simple, right? In Photoshop I have to hunt under some menu and I have to care about which image is in the foreground. And of course, in both, I can just use key accelerators -- in GIMP, even assign my own -- to speed things up.
You can't master GIMP in a day, and you sure as hell can't master Photoshop in a day either. Most of the complaining I hear is Photoshop users pissy about having to think a little differently to use GIMP. Maybe you should write a "tricks of the UI" tutorial for the unadventurous...?
Now if I were directing the GIMP project, I'd say:
Never adopt MDI. Well, okay, you can, just make it optional. There are a lot of Windows users who would love it, but a lot of current users who would dump GIMP in a second if it were mandatory.
Please rip off Photoshop's styles palette. It's one of the main reasons I use Photoshop primarily these days.
Please add serious ICC profile support wherever you can in the image workflow. Even if you don't support CMYK, good color support would rock, and it would make professionals take GIMP more seriously. Bonus points: add a calibrator like Adobe Gamma/Colorsync/Supercal.
Yeah... I think that's about all for now. Watch everyone disagree
--
Keep NOSPAM to reply
I would like to see the document window keep focus, the only problem i've had with the interface is when i forget to click on the document window after selecting a different tool.
of course i don't know how easy this is, and it hasn't stopped me from using the gimp as my primary raster program.. so all in all keep up the good work.
...put a text-box on the File Open dialog where you can type to choose a file (e.g. hidden files/directories) or give the navigator hints.
No, I'm not talking about the separate Location box which Ctrl-L brings up (although that is handy for pasting URLs from other programs), I'm talking about a typing target integrated with the existing panel.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
These guys seem to have a pretty nice gui for a graphic editing program.
2.2 has Guillotine right there in the menus (Image, Transform Guillotine).
What it lacks is a way to tie image sections to one another to give an effect like ROWSPAN and COLSPAN from HTML. As things stand, you have to manually tack the appropriate image pieces back together again after the guillotine. If there were a simple Merge Pieces tool to do this, it would suffice, but I would be greatly pleased if you could mark sections of a Guide line (between intersecting Guides) and indicate that you didn't want the pieces either side of it separated.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
But a native port of GTK+ to OS X (via quartz/Aqua and not using X11) would be of great benefit.
I've been a GIMP user since its early days. I was a former Photoshop aficionado, and by far I think the GIMP's UI is easier to use and more intuitive of that of PS. The right-click menu just rocks, the floating and dockable toolbars and panels are really practical.
Almost 1 year ago I moved from Linux to OS X on the desktop. GIMP is still my favorite image manipulation software, but I would *really really* love to see it more integrated with the OS, as X11 is slow, bloated and unstable and just doesn't looks natural.
I know the GIMP developer aren't to blame for this, but a native port of GTK+ and its related tools to the OS X framework would be great, to eliminate the dependency on X11 and get a more 'at home' feeling with the app. It was already done for Windows and OS X *should* be easier AFAIK because all the underlying *NIX stuff is already there.
Articulos para gente geek: Poleras, linux, libros y mas
since its either illegal or financially unfeasable to create a complete look/feel clone of photoshop, allow the _ability_ to skin it and let 3rd parties (torrents, anyone?) create an exact look/feel of photoshop. gimp guys can't be sued and yet we'd still be able to have a feel-alike photoshop on unix.
.so that does 'bad' things yet the framework doesn't, so the framework guys can't be sued) and you have all kinds of new power possible.
detach legal responsibility this way (like an
if we could make gimp look and feel very close to what pshop is like, we could get more of the artists who use and know pshop by heart - to give our side a try. and maybe even have an interest in porting the filters over, since that's where the real power lies.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I'd like to see an Visual-Studio-like interface (hear me out!) for a graphics program.
I like things to dock. It's nice to work with the document maximised and not have the palletes cover the document. It's nice to be able to customise menus and toolbars to your heart's content. It's nice to have tear-off menus for common actions, such as tearing off the menu for centring something.
It's strange how Photoshop isn't nearly as customisable as Word when it comes to interface.
..MATTERS.
analogy: cisco IOS command line (CLI). its basically a marketing must-have(*) that any new networking gear have the same look/feel (when possible) to the IOS style ('show' commands, etc). with very few exceptions, its a market reality. I'm not debating its tech merit - just market acceptance (this coming from an enginerd, not a tie wearing guy).
same idea here. if gimp is to be taken seriously by working professionals in the field (like the way the pros currently have an almost scary allegiance to pshop) then it has to have the same 'skin' (or allow for the same skin, maybe as a plug-in) as pshop. it just has to.
