Slashdot Mirror


The GIMP UI Redesign

sekra writes "The GIMP UI Redesign Team has created a blog to collect ideas for a new design of the most popular image manipulation program. Everyone is free to submit suggestions to be published in the blog. Will a new GUI finally get more users to choose The GIMP as their program of choice?"

60 of 549 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmmm by thammoud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the most popular image manipulation program
    1. Re:Hmmmm by jayminer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Should be the most popular OPEN SOURCE image manipulation program

    2. Re:Hmmmm by starrsoft · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shoulda used pimp-my-gimp.blogspot.com

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
    3. Re:Hmmmm by sekra · · Score: 5, Informative

      Should be the most popular OPEN SOURCE image manipulation program
      Right, and that's exactly what I wanted to write in the summary... shame on me.
    4. Re:Hmmmm by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would think so. The most popular image manipulation program is probably Microsoft Paint. ;-)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    5. Re:Hmmmm by SpectreHiro · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the case of the GIMP, I'm pretty sure it's actually less popular than it is commonly used.

      Anyway, I think we can all agree that if Photoshop and the GIMP went to the same high school, Photoshop would be crowned prom queen, while the GIMP would have a bucket of pig's blood poured on it.

      --
      You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    6. Re:Hmmmm by budgenator · · Score: 4, Informative

      I imagine that's a lot easier said than done, let me tell you a sad tail, a long time ago there was this project that forked off from the GIMP originally called film Gimp and is now called cinepaint and that happened about version 1.3 for the GIMP. It different from the gimp because it was designed movies with big honking frames at 32 bit color depth, and I'm not talking 8+8+8 = 24 bits, were talking 32 * three color channels! So when the UI gets bloated it really bogs the whole system down. Cinepaint is currently undergoing a rewrite of the core to better support high color depth images and undergoing a change in the UI from GTK to FLTK. What they should have done was first separate the UI code from the program logic and made sure very thing still compiled and worked, then changed from the increasingly bloated, slow and ugly GTK to the still ugly but small and fast FLTK. What the Gimp team needs to do is get their code-Nazi's to finish the GEGL overhaul and then separate the code for the user interface so it can be worked on without FUBARing the whole project. The other problem that the GIMP has is the GTK, Gimp Tool Kit that they wrote for the gimp is now integral with gnome so whatever evils gnome introduce the GIMP inherits and there is a limit to what they can fix.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Hmmmm by pyrrhonist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Photoshop would be crowned prom queen, while the GIMP would have a bucket of pig's blood poured on it.

      The Gimp Bucket Fill Tool doesn't have a, "Blood", fill mode. The three fill modes are: FG Color Fill, BG Color Fill and Pattern Fill.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  2. Most Popular?? by masdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought the most popular image manipulation program was Photoshop??

    1. Re:Most Popular?? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The market has spoken. Given that the GIMP does nearly everything that Photoshop does, and costs nothing, but hasn't managed to displace it, then just clone the damn Photoshop UI. It's not a difficult concept.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Most Popular?? by masdog · · Score: 4, Informative
      Nearly everything? I doubt it. The GIMP can do a lot, but it doesn't come close to matching the functionality of Photoshop. According to the Wikipedia article:

      Comparison with Adobe Photoshop

      Like Photoshop, GIMP features support for 8-bit per-channel images. Its Intelligent Scissors are similar to Photoshop's Magnetic Lasso tool, and many basic tools and filters have identical functionality in both.

      Photoshop features several advantages in color management. It has support for 16-bit, 32-bit, and floating point images,[10] support for the Pantone color matching system, or spot color and support for color models other than RGB(A) and greyscale, such as CIE XYZ.[11] Photoshop features extensive gamma correction support.

      GIMP features no or (with the PSPI plug-in) very weak support for plugins designed for Photoshop, such as 8BF filters.[12]

      In addition, Photoshop contains several productivity features and tools not supported by the GIMP, such as native support for Adjustment layers (layers which act like filters),[13], undo history "snapshots" that persist between sessions, the history brush tool, folders in the layer window, a free transform tool to rotate, scale and move in one tool, and an interpolation code to draw smooth brush strokes using a tablet. The GIMP also requires basic programming knowledge to build an automation upon it, usually Script-Fu (scheme) or Python-Fu, while Photoshop can record your actions and repeat them with a "Play" button.

