Slashdot Mirror


GIMP 2.6 Released

Enselic writes "The GIMP developers are proud to announce the release of GIMP 2.6. The release notes start with: 'GIMP 2.6 is an important release from a development point of view. It features changes to the user interface addressing some often received complaints, and a tentative integration of GEGL, the graph based image processing library that will eventually bring high bit-depth and non-destructive editing to GIMP.' The notes go on to say the toolbox menubar has been removed, the toolbox and docks now are utility windows, it's now possible to pan beyond the image border, the freehand select tool has been enhanced to support polygonal selections, and much more."

115 of 639 comments (clear)

  1. I just got 2.4! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man, just after I updated 2.2 to 2.4! @#@!#*!!!

    One area I hope the GIMP team focuses on in the future is font rendering. I absolutely love working with GIMP, but the fonts still don't come out as nice as they do in Photoshop. I'm not graphical design savvy enough to know why, only that my fonts look like crud when compared to the smooth output of Photoshop.

    Other than that, GIMP is an incredible product. Anyone doing casual graphical editing, just learning, or otherwise does not need the top-end features of Photoshop will be well-served by this package. Kudos for doing such an incredible job, guys! :-)

    1. Re:I just got 2.4! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      A more needed update....

      SOMEONE PLEASE FORK THE PROJECT AND GIVE IT A NEW NAME!

      My Point of sales machine died a few days ago, and the tech asked if I had installed anything on it. I told him that I loaded up "the gnu image manipulation program" just to avoid saying "GIMP". Can't we rename it to something better?

      I suggest we use: GNU Photo & Image Manipulation Program.

    2. Re:I just got 2.4! by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Informative

      The workaround is to always work with a larger image than you need then once the font work is done, scale it smaller.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:I just got 2.4! by Keyper7 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If someone introduced me to something called "G-PIMP", I'm not sure I'd like to know what the G stands for...

    4. Re:I just got 2.4! by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Funny

      gPimp, lol, sounds like an evil Apple product. Or a good one, depending on what side of the holy war you fight for.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:I just got 2.4! by nine-times · · Score: 2, Informative

      I absolutely love working with GIMP, but the fonts still don't come out as nice as they do in Photoshop. I'm not graphical design savvy enough to know why, only that my fonts look like crud when compared to the smooth output of Photoshop.

      Could it be the kerning? I don't use GIMP, but kerning is one of those things that can be hard to put your finger on, but make a huge difference on whether or not text looks good.

    6. Re:I just got 2.4! by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People laugh. But when I taught a web class for my company last year, that name kept me from using this as the recommended graphic program of choice (used Photoshop elements instead). It's typical developer thoughtlessness to use a name that most people associate with a disturbing scene in the movie Pulp Fiction for an application that supposedly wants to be taken seriously. You can have the greatest application in the world, but if you name it "FUCK" you're going to be spending every subsequent Thanksgiving sitting at the kid's table.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:I just got 2.4! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kerning is definitely part of the problem. Even with the auto-hinter on and/or forced, the text kerning is still a bit bizarre. But even then, Photoshop appears to emit smoother edges on the text. GIMP fonts often look rough around the edges, and I can't figure out why.

    8. Re:I just got 2.4! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I experienced the same problem with crappy looking fonts, specifically when printing. I have gotten around this by changing the ppi to 300 (the default is 72) when creating a new image. This has made a huge difference and the fonts look much better. The option is under the advanced section when you create a new image.

    9. Re:I just got 2.4! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know what? I think that does the trick! I never would have thought of using the DPI to increase the resolution of fonts. But if you think about the way that font renderers are implemented, it makes a lot of sense. Kudos!