(*) yes, juniper is an exception. there aren't that many successful exceptions, though.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
A good user interface should allow people to do the job they want to do. I think the interface should be so simple that everyone can use it. I have been designing user interfaces for building energy programs that are so easy to use you don't even have to know anything about buildings or energy to use them. Maybe that is a bad thing?
<URL:http://www.archiphysics.com/>
All image windows have their own menu bar since v2.x.
That should be:
All image windows have their own menu bar by default since version 2.x.
Which just goes to reinforce your first sentence - and since moosesocks hasn't actually used a recent version of GIMP, I think it's prudent to point this out, in case he/she decides to come back with "yeah, but they should be enabled by default."
Personally, I'm a big fan of single-window/palette-based interfaces. Examples are Blender and ZBrush. Though both look quite distinct, they both keep everything in a single window, and keep everything organized for you. Tools can be reorganized by dragging palettes around, but they always fit neatly into shelves and panels, instead of floating over the image you're trying to edit. The key being that the computer is plenty smart enough to take care of managing my windows for me; I'd much rather be doing art than damaging the already sore muscles in my wrist by carefully positioning windows manually. (Incidentally, I've been experimenting with a palette-based interface of my own http://sharp3d.sourceforge.net/, which is probably why I'm so attached to them. ;) )
Believe it or not, creative people (like artists) enjoy creativity in their software. What's creative about ripping off Photoshop's interface? Much better to invent a new interface that stresses the GIMP's strengths (besides being intuitive, elegant, and inspirational to one's sense of creativity. I've never sounded so gay).
Skinning is, at best, a cop-out; it's a way for the developers to wash their hands of the interface when they've realized, too late, they're no good at UI design. This may not always be true, but it would certainly be true in the case of the GIMP.
Or rather, an easy-to-learn version rather than something with as steep of a learning curve as the GIMP or photoshop.
I'd love someone to just strip down the interface and give a good walkthrough. I'm talking something akin to the early paint shop pros.
I don't use a graphical program every day. I don't want to spend hundreds of hours on a program that I'll only use occasionally for basic stuff.
you could look at it that way.
or, you could look at it as a way of _deferral_. yes, that's right. and its not a bad thing.
detaching form from function. we've been trying to do that via gui's for a long time now. this is just another level of detachment.
its usually not worth the effort to abstract an abstraction. otoh, gimp creates gtk (the toolkit) JUST to serve as a basis FOR gimp. so its not hard to stretch to the next level and let gimp invent some new stuff to further abstract the user from the machinery and let gtk ultimately benefit.
cop-out? in one way, I suppose. I think of it as 'pleasing more people by letting THEM decide'.
oh, and don't short-change the extreme benefit of not having to relearn a whole new UI just to do the same thing you've been doing for years. don't kid yourself - many artists consider computers DRUDGERY and a chore. not having to learn another UI would be a godsend to them.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Add colour management and 16-bit depth *now*.
What I would like to see in the existing previews is a zoom slider.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I have three images open in GIMP now, and can cut, paste, drag and drop between them with impunity. Each has it own set of menus, plus the right-click one.
If you want a separate context menu, invent one. C is not a difficult language to grasp. Then you can map the existing menu to one of the side-buttons of your mouse and be happy.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...where I propose a PS personality module. Wouldn't hurt to do an MS-Paint PM either. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It depends, as always.
If you go for the mass market, choose a Photoshop-like GUI. If you want to retain a uniquness, stay with GIMP.
I have never used Photoshop, and am very satisfied with the current GUI of GIMP. Still, one has to accept that a lot of potential users are scared off because of it.
Look at how Microsoft upgrade their software's GUI:s, minimally! They know how to make people _feel_ safe; yada-yada-BSOD-yada-crash-yada...
So, despite people's feelings for GIMP's current GUI, get over it and go for a Photoshop look-alike.
If not for anything else it may also give you some tips for 'missing' functionalities!
Simplifications are welcome, but please do not suggest stuff like window in window or the like.
I s'pose we could try for something witty like "Frees Frame" or FLIP, for "Free/Libre Image Processor".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You have plugins/script-fu/python-fu, why not take out the main UI, and do everything using GIMP's built-in scripting/plugin engine?
1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32... the user shouldn't have to care.
As I understand it, once they shim GEGL in, the rest will be easy.