      The GIMP's open development model means that it is much more readily available at low or zero cost than Photoshop, on more operating systems, and plugin development is not limited by developers; by comparison, access to Adobe Photoshop's SDK requires authorization.
      So, it seems like the GIMP is just barely scratching the surface of what Photoshop can do...
    3. Re:Most Popular?? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      GIMPShop supposedly copies the Photoshop UI. I still didn't like it. For Windows and Mac, I don't think it's competing against the pay version of Photoshop, GIMP is competing against the infringing copies ("free"/"pirated") version of Photoshop.

      I don't even think it's about copying the UI. I don't think people mind different UIs, but I think they mind having to use less efficient UIs. I don't think the UI designers for GIMP really thought that one through. I counted the number of steps it took to perform an action for the actions I often use, and Photoshop beat it. That's not even counting the vertical menu thing in GIMP. I don't know how other people are, but for me, moving the mouse cursor side to side is more efficient than up and down, and the vertical menu has just been more irritating than the standard horizontal menu bar, even if the horizontal menu bar drops down to a short vertical menu.

    4. Re:Most Popular?? by Glytch · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is that Gimp doesn't do everything Photoshop does, or even come close. There's no 16 or 32 bit channel support, no adjustment layers, no colorspaces aside from RGB and greyscale, no usable colour profile support. Those four things on their own eliminate Gimp as a usable high-end photography tool. The interface is not the problem. The underlying libraries are.

      Krita from the Koffice suite is far more modern. It has all four of the above capabilities I mentioned. Some more polish and it'll be a very capable tool.

      Anyone know what's really going on with GEGL?

    5. Re:Most Popular?? by kaiwai · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The market has spoken. Given that the GIMP does nearly everything that Photoshop does, and costs nothing, but hasn't managed to displace it, then just clone the damn Photoshop UI. It's not a difficult concept.

      But doing something remotely practical like that would first require the GIMP developers having to admit they made a mistake; I pointed the mistake out to the developers over 2 years ago and even went so far as to draw mock ups of a new, better gui. I was quickly abused on the irc channel, kicked and then banned. If that is how the GIMP developers react to contributions then they can take their blog, roll it into a tiny roll and cram it.

      This is, however, a symptom of a bigger issue; programmers failing to realise that they're programmers and failing to listen to usability people; let the usability experts design the interface - heck, there are tools to allow the separation between the two; then glue them together at the end. Let each team work on the area which they're good at. Admitting your weaknesses doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you an adult who understands what their limitations are.

    6. Re:Most Popular?? by huha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a program wants to appeal to "the masses," it has to offer decent Windows support unless it's some obscure networking/analysis tool intended for the geek masses (they'll happily read the manpages and use the command line or really bad interfaces, as long as it gets the Job done well and is fast). Decent Windows support doesn't mean coding like "If Windows were better and adhered to the 'Linux UI standards,' this wouldn't be such a pain to use," but to look at the Windows Interface Guidelines and code accordingly.
      Windows works with one desktop, that's what MDI applications are for. Other Window managers have multiple desktops and don't need MDI, but Windows does, so if your application can profit from having multiple desktops with a dedicated desktop just for the program, don't try to stick to using SDI on a platform without multiple desktops where SDI is very, very uncommon, but try using MDI instead.
      MDI works well enough for Windows users, so just use it if there are loads of toolbars and floating windows.

    7. Re:Most Popular?? by NMerriam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's no 16 or 32 bit channel support, no adjustment layers, no colorspaces aside from RGB and greyscale, no usable colour profile support. Those four things on their own eliminate Gimp as a usable high-end photography tool. The interface is not the problem. The underlying libraries are.


      it's funny because even a year or two ago when a GIMP article would come up, people would ask why it hasn't replaced Photoshop and I'd say that the primitive (well, it would have been state of the art in 1993) color support just kills it out of the box for anyone doing anything more advanced than web graphics. Of course, everyone would reply and say I was just a luser artist who was obviously just too stupid to possibly learn anything other than the Photoshop UI and that's why I secretly hated the GIMP, and no regular user will ever need to use anything other than 8-bit untagged RGB.

      And of course now consumer-level cameras -- point and shoot $500 models -- are shooting in RAW and saving 12-bit tagged images that the GIMP has no hope of dealing with in any usable way.