    10. Re:I just got 2.4! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Informative

      I haven't used GIMP in a long time, but what you describe sounds more like an issue with how it handles antialiasing. Photoshop gives you several different options for how it applies antialiasing, which you adjust depending on the character shapes and how they interact with the background imagery you're dealing with (for instance, you might use 'smooth' for small text on a dark background, or 'sharp' for a large headline). With GIMP it looks like it's just a single checkbox--on or off.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    11. Re:I just got 2.4! by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about non-GNU apps? Not so much. Why My theory is that most GNU Developers don't care as much about software but the license. Which is too bad and helps the stigma of poor quality GNU Software.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:I just got 2.4! by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gimp developers don't care what you think. People have been very vocal in requesting this product undergo a name (as well as UI!)change to something less silly, childish, and stupid since it came out in the late 90's, and they haven't done it so it ain't going to happen now. GIMP is destined to always conjure images about either: a) that disturbing dude from pulp fiction as you mentioned, or b) children who have some affliction or disability that causes them difficulty when walking.

    13. Re:I just got 2.4! by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 2, Funny

      Other things we could call it:

      IMP (image manipulation program)
      LIMP (libre image manipulation program)
      RIMS (Raster Image Manipulation Software)

      None of these other options are working for me...

    14. Re:I just got 2.4! by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      "IMP" would be fine.

      (I don't know if it's regional, but in the UK "gimp" would usually be an insult, a more offensive version of "idiot". Wikipedia says it's also the term for a role in BDSM, but I think that is less well known.
        know a couple of teachers who were keen to use the GIMP in schools, but didn't because the name is just asking for trouble.)

    15. Re:I just got 2.4! by Telvin_3d · · Score: 4, Funny

      The LaTeX name hasn't hindered its adoption because it references neither extreme sexual domination or physical deformity. GIMP does both.

    16. Re:I just got 2.4! by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So call it by it's full name. Gnu Image Manipulation Program.
      If you must rename the icon.
      I am pretty sure that Photoshop Elements is actually called PSE or some such thing.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    17. Re:I just got 2.4! by street+struttin' · · Score: 5, Funny

      lol, then you could say, "I just installed my G-PIMP Upgrayedd. The extra d is for a double dose of my pimping."

      Fantastic.

    18. Re:I just got 2.4! by not+already+in+use · · Score: 4, Funny

      gPimp, lol, sounds like an evil Apple product.

      gPimp is actually google's pimping product, which I prefer since it is far more open. iPimp is way too locked down, it'll only let you work with ho's that Apple has approved.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    19. Re:I just got 2.4! by seandiggity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of my instructors kept calling it "the unfortunately-named GIMP" :)

      Since they've already taken GNU out of the acronym, why not just go with IMP? The mascot is kinda impish anyway.

      Realistically, I don't think a name change will ever happen. There should just be a fork with literally nothing changed but the name, so that people who want to deploy the software but feel the name will impede them in doing so have another option. GIMP not only has unpleasant associations, it implies that the application is "crippled" in some way.

      --
      Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
    20. Re:I just got 2.4! by .sig · · Score: 5, Funny

      But does it have electrolytes? It's what artists crave!

      --
      -Space for rent
    21. Re:I just got 2.4! by not+already+in+use · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Exactly. So until Linux user's develop a hint of marketing sense, don't call it the year of the Linux desktop. Here's some starter tips:
      • Drop the lame prefixes: k ,g , gn -- It's not clever, it's not intuitive. It's fucking stupid.
      • Do not name your app a recursive acronym. Unless you're trying to get laid, because you totally will.
      • Find a middle ground. I remember the last time I loaded up Ubuntu, the menu looked like this:
        • Gimp (Image Editor)
        • Totem (Video Player)
        • Pidgin (Instant Messenger)

        This basically goes to show that the Linux desktop folk know they're names are completely dissociative, so they have to spell out exactly what each one does. There is a happy medium, where a programs function can be implied by a relevant name: Winamp, Photoshop, Yahoo Messenger. Seriously, get a clue.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    22. Re:I just got 2.4! by Dionysus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. So until Linux user's develop a hint of marketing sense, don't call it the year of the Linux desktop

      Last I checked, GIMP wasn't a Linux product. It is also for Windows, MAC, *BSD.