Unfortunately, the GEGL domain is off-air as I type, the last contribution to the GNOME repository for itis some testing stuff 9 months ago, and the last "real" code 11 months ago, most of it's a year or two old, all of the recent (in relative terms) changes were done by dsrogers. Not lookin' too sanguine.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Well my two cents (nonrefundable). One I believe Glade was suppose to address this issue. And two one might want to look into XUL (not just a Mozilla technology. e.g. Luxor).
BTW Just be glad the interface isn't done in FLEX.
At the risk of quoting Manfred from Ice Age... oh, and look, they're demoing it with a GIMP fork with up to 32-bits-per-channel and colour management.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Robin Rowe dunnit.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"A good user interface should allow people to do the job they want to do. "
Is an interface that people refuse to learn, keeping them from doing their jobs?
"I think the interface should be so simple that everyone can use it."
An interface is as simple as it's most complex idea.
"I have been designing user interfaces for building energy programs that are so easy to use you don't even have to know anything about buildings or energy to use them. Maybe that is a bad thing?"
And how are the two domains related?
"Look at how Microsoft upgrade their software's GUI:s, minimally! "
Like between Windows 3.1 and Windows 9.5? Or Windows 95 and XP? How about when LongHorn comes out?
"So, despite people's feelings for GIMP's current GUI, get over it and go for a Photoshop look-alike."
Who's "going for it"? The complainers or the one's doing the actual work?
Looks like GIMP people are not really interested in photo editing. Sad, very very sad.
Why not make it possible to config how it handles the windows instead of saying, no, its fine as it is
Almost all windows should be able to be floating (independent) windows, child windows of an MDI window, docked panels within a paned window, or notebook panes in a tabbed notebook.
This should apply to toolbars, image (editing) windows, tear-off menus, and some (non-modal) dialogs.
It should be possible to "mix'n'match" windows, so that some windows are MDI, others are floating, etc.
The mechanics for implementing this are "outside" of the logic for what goes on within the windows themselves, and could be accomplished without too much difficulty by subclassing a few GTK container classes to allow them to change their parents (assuming that GTK allows reparenting of existing widgets, which it should).
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
WARNING: Parent link points to Adobe's Photoshop page! Zealots who follow the link may become enraged. In case of excessive agitation, administer valium or a large wooden mallet.
OK, I have never tried it on Windows, but on Linux Metacity for all its faults (and they are legion) does a reasonable job of keeping the components where I can find them.
Seems to me that the main complaint is that the GIMP doesn't follow the conventions set by MS Paint or Photoshop, and as far as I'm concerned, that is unfair. It doesn't follow that just because people are too lazy to learn how to use a tool effectively, there must be something wrong with the tool.
nt
Is there a script that automatically mods all first posts down? While I'll admit that the parent post is not the most civil of posts (and includes a gnaa remark), it's a relevant comment.
fuck you.
1) Single outer window with a single menubar and docking toolbars. (No, Deweirdifyer is not good enough.)
2) Use native dialogs where possible (GIMP's File/Open dialogs are the worst file dialogs I've seen in years, but the bigger issue is the inconsistency).
Both of these are trivial and constantly requested. If the GIMP developers do not implement them in the next release it will prove they're not interested in listening to their users.
Okay, I'm now convinced that /. has implemented a new requirement that all moderators be crack addicts.
Yes, the comment was short, but it said everything that needed to be said. It made a valid point, but apparently one that today's dittohead moderators disagreed with, and therefore decided to moderate into oblivion.
I can only conclude that the Bushite philosophy of responding to dissent by stifling it is infecting all of society.
fuck you.
Put GIMP in a separate virtual desktop and use a grey wallpaper.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
I like to do up the best of my holiday photos in one big all-nighter and put them on the web, or send a CD to those who want it.
What I hate is having to go go here to rotate, there to crop, somewhere else to fix the colours, and somewhere else again to resize and unsharp mask.
I'd like a single panel that puts all the common photo editing tools in one place. These tools will include:
o Rotate (90 degrees and a rotate handle)
o Crop
o Colour levels
o Brightness and contrast
o Desaturate
o Resize
o Sharpen filter
o Unsharp mask filter
Then I could wizz through the mass edits with only the occasional requirement to go to the layers and spot editing tools.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Read your own link. Gimp.app is just a standalone application that you double click instead of opening in the terminal, I guess the package is also sure to include all the dependancies and such-except X11. And it doesn't use Aqua, except to the extent that any other X11 sits on top of it.