      If the GIMP developers had listened to the professionals back in say, 1999, when we told them their fundamental assumptions about color were hopelessly naive, they might have been able to do something about it. As it is, I don't imagine anything short of a Mozilla-style "throw out all the code and start over" will keep the GIMP from eventually fading away as more modern open-source apps port the GIMP's features onto a better foundation.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    8. Re:Most Popular?? by Bluesman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gotta agree with the grandparent on this one.

      Out of all of the ways to fit many windows onto one screen in a usable manner, properly done virtual desktops are the least bad.

      Personally I think "windows" are a horrible idea, but if you're going to have them, having a bunch of nested sub-windows inside a larger window is just awful.

      What I'd really like to see is the Gimp copy some of the old Amiga paint programs like Digi-Paint 3 or Deluxe Paint, which kicked so much ass it wasn't even funny.

      I'm gonna go suggest that.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    9. Re:Most Popular?? by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But how much do usability experts charge for their services? And are they willing to allow their work to be distributed under a free license?


      There are plenty of professional UI & usability folks happy to help. Developers, by and large, don't want to hear from us. We can't program and provide them with a neat patch to merge into CVS, so that means all we can do is give them more work to do, and in the process criticize what they think was a good design of their own making.

      Also, many, many programmers have a clear disdain for anything as nontechnical and nonobvious as usability, since most usability research is experiential and similar to psychological research. I can't tell you the mathematical explanation for why people respond to particular elements or cues the way they do, all I know is that they do.

      Part of the developer contempt for usability/UI folks (as can be seen on any UI thread on slashdot) is that programmers generally can't differentiate between mere aesthetics and taste and actual usability or UI mechanics. Changing the color of an icon or making something "pretty" has nothing to do with usability or UI design, but those sorts of things are generally used as a way to dismiss any criticism of an UI. "We just updated the icons, what do you mean our UI isn't modern!??" or "The program kicks ass, anyone who needs pretty buttons to use it is obviously too dumb to understand what it does"
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    10. Re:Most Popular?? by smenor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course it's not the ONLY Linux app I've ever tried. Do you honestly believe that there are people out there who would (or even could) do that to themselves?

      You can call it biased and inflammatory if you want, but it's a perfect example of taking something beautiful and well engineered, copying it, and making something that's almost unusable.

      I couldn't believe how bad simple things like wheel acceleration and fonts were.

      I don't doubt that it was fun for you, but this is something for people who want to run Linux on their toaster. Once you remove the novelty of that, there's no there there.

      iPod Linux might be a particularly bad case, but it's typical of FOSS.

      If you're not happy with my iPod example, how about OpenMoko? It's like somebody went out of their way to make an iPhone clone that totally misses the point.

      To be fair - I haven't used the latest versions of Open Office, Gnome, KDE, so maybe things have changed dramatically in the last year or so, but my experience with iPod Linux was absolutely typical and representative of my experience with other open source software.

      Developers make shoddy, half-assed copies of closed source software and then bitch and moan when somebody points out that it's a poor imitation that totally misses the point. It's the user's fault! We're just biased against Linux!

      It's probably no coincidence that the one piece of open source software I have used (and actually continue to use on a daily basis) with a UI that doesn't suck is Eclipse. In addition to having solid commercial roots, I'm sure that its quality stems in no small part from the fact that it's used primarily by developers (and even then, it leaves some things to be desired).

      You say yourself that you're a longtime Linux user - well I'm sorry, but there's your problem. You're too close to this to see it clearly. You are by definition someone who is willing to put open source ahead of usability.

      This is why I like OS X.

      It's certainly not perfect but Apple has teams of people who sweat the small stuff. You can feel it - it permeates almost every aspect of the OS.

      In the interest of equal time, it's also why I like Microsoft's Office 2007 Ribbons.

      Somebody actually went out and did usability testing, and measured things like how long it takes a novice or expert to perform a given task. They moved things around, played with it, and spent a lot of time and effort on things that most of the FOSS community seems to think are hardly an afterthought.

      Just for emphasis - I'm not against open source.

      In fact, I would argue that by being realistic and pointing out things that can and should be fixed, I'm doing more to promote the use of FOSS than someone who turns a blind eye and pretends that it's all wine and roses.