      Drop the lame prefixes: k ,g , gn -- It's not clever, it's not intuitive. It's fucking stupid.

      As soon as Apple drops the lame i prefix, and Sun drops the j prefix.

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    23. Re:I just got 2.4! by LearnToSpell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a happy medium, where a programs function can be implied by a relevant name:
      Winamp

      [a digital current measuring program]

      Photoshop
      [an ecommerce program for selling Polaroids]

      Yahoo Messenger
      [a yodel-to-text converter for arranging bicycle deliveries].

    24. Re:I just got 2.4! by tolan-b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hate to feed the troll but...

      "Drop the lame prefixes"

      iPhoto, iWork, iPod, iMac, iPhone.

      Prefixes are far from unique to Linux. Also, how long is it since you looked at Gnome apps? I can't of any that are "gSomething" or "gnSomething". Plenty are called "Gnome Something", but how is that different from the hundreds of "Windows Something" or 'WinSomething"? 'Winamp', 'Winzip', 'Windows messenger', 'Winrar'. Uhuh.

      "This basically goes to show that the Linux desktop folk know they're names are completely dissociative, so they have to spell out exactly what each one does."

      Skype, Flash, Adium, Daemon Tools. *Most* desktop apps have random names that don't mean anything, the only difference is that Ubuntu added labels to the names other people gave their apps to make it clearer.

    25. Re:I just got 2.4! by Kingrames · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it's spelled latex, I'll pronounce it as "latex".
      Where do you work, Starbucks?

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    26. Re:I just got 2.4! by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I still think that name is the worst. I remember a certain incident where someone said "I'm going to go home and play with my boyfriend's Wii"... and I said "Maybe you'd like to try saying that differently."

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    27. Re:I just got 2.4! by temcat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where I live it's routinely pronounced with "ch" as in Scottish "Loch".

    28. Re:I just got 2.4! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Prefixes are far from unique to Linux.

      And they're still usually lame.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    29. Re:I just got 2.4! by shiftless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The last time I loaded Ubuntu (5 minutes ago), the menu looked more like this:

      Applications
      |
      | ...
      | Graphics
      | |
      | | F-Spot Photo Manager
      | | GIMP Image Editor
      | | gThumb Image Viewer
      | | ...
      |
      | ...
      | Sound and Video
      | |
      | | Audio CD Extractor
      | | Movie player
      | | Sound Recorder
      | | ...

      How much clearer can it possibly get?

  2. CYMK by Abreu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A question, is there CYMK color separation support already?

    Sorry if this was implemented already, I havent checked on the Gimp in a while.

    --
    No sig for the moment.
    1. Re:CYMK by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't see it anywhere in the release notes, though the potential for CMYK support was one of the reasons for the move to GEGL.

      There is a plugin called seperate+, though I'm not sure if that still works properly with the new version.

      There's also a potentially useful article on this on the Arch Linux wiki.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:CYMK by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      CMYK support for the GIMP - Why you might not need CMYK support in the GIMP.

      Separate+ CMYK separations plugin for GIMP -- And if you really need it, get this. Very nice. Supports ICC color profiles.

    3. Re:CYMK by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't you just love the number of times people say "You don't really need CMYK support"? For those of use who work in the professional publishing world and see our work printed on real presses, YES WE DO!

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    4. Re:CYMK by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless your desktop publishing operation goes out to a litho offset printer, I wouldn't worry about it. Most other kinds of printers only take RGB inputs, even if they use CMYK inks.

      Indeed. It gets a bit tiring reading these posts bleating that gimp is automatically inferior to PhotoShop because it doesn't do CMYK or because the poster can't cope with the fact that the interface is different. I have a feeling that a lot of them have little idea what CMYK actually does.

      The gimp developers don't actually claim the thing is a replacement for PS. It is, however, a good and useful program in its own right, and it does not cost hundreds of dollars for the licence.