First, Gimp can keep the multiple windows thing. I think it's great for those with multiple monitors. The ability to drag windows from one screen to another is quite convenient. The only thing I ask is that Gimp group all windows as one entry on the taskbar. I can't see a good reason why Gimp should spam the taskbar with four to five entries.
Establish a distinction between vector and raster via Layers. Gimp has a system where Lines are in a seperate tab than Layers, but can get stroked to appear in a Layer. The problem is that if you want to draw with the Pen tool, like if you're outlining something, you have this needless step of periodically hitting the "Stroke Path" button, selecting "Pencil," and hitting okay. In PSP, I can use the Pen tool directly on a Raster layer. If I want to preserve the individual nodes, I can create a vector line in the Pen tool and use a Vector layer to store it.
Gimp should have a Properties window for each of its tools. The properties window should use sliders for setting options. One of the nuances of the Gimp that annoys me is how you can only pick from pre-created brushes or create your own. To create some non-standard size (like 2x2, for example), you have to walk through creating a whole custom brush. I'd much prefer a slider that ramps from 1 to, say, 255. PSP has sliders for Size, Hardness, Opacity, Step, and Density.
Gimp should have preview windows for its various filter effects and adjustment tools that offer a side-by-side comparison of pre-change and post-change images.
I really wish Gimp had a simplified Pen tool. Granted, PSP8 and up, as well as Photoshop, have really sophisticated ones. But the one in PSP7, particularly with regard to Bezier curves, is very simple. Two clicks set the beginning and end of the line. Two drags set the curve. And it automatically renders it to a raster layer. I don't need a fancy node-line-node-line architecture. If Gimp did this, I'd be ecstatic.
But if you really feel strongly about it, you can do it anyway. Ye olde GPL makes it easy. Just pick a better name, download the source code, do a global search-and-replace of "GIMP" with "____", make a new splash screen (I recommend using ____), recompile it, put it on the web at www.____.org, and start promoting the heck out of it. This doesn't require lots of programming expertise (like all the other "fix it yourself" suggestions), but it'll address the problem of the name.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The one complaint I have about the GIMP is about closing it down. (On WinXP, if that makes a difference.) When I fire up the GIMP, I have the three windows: Toolbars, Image and the Layers/Paths/Undo/etc. dialogs.
When I'm done, I hit the window close button in the upper right of the windows - but sometimes I hit the dialog close first. This causes the dialog to close, but not the program. What's worse is that when I reopen the GIMP, it remembers I closed the dialogs, so I have to spend five minutes setting up the dialogs again - work which gets trashed the next time I close down the GIMP, and accidentally hit the dialog close button.
Also, I hate how the B/W error window isn't always up, but sometimes pops up later. And then, if you forget and click on the close button of the message window, the whole program shuts down, and not just the messaging window.
Haven't tried this in GIMP, but a great shortcut in Photoshop I really like is pressing the spacebar in the middle of using a tool, so that either the object can be moved, or the screen can be scrolled without leaving the middle of what you are doing with the tool. eg alternating between dragging the radius of an elipse and moving it in one go. Also the CTRL-ALT-SHIFT keys should modify tools in the same way - or at least be easily configurable to operate this way.
First, what I love about Photoshop is that I just have to hit F twice to enable real fullscreen. Then I can pick my tool and the options I need and hide the floating dialogs with Tab. The only thing missing from photoshop is to be able to work at the edge of an image in the center of the screen.
Second, you should have a look at the interface of Inkscape . IMHO it is much clearer than the one of GIMP.
And third, please enable voting in bugzilla. There might be a lots of cool ideas hiding.
The GIMP UI should be more economic. As a graphic artist, I appreciate how Photoshop UI is designed to step aside and give me as much workspace as I need.
The toolbox in Photoshop is a sleek lil' creature, about 64 pixels wide. The toolbox in GIMP is at minimum over twice that much.
The Navigator/Navigation then? I resized them both to about 250px in all sides and put them next to each other. The navigation view in GIMP was approximately half of that in Photoshop.
In Photoshop, the per centage meter, the slider and the zoom buttons take only one single linebreak, whereas GIMP takes three. That is just wasteful!
All I want is to be able to pick three pixels, and watch the colour value (ie, numbers) change as I do other operations, like curve manipulation. As it is I have to write the numbers down and re-check them, which is kind of nuts.
Now, if this is doable some other way, then let me know how... but the eyedropper tool replaces the colour and never updates it.