    11. Re:Most Popular?? by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have the 800 window problem if you're using another type of MDI anyway


      No, you don't. You don't have 800 items on your taskbar, you don't have 800 different items clogging your alt-tab hotswitch menu, you don't have multiple copies of the same basic OS menu, you don't have 800 different places for the focus to be. And most of all -- most insanely! -- you don't switch to another application, then switch back to the original app only to find that each window has to be brought to the foreground individually. Because after all, they are not windows of a single application, they're 800 separate applications!

      Sensible applications, built by people with UI experience, make toolbars and palettes behave like toolbars and palettes, not like completely separate applications. There are a number of different ways to approach this problem, all of which are superior in almost every manner to what the GIMP team has implemented.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  3. This is exactly why I hate GUIs by nunyabid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They had better have a feature where the GUI looks exactly the same way it does now.

    I don't want to learn a new gui.

    1. Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hate GUIs too, and you can be sure I'll be lobbying for a command-line-only interface for the Gimp. It might have a steep learning curve, but can you imagine how powerful and efficient that would be?

    2. Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know it was a joke, but the GIMP already has a command line interface, if you can write Scheme. I think they do Perl now as well. It was horrible and undocumented last time I used it.

      Rich.

    3. Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs by s4m7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate GUIs too, and you can be sure I'll be lobbying for a command-line-only interface for the Gimp. It might have a steep learning curve, but can you imagine how powerful and efficient that would be? Now, that is absolute crazy talk, my friend.
      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    4. Re:This is exactly why I hate GUIs by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The GUI they use now would have been great on Mac Classic, where all an application's windows were on the same layer and there was only one application menu at the top of the screen. (In fact, this is what Photoshop looked like when it was originally developed for Macintosh.) The reason this worked is because when you switched from one application to another, ALL of the first application's windows moved behind ALL of the second application's windows... applications were in their own "layer."

      This no longer applies. OS X doesn't do it. Windows doesn't (and never did) do it. Linux GUIs don't (and never did) do it. GIMP is using a 1984 GUI model in the modern era, and it's simply not working. (Personally, I liked Mac Classic's model, but I'm also pretty good at coping with reality when things change.)

      Even worse, each of the GIMP windows have menus in them, leaving you in that mysterious position of not being to figure out exactly which ones are supposed to be palettes and which are supposed to contain the image. (Especially when you, as a new user, first open the program.) To make things even worse-worse, GIMP used to have two seperate File menus, one of which was actually used to open an image file, and the other one... totally different.

      So my first suggestion is for GIMP to implement its palettes like virtually every modern application does. Paint.NET would be an excellent model on Windows... its palettes can exist happily in the main window, or outside it, but it's always clearly obvious which windows are palettes. (Don't use the Macromedia/Dreamweaver Flash example, which constantly pisses me off.)

      Secondly, and this is a major change that will probably take a few revisions, but ditch your widget library. GTK, I believe. It requires a seperate application package on Windows, which gives the user a headache for virtually no benefit. It requires that the Mac OS X port run in X11, which is a usability nightmare on Macs. (And has irritating bugs on Mac that never seem to get addressed and/or fixed: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391461 has been a thorn in my side for a year now, and it's still "unconfirmed.")

      But what GIMP really needs is lots, and lots of development. This means community-building, the way the Firefox team did before the release of 1.0. GIMP needs a totally new UI, it needs a ton more features if it desires to be competitive with Photoshop, and it needs the community with the size and activity to make this happen. Right now, GIMP development is glacial. (My first suggestion would be to change the name, so people could say in public "I work on GIMP" without being laughed at or feeling embarassed.)

  4. Simple suggestion: multiple skins by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To those who are moving in from Photoshop, and would like a similar looka and feel, provide a skin for them. For the true GIMP pros, assuming they exist - retain the existing stuff. And so on. Compared to the size and complexity of code handling images, the UI bit should be miniscule... atleast I suppose so.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  5. wxWidgets! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing beats having a program use the same widgets you have on your operating system.

    1. Re:wxWidgets! by PolyDwarf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously.. Also, if you can't do the widgets, at least have the decency to track (separately) last directory used for opening projects and saving images and use those by default in file open and save dialogs (Like most other windows programs). I imagine I'm not along, in that I keep my project files deep in one tree, while the images that are output are deep in another tree.. it's a pain in the ass to always have to go between them.