      As for the interface (sorry, yes, I realise this is a digression) I learned to use the gimp before I ever played with PhotoShop, so I personally find the latter harder to use as a result. That does not mean that one or the other is broken; any powerful tool has an associated learning curve, and the gimp is no exception. Even though I now have a (non-legit) copy of PS on my Mac, I usually find my first preference is towards the gimp for most purposes. But then, I have no pretensions to being a professional graphics artist.

    5. Re:CYMK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. It gets a bit tiring to read these posts that seem to undermine professional fields such as usability and interface design. I bet those guys get paid what they do for nothing. Why don't we let you guys handle those fields as well since you are so good at it? Oh, wait...

      I rejoice on the day when the Linux community starts to actually value people with different skill sets and that there are value in other aspects than just code. GIMP is great example of this - they were told for years about usability issues and those complainers were simply shrug off till some time back they actually bothered with their own studies. And funnily enough, came to same conclusions that had been already mentioned to them.

      It's not GIMP devs that I dislike per se, those guys have done well, it's the attitude in the community I hate.

    6. Re:CYMK by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The default response to "does open source software do X?" is "you don't really need to do X."

      I've gotten that response so many times, I can't count them. "Can open source apps paste spreadsheet cells into an email?" "Is there an open source app to do Gantt charts?" (Disclaimer: these are old examples; for all I know these scenarios work perfectly now.)

      The second-most common is, "oh, you must have something weird." I usually get this one when I install a driver that claims to run some model of hardware, and then my hardware still doesn't work. "Sure, IVTV says it supports Hauppauge WinPVR 150 cards, but it doesn't work." "Oh, you must have something weird, maybe Hauppauge changed their chipset."

      Whatever. I don't like the whole "pass-the-buck" culture.

    7. Re:CYMK by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      CMYK support is not necessarily needed in GIMP, however. If your target for the images is Scribus, for example, you can take advantage of Scribus' CMYK sep support. In fact, in thise case you're better off using Scribus' CMYK support rather than any support in GIMP. You only need CMYK in GIMP if you're outputting to offset or service bureau directly from GIMP.

      That's the point of the article I linked.

    8. Re:CYMK by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Sure, IVTV says it supports Hauppauge WinPVR 150 cards, but it doesn't work." "Oh, you must have something weird, maybe Hauppauge changed their chipset."
      Whatever. I don't like the whole "pass-the-buck" culture.

      So, "maybe Hauppauge changed their chipset" wasn't coupled with a request for you to run lspci and see what it said? Hardware manufacturers are notorious for making their Windows drivers forward-compatible when they know they might switch from chip-maker X to chip-maker Y. Even worse, they often make these changes and don't even revise the model number for the device.

    9. Re:CYMK by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but they say that because there are a bunch of people who DON'T work in the professional publishing world who think they need CMYK support for their family photos.

      If you know you need CMYK, it's not even a discussion. If you THINK you need CMYK, you don't.

    10. Re:CYMK by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand that, and that's fine.

      What I'm saying is that by decreeing that their driver works with the card, and it actually doesn't work with the card, that's a huge waste of my time and effort. It's a negative cost for me; not only do I still have a non-working card, but now I've lost tons of hours trying to debug their driver which doesn't work.

      I have nothing against volunteers, I just want them to be honest with me.

  3. Perspective adjust by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope they'll make it more usable as in Krita.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  4. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by marsu_k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Make an oval / rectangular selection, stroke with the desired width. Wasn't so laborious now was it? But for a more drawing oriented program check out Krita. There should be a Windows port soon as well.

