Slashdot Mirror
First Looks at The Gimp 2.5
desmondhaynes writes "The GIMP team announced today the first release from the 2.5 development series. It is true that this version is unstable, but a little bird told me to give it a try and see what's it capable of. First of all, let me tell you that its interface is quite redesigned and I think that some users will have problems adjusting with it, but that's just my two cents. On the other hand, version 2.5.0 of The GIMP includes some hot new features, like the integration of GEGL (Generic Graphics Library) which will finally get support for higher color depths, more colorspaces and eventually non-destructive editing."
This feels like one of those releases that will be exciting for the developers, but largely irrelevant to the end users. Hopefully, it will lay the foundations for future releases to have exciting new features and capabilities, but for now there seems little to shout about.
Reminds me of KDE4.
I realize that marketing has nothing to do with the features or performance of a program. But it does have a factor in acceptance at work. There's no way I'm going in front of our Engineering Review Board for a product called "The Gimp", no matter how much money it's going to save.
...the very first item in the list of "noteworthy" improvements is a new splash screen. :'(
I mean, jeezus, mspaint can make shapes. GIMP can't. It's ridiculous. I'm using Paint.NET on Windows for my web comic for now.
With the rate of advancement in The GIMP, eventually, Photoshop enthusiasts will have nothing bad to really say about it.
You're right. It's only been 12+ years that people have been asking for those things. Now GIMP actually has an engine capable of doing them (note that it doesn't actually do them yet). It'll only be another few years until the basics are covered!
One can tell that from his very first comment (on the splash screen): HOT new splash
But probably this is just a temporary one, as the final version will have a totally different splash! Really? You mean the splash screen is a HOT new feature? And you say it will "probably" change on the final version? Amazing!
Then it just goes downhill from there, ending with a description of what The Gimp is.
Thanks, I didn't know what it was before, now I have to read your crappy review once again so it makes sense.
At least there were no shortage of ads, which surprisingly got through my AdBlock Plus.
BAD ADBLOCK! BAD!
Forget changing the name. In the list of requests for 2.8, the number one request is a single window model.
This is likely the number one request for s number of years, yet we have to wait until 2.8 to even see if it will happen?
The Gimp is a nice tool, but it really should listen to it's users.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
But they aren't the same interface elements as Photshop! So they're terrible!!!
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I'm sure at one point, a lot of people said the same thing about Linux, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Sendmail, PHP, and all the other open source products that are used by professionals on a daily basis.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
This is why the GIMP will never be popular. Despite its lack of popularity and the overwhelming number of complaints about the user interface, the developers, and the few existing supporters, continuously rely on the excuse that users are merely familiar and conditioned to the Photoshop user interface.
Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the GIMP's user interface was haphazardly thrown together by programmers with absolutely no concern for HCI. Photoshop's interface couldn't possibly be better despite the thousands of hours of research and user interface testing that Adobe has put into it. Nope, absolutely none of that matters!
Keep blaming people's familiarity with Photoshop and you'll be sure to continue the GIMPs long standing tradition of complete and utter failure.
Yes, if you have a single desktop (because in your mind it's still 1992 or something)
Why would I want multiple desktops? So that I can be even less aware of applications that aren't running in the foreground?
Not everyone's brain works the same way. You may like virtual desktops. I like having three physical monitors with one desktop that spans them so I can see at a glance all of the applications I'm using for a given task.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Your argument would make sense if most other applications on Linux used the same archipelago-of-small-windows approach the Gimp does. It would be the standard way of working to set up multiple virtual desktops with one for each app. But practically no other graphical program is like that, even on Unix-like systems. Even if the Gimp's way is theoretically superior, what matters most of all is consistency and not having each app reinvent the wheel in its own peculiar way. So the Gimp needs to get a more conventional user interface style.
(Are multiple desktops set up by default in a typical Linux distribution these days?)
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
If I could mod you up, I would.
I love the GIMP, and I've never actually had Photoshop. However, I will say that I frequently get lost in trying to figure out where things are. If, instead of saying, "Oh, it's not Photoshop, your complaint isn't legit!", they all said "Let's see what we can do to fix this," things would probably get better more quickly.
I understand they've been working on things, hence this release, but these complaints are very old.
Nice changes to be sure, and everything listed in the article is very welcome. I'm having no problem thinking of further Photoshop features I wouldn't mind seeing in the GIMP, though (better, or at least faster, brush engine, snappier redraw when working with large files, free transform, adjustment layers...).
However, what I'm really waiting for is for someone to take the next step and implement a proper realtime, non-destructive, node- or stack-based image editor. Something that lets you take an image and add filters, effects, paint operations etc that you can mix, match, add and remove later on. Computer hardware has progressed to a point where it would be possible to do filter operations using shaders on the graphics card, then render them out in the background using spare cycles (or spare CPU cores..), store multiple versions of the same image in memory for quick undo, and so on.
I'm not really expecting Adobe to be the ones to do it, at least not with Photoshop -- there are too many Photoshop users whose livelihood depend on knowing the quirks of the interface by heart for Adobe to risk making any major changes. Ironically, Adobe's own After Effects, though it completely lacks paint tools, among other things, is in many ways fairly close to what I have in mind, and for things like colour adjustments, blurs and effects it's actually a lot smoother and more flexible than Photoshop, even when working with stills.
Someone was complaining about the same thing on the last article from techrunch.blogspot.com - I think /. should probably blacklist it or something. (Allgedly, the content is stolen, too.)