      The only reason I use gimp is because it's free, not because I like it better. I've started putting the bug in my boss's ear about photoshop, because Gimp is just getting on my nerves.

    2. Re:wxWidgets! by Directrix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      He was advocating using wxWidgets as the toolkit. wxWidgets uses native toolkits (Windows on Windows, GTK on Linux, Aqua [or whatever it is] on Mac).

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    3. Re:wxWidgets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      an easier way to do this, at least in newer versions of firefox, is to go to about:config and change "ui.allow_platform_file_picker" to "false"

      just thinking about the gtk file browser gives me hives--its good i can get rid of it in at least one app that defaults to using it

    4. Re:wxWidgets! by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Eh.

      wxWidgets always seems to be just as bad as a foreign toolkit in the apps that I've used it in. The interfaces always wind up being awkward and clunky.

      I'd argue pretty strongly that GTK+ is the more versatile of the platforms. Pidgin feels pretty darn close to native on Windows. If you can come up with another toolkit that comes close, I'll retract my claim.

      Firefox also does a great job, although I'd disqualify it for having tons of OS-specific code, not to mention a shitty Mac version.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:wxWidgets! by Bluesman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      QT has it all over GTK+ in nearly everything except programming language portability and the license.

      It's far easier to program with and distribute on multiple platforms than GTK or wxWidgets, also.

      wxWidget's API is reminiscent of the horrible old Windows API's -- it's just ugly and makes for hideous code, imho. QT is clean and elegant, and the signals/slots mechanism makes thread-safe gui code dead simple.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  6. How about by LM741N · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a name redesign.

  7. Risking flaming here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd be risking more psycho mails in my inbox if I posted under any of my usual accounts, so I'm posting this anonymous, even at the risk of it being modded down as a troll.

    GIMP people, the biggest, quickest thing you can do to get good people back in the project and working well together is to finally, please, finally get rid of Carol Spears. I know 80% of you agree with me and have demonstrated in private to me or in public that you want her out, but she's pushing more and more people out with her weird shit, her stalking behaviour, her willingness to criticize anyone contributing to the project for insane reasons like stealing her boyfriend or taking her life from her, or accuzing people of having sex with conference organisers to sway them and obtain cash. Whatever, too many good contributors are sick of it. Yes, she has mental health issues, but the project has suffered too much accomodating those. There is only so much you can do for her.

    Taking this public because all the private talking has failed.

  8. How about a new name? by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time I see The Gimp, I think about Pulp Fiction. How about a cooler name? I know it sounds like form over substance, but you'd be surprised how something so simple could slow adoption.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:How about a new name? by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. I think Firefox's success is at least 50% attributable to the fact that it sounds exciting.

      "Gimp" on the other hand sounds like an insult, something inferior, and It rhymes with pimp -- and not in a good way. I have no desire to ever speak that word to anyone. They will never get word of mouth marketing from me.

      This is by no means the only drawback that gimp faces, but it is a pretty major one. A great first step towards increased usage would be to change the name along with the UI redesign.

    2. Re:How about a new name? by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Funny

      You are free to fork it and call your project whatever you like, from the following list:

      1. Firegimp
      2. Gusty gimp.

  9. stupidest key combo decision ever by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about making delete be Delete instead of ctrl+K

    1. Re:stupidest key combo decision ever by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

      CTRL-K comes from the sainted EMACS. Remove that and RMS will show up on your doorstep to berate you about the evils of unnecessary keys like Delete.

      It's seriously not a bad suggestion, but some UI decisions seem to have been frozen years ago and aren't really open to discussion.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  10. Will a new GUI finally get more users by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only thing that will get more users for GIMP is strict enforcement of software licensing (specifically, that of Adobe Photoshop). Which ain't happening.

    --
    17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
    1. Re:Will a new GUI finally get more users by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's simply not true. Retail versions of CS3 require activation, which discourages the casual pirate. A lot of businesses absolutely will not use pirated software.

      If there were a free alternative to Photoshop that did everything Photoshop does as well as Photoshop does it, a lot of people would use it. Photoshop isn't cheap, and it doesn't "come with the computer" (which is how most people get Windows and Office).