  5. Still no high colour depth? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not completely clear from the release notes: does this mean that the GIMP can now load and save images with 16 or 32 bits per colour channel, or is it still limited to 8-bit RGB despite the new GEGL engine under the hood?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  6. The future of GIMP by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's be honest here. I like GIMP, I generally prefer it over photoshop (for what I do). But it's not photoshop and it gets shit on for that reason. The solution: GIMP should ditch GTK/GDK and use GNUStep/Cocoa. This provides a number of advantages - free CMYK and pantone support, better font rendering, an improved UI, and direct access to artistic types. Photoshop on OS X is a dog -- the look and feel doesn't match and Adobe won't provide a 64-bit version until CS 5 (if then). An OS X native GIMP would kick it's ass.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:The future of GIMP by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Photoshop on OS X is a dog -- the look and feel doesn't match and Adobe won't provide a 64-bit version until CS 5 (if then).

      Just what are you running on? A Newton? PS CS2 / CS3 is / are quite happy with any recent Mac this side of a mini. And PS for Windows isn't exactly snappy on anything but a reasonably fast, memory stuffed PC. As for the 64 bit version, you're just blowing smoke. It's a 10-20% speed increase, at best, on gigabyte sized images. If you do these routinely, well then, go get Vista. I often do 3 - 4 gigabyte panoramas. Even on an 8GB Mac Pro they take a while (10-15 minutes to stitch). 64 bit would shave a minute or two off that? W00t!

      Even manipulating multi gigabyte images on the 'ol 32 bit platform is pretty snappy. 64 bits will be nice, I'll take it when it comes, but I'm not crying about it.

      If you think PS on OS X is a dog, either you don't know your breeds or you don't know how to set up a Photoshop capable machine.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:The future of GIMP by aurb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ditch GTK? That's kinda funny, because GTK was created as the toolkit for GIMP (GTK stands for The GIMP Toolkit) :-)

    3. Re:The future of GIMP by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not photoshop... However if anyone wants to use photoshop in Linux they tell them use the Gimp, it is just as good... Which is bad advice. My output with Photoshop is much higher then with the GIMP, it may be just me and how I approach problems but in general I can get much more done and look a lot better with photoshop vs. the GIMP. It is not that GIMP is photoshop or the developers are trying to make it like Photoshop, However it given as a replacement where it isn't.
      Photoshop is only a dog when dealing with HUGE Images.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:The future of GIMP by paulbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would cool if Photoshop made the same move too, eh? Its not written with Cocoa either, which is giving Adobe a few headaches now that Carbon has been even more officially deprecated than it used to be. Seriously, you simply don't seem to understand what is involved in switching an program that it totally rooted in its GUI from one GUI toolkit to another. People say this as though its a simple recoding. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even porting from one version of a toolkit to another can be traumatic, let alone porting between two different 'kits. Much more optimistic is the fact that the GTK/Quartz port gets better every week, allowing the GIMP guys to offer a "native" (non-X11 based) build with very few code changes.

  7. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

    Then you want Inkscape instead.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  8. Re:Windows version still lagging. by imbaczek · · Score: 2, Informative

    you're not looking deep enough. see here. not quite 2.6.0, but close enough.

  9. Re:Windows version still lagging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 2.6.0 installer for Windows is basically ready. It just needs a little more testing and should become available in a day or two.

  10. Re:It really didn't have this? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Welcome to 1985 [wikipedia.org], GIMP developers...

    Care to point us at a project you work on in your spare time so that we can mock it?

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  11. GEGL by blindd0t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So now with GEGL worked into GIMP, how long will it be until we see something equivalent to Photoshop's Layer Groups? Is it already in this release? (I didn't see anything about it in the release notes.) Sometimes simple projects grow in size to the point where it'd be very convenient to be able to better organize layers in groups and sub-groups. I like GIMP, and it would be much more practical for me to use it more often with this feature.

  12. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Then you want Inkscape instead.

    No really I want GIMP to be able to do this.

    Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

    These things should be single step operations from the main control pane.

    Rich.

  13. Re:It really didn't have this? by Trevin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article you linked to says: it has "box, circle or freehand lasso selection tools." The Gimp 2.4 already had box, circle, and freehand selection tools; that's old stuff. If you look at the Gimp 2.6 release notes (you don't even have to read it), you will see that a polygon selection tool is quite different.