I always found using multiple windows was a good idea -- it lets the window manager actually manage the windows. If it's annoying, in the ways you describe, maybe that says something about your window manager?
At least on OS X, that is how all programs work. Or at least, it is possible to click on an application to raise all of its windows, and command+tab (like alt+tab, but better) will actually raise all of those windows. Windows are actually naturally grouped by application -- I had a keystroke to cycle through open Terminals, and that actually worked really well, because Terminal is actually its own application.
Gimp was developed on Linux, where we've had a few sane windowing ideas that Windows has yet to pick up on, and OS X is only slowly starting to steal. Simple example: Virtual desktops. Put gimp on its own workspace, and you are literally one keystroke away from moving back to that image.
And then there are dual-monitor systems. This is where Photoshop really starts to be annoying, unless there is some way I don't know of to detach the tools (probably is) -- it's possible to put the image itself, completely maximized, on one monitor, and all of the tools on another monitor.
Most open source programs try to assume less about their user -- what if you didn't want that full set of editing tools to come up? What if you just want to look at the image, on as much screen area as possible, before you start editing? Why should it be the job of the individual application to work around crappy window managers?
All that said, there's always GimpShop -- haven't tried it myself, but it claims to make Gimp look photoshop-like.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
So, your solution to a software problem is... go buy some hardware to solve it? Really?
All fake shock aside, your points about liking The GIMP for its dual monitor setup lovin' seem off to me as well, because I have a dual monitor setup at work and I use Photoshop there every day, and I've never had a problem in being able to put all of my tools on one monitor while the image resides on the second monitor. In fact, I've found it far more friendly than The GIMP in this usage scenario as well, largely still due to the complaints raised in GP's post.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with GIMP because it's not Photoshop, I have a problem with it because it feels like it's not a single, cohesive application. I feel like I'm managing several discrete applications that all happen to semi-relate to each other, and because the way it's used is, in my opinion, is still somewhat unrefined. Still, with every generation of The GIMP I check back in with it, kick the tires, and hope that it's finally at the point where I feel it's a viable option for me vs. Photoshop--not because I feel caged by Photoshop, but because I like having options and I firmly believe that competition is good for the consumer.
Now, I admit that even when The GIMP has solved the usability problems that I perceive that there will still be pains in converting over to different shortcuts, different workflows, and just differences in general. But so long as those differences are surrounded by equivalencies and I'm not giving up things that I need, then this I could deal with.
For me, the capabilities of Photoshop and the speed with which I can get things done is the key, because as high as the entry price is for Photoshop, the time price for completing operations and projects is lower than with anything else I've found. This is simply the way it works for a lot of people. It makes more sense to shell out a few hundred dollars for something that's going to save me hours worth of work, and therefore increase my earning potential, even if I feel the software might be overpriced or if I love the idea of open source, democrative efforts.
I understand where you're coming from. But I think the UI design does actually make a lot of sense in a Linux context. Some of the problems you describe may be a consequence of a flawed port to windows. But when you're working with virtual desktops those problems completely disappear.
In my case, I'm reading slashdot in my 'firefox' desktop. When I want to get back to editing a picture I hotkey over to the 'gimp' desktop where all the windows are laid out how I want them. When I need to check mail, I hop over to my mail desktop and so on. Nothing is ever minimized, and I never find myself alt-tabbing through a dozen unrelated windows, as would happen when all my apps are on the same desktop.
Given that 99% of my computer use is confined to 3 apps (browser, editor, mail), a six desktop layout is more than enough room for all, without becoming too complex to navigate. Now that MS supports multiple desktops as well, at least in Vista, people may start discovering that there are saner ways to arrange multiple windows than squeezing them all onto the toolbar of a single desktop.
yp.
I use only the Windows port of GIMP - I don't do much photo editing, but before the not much that I didn't do was not done in Photoshop. </Englishgrammar>
The Photoshop interface was clunky, but I blame that on the "We have 5 million features that you will probably never used, all cleverly hidden under buttons!
The GIMP interface, however, fails at basic Windows GUI principles. This is to be expected, of course, but come on - the interface is generally split up into 3 modeless dialog boxes. The one that has your tools on it is hidden if you maximize your editing window. Ditto for the layers box. They kinda got it right with some features like "transform" - the relevant dialog box pops up, in view, in the editing window, as you're editing.
The whole 3-separate-windows thing (editing, tools, layers) looks like a lazy hack, something I did when a project was due and I was too lazy (read: procrastinated on the deadline and was too time constrained) to write a proper interface.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Or maybe, it has something to do with end users never being able to say exactly what should be changed to make it better but just bitching about how it's bad because it was "designed by programmers". Come up with a more concrete compliant and maybe it will be addressed.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Except that the GIMP uses full-fledged windows for tool palettes, meaning that they could end up above (or behind) applications, despite the main document application being in front; Photoshop, in contrast, uses toolbars, which are 'always on top' when Photoshop is the active application, meaning you'll never lose your toolbars.
Also, this means that toolbars never show up in Expose or spaces, or in advanced task-switchers like Witch; GIMP's toolbars also, last I dealt with it, showed up in the GNOME panel, resulting in a half-dozen entries just to edit one image.
Toolbars are not windows. Seriously. I hope this is one of the fixes, or it's going to keep being treated like a half-baked toy.
It does just work, though.
Or are you one of those people that say that Linux is a failure because it's not just a free copy of Windows, with everything exactly the same?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
All legitimate points. One must remember, however, that the GIMP wasn't designed to be run on windows, which is why its windows version (and the whole GTK port) are awful.
Its = possessive. It's = "it is"