      There are a couple problems with GIMP. First, it's lacking some things like CMYK support. Also, it gives inferior quality in some cases. I've been in situations, for example, where I really needed to optimize JPEG quality for file size, and GIMP couldn't match the quality of Photoshop. Third, the name "GIMP" rubs professional users the wrong way. And finally, the interface isn't very good.

      To anyone who works on the GIMP, I apologize if my post seems offensive. I think the GIMP is a very good program, but the reason professional graphic designers use Photoshop is that Photoshop really is a better program. Not everyone needs Photoshop, but if you do need Photoshop, GIMP might not be a good enough replacement.

  11. LOL at the urban definition of a Gimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


    (1) a derrogatory term for someone that is disabled or has a medicial problem that results in physical impairment.

    (2) An insult implying that someone is incompetent, stupid, etc. Can also be used to imply that the person is uncool or can't/won't do what everyone else is doing.

    (3) A sex slave or submissive, usually male, as popularlized by the movie Pulp Fiction.

    Look at that gimp in the wheelchair

    Dude, quit being a gimp and take a hit!

    Bring out the gimp!

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gimp

    so to the "street" (or younger population who you should be targetting) its an insult (has been my whole life and im 39), hardly surprising nobody wants to use it

    1. Re:LOL at the urban definition of a Gimp by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Informative
  12. krita by javilon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This days krita is a very good (if not better, as it supports colorspaces) OSS alternative to the GIMP, without the user interface problems the GIMP has.

    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  13. Not holding my breath here by Goaway · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, considering the utter disregard for decent interface design on any level that the GIMP team has shown in the past, I'm not really holding out much hope for this one. Perhaps we'll get a new coat of paint on top of the old interface, but the whole thing will still be a horrid programmer-interface mess.

    Or perhaps they will really create a competent design team and let them dictate every detail of the interface. But with the usual open source ego contests, that seems a tad unlikely.

  14. Re:QT please by jZnat · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's already Krita (part of KOffice, KDE) which uses Qt and looks and acts quite like Photoshop, so come KOffice 2.0, perhaps Krita will become the most popular open source image editor since it'll have native Windows and Mac ports.

    You should also note that GTK stands for GIMP ToolKit as it was written as a widget toolkit for GIMP in the first place. I doubt they'll be changing it anytime soon.

    --
    'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  15. GIMP UI improvements by metamatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love the way the GIMP has two completely different File menus with different contents. That cracks me up every time.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  16. UI isn't my problem with GIMP by Speare · · Score: 4, Informative

    Call me wacky, but the UI isn't a problem. Any tool can be learned in a few days or weeks of using it.

    Instead, here's my wishlist:

    • icc profiles for display and printer
    • deep color (16bit/channel or deeper) and hdri color
    • better support for huge images in moderate memory
    • filter layer types

    Being on Mac OSX, my top wish is for an updated Mac OSX build (even if it still must be under X11.app). The OSX-ready builds are far behind the main development releases, and for the glacial pace of GIMP development, that is really saying something. I bet all of the above items are ready on Linux, just not the officially recognized OSX-ready builds on macports or the website.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  17. Re:I second that... by jguthrie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, for years I've been listening to people complain that the Free Software and Open Source communities don't ever invent anything on their own. That they simply re-implement other peoples' ideas. I think it's kind of ironic that the number one suggestion for the future of the GIMP is that it be changed such that it simply re-implements other peoples' ideas.

  18. Wilbur Animates by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know I say this every time they have a story about GIMP, but Wilbur (the coyote) is the only icon on Slashdot that animates.

    Watch, his eyes move very subtly.

  19. Plugin support and availability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    GIMP features no or (with the PSPI plug-in) very weak support for plugins designed for Photoshop, such as 8BF filters.[12]
    PhotoShop features no support for plugins or scripts designed for the GIMP. GIMP has many free/open source plugins & scripts. PhotoShop has some, but many more are commercial and proprietary.
  20. Here's a wild idea: by mookie-blaylock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Instead of opening up Photosho.. err, GIMP and cranking out a bunch of comps that are just mashups of existing UI concepts, why not talk to your users and design around their workflow and needs? Good UI is not born in a vacuum, good user experience doesn't happen without talking to users. For an app that seems to have the Rodney Dangerfield complaint, the team around it seems to do little to counter that. (You think Adobe doesn't test the hell out of its apps?)