    The closest I've been able to get to this sort of functionality before has been to repeatedly add and subtract open-ended freehand regions, where the Gimp will automatically make a straight line between the end and starting points.

  14. Re:I just love Gimp by Beetle+B. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just love Gimp. But why does Gimp have to separate the windows like that? Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?

    I thought that was the whole point of:

    This enables window managers to do a much better job of managing the GIMP windows, including omitting the Toolbox and Docks from the taskbar and ensuring that the Toolbox and Docks always are above image windows.

    Frankly, I liked it as it was. I hope there's an option to get back the old behavior. I often have different images in different work spaces.

    --
    Beetle B.
  15. Re:I just love Gimp by Glytch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just love Gimp. But why does Gimp have to separate the windows like that? Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?

    Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.

  16. GOOLIES by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can't we rename it to something better?

    GNU Object Oriented Lightweight Image Editing Software?

    Brought to you by the creator of ARSE.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  17. Re:I just love Gimp by TheBig1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't it have everything as a multi-document all under one window?

    Please, no! Multiple windows are great for multiple monitors and / or multiple documents being edited at once. I can't stand programs which force you into one window. If you want, you can combine all the tool docks into one, and thus have just a document window and a tool window, but please don't force us to do so!

    Cheers

  18. It's still essentially 8-bit. by Glytch · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a long story, but the short version is that there's a ton of archaic, horribly outdated 8-bit legacy code gumming up the works. Until it's all replaced with 32-bit capable code, GIMP will continue to be unusable for photography beyond the party snapshot level.

    1. Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. by Beetle+B. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Until it's all replaced with 32-bit capable code, GIMP will continue to be unusable for photography beyond the party snapshot level.

      It's fairly rair that 16 bits per channel will make the difference.

      --
      Beetle B.
    2. Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. by fabs64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The vast majority of DSLR's only have 12 bits per channel in raw mode to begin with, and certainly only 8 bits in jpeg. Get a grip.

    3. Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. by photomonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, that's not necessarily the case.

      I am a professional commercial photographer and editorial photojournalist. Sure, CS3 is still my editor of choice, but the GIMP is moving ever-closer to being a viable option.

      There is not a single application I can think of where someone working as a photojournalist would ever need more than what the GIMP offers.

      File submission standard for newsprint is still 10 inches on the long axis @ 200 ppi. Files are then compressed to clock in at betweek 650kb-900kb. sRGB colorspace and 8 bits-per-pixel are more than enough. Pre-press does the CYMK conversion and Web crop, usually.

      The level of editing (painting) done to editorial photos is minimal by standard ethical practice; and so really the tool need only be able to crop, resample, dust spot and adjust the exposure.

      In fact, for funzies, I just did a complete start-to-finish editorial shoot post in GIMP 2.4. The EXIF/XMP/IPTC stuff hurts bad (please, please, please, please FIX THIS), but the actual post went fine.

      Making stuff screen-ready can easily be accomplished in the GIMP as well.

      I don't have a whole lot of experience with making multimedia presentations (audio slideshows, etc.) for Web and screen display in the GIMP/Linux, so I'll leave that alone for now.

      On the commercial, every-photo-is-a-painting side, the GIMP might be a bit of a hindrance. The more advanced layering, color conversions, spot toning, etc. typically deployed in, say, advertising post is probably more than can be reasonably handled by the GIMP.

      Admittedly, some of that sentiment may come from my being a lot more comfortable in Photoshop than GIMP.

      Generally speaking, some of the resizing plugins and effects plugins that we have come to count on are not available for GIMP, and even if the same thing can be accomplished with a different set of tools, we're disinclined to learn them.

      Keep in mind that more than half the professional photographers out there are self-employed, and the time required to learn a new toolset can be killer.

      The GIMP has come a long way since I first started playing with Linux about 10 years ago.

      It even plays fairly nicely with RAW files from my cameras.