The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
I'm not a Gimp programmer, and I like the Gimp interface. I've used both Photoshop and the Gimp professionally and found them both about as much work to learn.
The Gimp interface is fine. The whinging about needing changes seems to be just from Photoshop uses who want it to be a Photoshop clone. Here's a clue: it's not, it never will be. Get used to it.
The thing is, once you've invested time in learning an interface you get used to it, you like it and you get resistant to change. This complaining about the Gimp is laziness from the Photoshop croud who can't be bothered learning that the Gimp has its own way of doing things. This is not a problem with the Gimp.
I repeat, I'm a user of imaging tools, not a producer. Plenty of Gimp users are perfectly happy with it as it is, thank you very much.
It's probably the "propz to gnaa"
... is the thing that stands out me.
I totally agree, I've been noticing a "sea change" in moderation results as well. Not sure what the deal is, but it's weird.
The machine, of course, not any icons.
Post constructive suggestions. If they really are arts students, get them to draw what they want it to look like and submit that. Too hard? Too obvious? Too constructive? Not sarcastic enough? Stop me when I get close.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
And can I recommend the #gimp IRC channel for instant advice?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Here is a screenshot for you, about a thousand px on a side, 178kB. The background image is a big gumnut, up close and personal.
Note the following:
- Menus on each document window
- colour depths in the File/New dialog
- room for biiiig numbers in the colour depths
- more brushes
There are a lot more improvements but I couldn't be bothered ferreting them out for some random skeptic who probably won't even bother to read what I have posted.This is CinePaint 0.18-1, (urpmi cinepaint, pause, done) the current version is 0.18-3.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I find myself using this program over and over because it's quick and does what I need quickly, and I don't need to use a tutorial or a manual to accomplish it.
Perhaps some pointers can be taken from there? I'm still looking for a good open-source alternative to PSP for my Powerbook.
..don't panic
Yes, the comment was short, but it said everything that needed to be said. It made a valid point, but apparently one that today's dittohead moderators disagreed with, and therefore decided to moderate into oblivion.
No, it didn't. It made the assertion "Photoshop users put up with significant shortcomings in Photoshop", but did not provide any evidence to support this; it did not even attempt to identify ONE such shortcoming that should be a cause for Photoshop users to consider switching to a different product.
I am disinterested in this debate; I've never used Photoshop and I haven't tried GIMP since the 1.2 days (I guess it's about time I gave it another go, the new snap-together tool windows sound rather nice). Merely asserting that Photoshop has unspecified flaws therefore tells me nothing. I assume that if anyone knew of specific flaws, they would mention them when asserting that flaws exist. I therefore assume that when someone asserts flaws exist without providing examples, they are either making that assertion from ignorance, or they are trolling. In both cases, they deserve modding down, and in neither case is modding down a sign of crack use or "dittohead" status.
If anyone cares to identify a major flaw in Photoshop that Adobe have refused to fix, and that Photoshop users have to (and do) jump through hoops to work round, then that person would deserve modding up. But the grandparent post did not, and so did not. QED.
Nice that you are asking these things. Here are some issues which comes to my mind. 1) Most commonly used simple drawing features. I use Gimp about once in a year for drawing and I have noticed that the first showstopper is always the circle and box drawing. When I select circle tool and draw circle I expect that it will draw me a circle. Unfortunately that does not happen with gimp and now forexample I do not remember how to do that. If I remember correctly it was something related for chaning colors and filling selection but I need to go to web for searching this from the gimp tutorials. (If I remember correctly I spent 2 years ago a half day for searching that info from the web) I have also noticed that circle drawing is one of the first questions also from others to whom I am showing gimp. 2) Help search. Because of the problem 1, I opened gimp help and pressed ctrl-f in order to search "circle" but only after that I noticed that the gimp help does not have any kind of search functionality... 3) Text drawing. When I select "T" tool and click screen for drawing text, text writing dialog opens as expected. I would however be able to change the used font directly from that same dialog where I write the text. 4) Is it afterwards possible to select certain text from the gimp image and change the font used? (Possible by clicking right mouse button over the text?) 5) If I put all three gimp icons together they should "snap" together in a way that hiding/displaying/minimizing/maximizing one would hide/display/minimize/maximize all.
Won't work. You can't work with several images with a Inkscape like interface, but you usualy need more then one when working with bitmaps. A fullscreen mode with tools and menus arranged allong the edges (in one row, clickable on the edge) would rock though.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.