    So, I'll throw one out there, in the interest of PRACTICAL feedback:
    Single window mode is a bad idea because it makes a photo retoucher's life much more difficult.

    Here's an example why, an actual segment of a workflow and/or task, done in Photoshop to show the ease of this and why multi-window works well.

    Grab a picture of a friend, ideally if they are drunk or have blotchy skin in the photo -- make it as unflattering as possible. Wedding pictures are ideal. Needs to be color.

    Open it in Photoshop. Now, since I don't have another copy in front of me, this is the CS2 method:
    Window>Arrange>Open New Window for [foo.jpg]
    Window>Arrange>Tile Vertically

    Now center both windows on the same area, ideally, said blotchy skin.

    On ONE window, go to the layers/channels/paths palette. Switch to the Channels palette. Turn off all channels except green. Odds are, it looks pretty much like the color photo, just in B&W.

    Now take the Clone tool and massage out some of the blotchiness in the green channel ("B&W") version. Ta-da, fixed in both. And you can see its effect immediately.

    This is one way that your favorite babes are airbrushed to laughable non-human perfection for magazines. It's quick, it's got incredible feedback, and it's not possible in a tabbed or single window method.

    Talking to your users, as opposed to a comp-off (or the cardinal sin, the designer assuming he knows everything), gives you all kinds of useful information like that.

    Aimless brainstorming, bad. Brainstorming with a direction, productive.

    --
    I am not Herbert.
    1. Re:Here's a wild idea: by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Interesting
      What the above post is describing is what is fundamentally wrong with GIMP and why I don't use it, either. That problem is WORKFLOW. The UI *is* truly hideous and disuseful, but if the app is good enough, you go along with its weirdness.

      A case in point in that regard would be the old Quark Xpress. For years it tortured people with parent windows and child windows, a truly clunky interface, and all manner of f*cked up weirdness. BUT: once you learned it, it TOTALLY rocked and was light years beyond Pagemaker, ReadySetGo, and all the other page layout apps, even when those apps were easier to use.

      InDesign arrived, and was deeply bug ridden. Then they fixed it, and its workflow is sooo powerful and easy to use, as it is combined with a fairly rational UI, it's eating Quark's Lunch.

      Workflow proceeds from fundamental capabilities - the above note demonstrates that clearly. But merely possessing them isn't good enough - it has to be in a UI that is familiar, especially when going up against the likes of Photoshop. There have been plenty of powerful apps with bizarro UI (Kai's powerTools, Metasynth, etc.) and their power often went untapped. So, the discussion of UI is relevant. However, the UI is of no value if the workflow is hampered by inferior basic features.

      GIMP's support of CMYK is miserable. That needs to change. One should be able to INVENT colour spaces on the fly - an ability to make (x) colour separations. Multiple windows as above noted needs to happen. The tool palette is absurd and needs to be aligned with other apps in that market segment - heck PAINTER was/is more like Photoshop than GIMP, and it has a great interface and Painter's brushes are incredible.

      Frankly, fixing the UI is a bit like putting lipstick on a pig. GIMP needs fundamental and architectural adjustments to its fundamental feature sets and workflow.

      I don't care if it EVER runs on Windows or Mac - if done right, it could be a killer app for Linux (along with OO), and help put Linux over the top.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  21. Re:Umm...no by j-pimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My recommendation is to run gentoo before saying things like that.
    gtk is no walk in the park to compile, time-wise, but I guarantee you qt is a flipping nightmare to compile, such that I go out of my way to disable the qt* useflags. (Oh, yeah, and this is not a slow system, being a 2.4 GHz single core K8.)

    This says qt is full of bloat relative to gtk. Why does gimp need so much cruft just to expose a window and some buttons? What gimp really needs isn't so much a UI redesign so much as native 16-bit component support (or dare we even ask for HDR?) now that everyone and his brother has RAW support on his camera.

    Maybe its just full of useful classes? Assuming those classes are broken up into enough separate static and shared libraries, that does not translate into bloat for the qt programs.

    Also GTK is only a graphics library. As opposed to QT, which has APIs for networking, database connections, etc. You can write conole programs in QT. Its about as easy as java or .NET, except you have to dofree whatever you new. So yes it will take longer to compile QT than GTK, but the real measure of bloat is would be if you wrote a simple text editor in QT and one in GTK, and made them both static executables, which executable would be bigger. Then you have to say which one was quicker to develop.

    --
    --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  22. Have you tried to *USE* Krita? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I manage a small but successful wedding photography company. We use almost exclusively open source software including DigiKam, ShowFoto and of course, the Gimp.

    I wanted people to switch to Krita for the deeper color support and integration with DigiKam and ShowFoto, but the thing is unusable! There (currently) aren't nearly as many editing tools while and the UI may look more like Photoshop, it's sure doesn't behave like it.

    After about 2 weeks of trying to use it, I had to go back to Gimp and put Krita off for futher evaluation in a year or two.

    Some things Gimp has going for it:

    1) It works pretty well (not great, not all the features that Photoshop has, but good enough for many uses)
    2) The new 2.4 version is a huge improvement in usability (All color items in their own menu? Yes!, All special effects scripts in one place? , Yes!)
    3) The extensive set of plugins http://registry.gimp.org/ which allow for added (and usually tested) functionality
    4) Enough people use it that most major bugs are squashed before a release is made

  23. Re:Why even have static key bindings? by grumbel · · Score: 4, Informative

    GTK and Gimp can do this for a long long time, you have to unlock it in the Gimp preferences (Interface->Use dynamic keyboard shortcuts), but once done you simply hover over a menu item, press the combo you like to assign to it and you are done with binding that item to the given shortcut, by far the easiest way to configure keyboard bindings I have ever seen anywhere.

  24. Re:QT please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Er, Krita has a grid, and has layer groups...

    Boudewijn Rempt, Krita maintainer

  25. Re:I second that... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, for years I've been listening to people complain that the Free Software and Open Source communities don't ever invent anything on their own. That they simply re-implement other peoples' ideas. I think it's kind of ironic that the number one suggestion for the future of the GIMP is that it be changed such that it simply re-implements other peoples' ideas.

    I think you're hearing from two different sorts of people. The people who vaguely insist that free software to do something new and inventive, without having any idea of what that "inventive" thing might be, are probably developers who don't use the software. There seems to be a lot of OSS developers who think that the most important thing for software to do is something "cool" and "inventive", which is usually geeky.

    The people who use the software, on the other hand, usually just want the software to work in easy, predictable, and efficient ways. They want the software to have all the features they need, and have it be simple to use those features in their own workflows without needing some kind of specialized knowledge for that software.

    When "Free" and "Open" software succeeds in that, you'll usually find that people start using it.

  26. Re:OK here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    One of the very few women who contribute to open source

    Sorry, but you are wrong. According to what I read on the mailing lists and what I see in the ChangeLog files, Carol does not contribute to open source. She had started a redesign of the web site several years ago, but then gave up and others had to pick up the pieces that she left behind (of course she accused the others of "destroying her work" after she quit but this is a different story). I have not seen any significant contribution from Carol in the last two or three years, or maybe even more. Her only contributions seem to be rants, complaints and other things that drive people away from GIMP. She has some nice tutorials on her private web site, but she does not include them in the GIMP web site so I do not think that she is interested in any contribution to GIMP or open source, contrary to what you wrote.

    There are several other women contributing to GIMP and open source. And they are praised for their contributions. If you look in the GIMP ChangeLog, you will probably see several contributions from edhel (Karine Delvare). Several other women contribute tutorials or help users in various forums. On the other hand, many users (men or women) describe Carol as being a poisonous person. So I do not think that there is any sexism involved here.

  27. Re:One True Library? by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 4, Informative

    I never understood the point of these huge, monolithic libraries. They're a bitch to maintain & if you want to use an improved aspect in PART of the library (e.g. a better database interface), you often must upgrade ALL uses of the library that you might be happy with (e.g. the GUI). In Open Sources 2.0, Chris DiBona states "when developing, I like to use large libraries only when I either don't want to deal with a technology, or I don't fully understand it and don't feel qualified to implement it." It seems that many *nix hackers feel similarly about userland tools. So why is QT so popular? Well, first of QT is split into several sublibraries (as of 4.0), so it's not monolithic as such. As to why it is popular, try using it. It's popular because it is very well made. To the grandparent, QT takes longer to compile because it is C++, which is a language that is hard on the compiler. GTK, on the other hand, is written in C, which is very easy on the compiler. (Insert language flamewar here).
    --
    Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.