      Today, I have it (under Hardy Heron) installed on my non-production workstation, and have no doubt that in years to come, it may very well become a full-fledged alternative to Photoshop.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    4. Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. by strags · · Score: 2

      The difference between 8-bit and 12-bit when working with DSLRs is actually pretty significant. You can pull a surprising amount of detail out of underexposed regions with 4096 shades that would otherwise be lost with 256.

      Rounding errors (generally banding artifacts) will also be much quicker to appear with lower bit depths. If you're going to support 16 bits per channel, one may as well go all the way and support higher bit-depths too.

    5. Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. by freddy_dreddy · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's a long story, but the short version is that there's a ton of archaic, horribly outdated 8-bit legacy code gumming up the works. Until it's all replaced with 32-bit capable code, GIMP will continue to be unusable for photography beyond the party snapshot level.

      It's a long story, but the short version is no

      --
      "Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
    6. Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. by Animaether · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think that what GP is getting at is that...
      - Unless you're shooting RAW (DNG, 16-bit TIFF, EXR or whatever your camera supports there), you're not going to get those 12 bits anyway.
      - Not too long ago, Photoshop didn't do 16bpc itself.. and it still doesn't on a ton of commands. That never stopped anybody from processing photos in the past, why should it now? Clearly it's nice if you -can- work in 16bit, but it's not going to stop hundreds of thousands of people from working with photographs for the sole reason that 16bit is unavailable.

      In short, GP's parent poster acts a bit like an audiophile, claiming that every non-goldplated-connector is completely useless for listening to music the moment goldplated-connectors became available.

      Oh, and I'm a graphics professional - I work with 32bpc imagery all the time as sometimes that's what you need to run film footage through extensive colorgrading processes without incurring losses.. so yes, I know very *very* well what the advantages are.. and I certainly agree that Ol' Gimpo needs at least 16bpc, but preferable 32bpc, workflow. ( Cursed lack of support for Cinepaint. )

    7. Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. by domatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That post:

      1. Was reasonable
      2. Factual
      3. Real-World
      4. Concerned the GIMP

      I'm checking out my window for winged porcine creatures now.

  19. Re:It really didn't have this? by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You could already do a polygonal select, it's just not the tool you'd expect to use.

    "Paths Tool: Create and edit paths (B)". Click point-by-point to create the polygon; don't bother closing it, it'll connect the first and last points automatically. As a bonus, you can create arcs instead of line segments if you so desire. Once you have the polygon, just hit "Selection from Path" and presto, there's your selection.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  20. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A missing feature is still a missing feature, no matter the workaround. If someone was selling a car with no seatbelts, I wouldn't buy it just because someone pointed out I could make my own easily enough.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  21. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by JackassJedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, what I want instead is a GIMP/Inkscape hybrid ;)

    --
    Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
  22. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This train of thought here is exactly what's wrong with Linux and the OSS world in general. If it's already doable, no matter how hard and /or obscure the method, than that's just good enough,no reason to improve.

    Until this attitude is corrected, OSS will continue to go nowhere.

  23. Re:It really didn't have this? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Does he advertise projects he works on in his spare time as being comparable to Photoshop?

    Where does GIMP advertise? And where do they claim to be comparable to Photoshop? In fact, I found
    this document, which has the "Gimp Vision", part of which includes:

    What GIMP is not:

            * GIMP is not MS Paint or Adobe Photoshop

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  24. Re:It really didn't have this? by Medievalist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does he advertise projects he works on in his spare time as being comparable to Photoshop?

    I've never seen any "advertisements" for the Gimp anywhere. I guess I haven't been paying attention.

    That being said, the Gimp is comparable to Photoshop. You can compare anything to anything if you want, obviously. I myself enjoy comparing apples and oranges in my copious free time.

    More importantly the Gimp is a free alternative to Photoshop, with different strengths and weaknesses. Both products seem to have a hellish learning curve, so you would be foolish to abandon Photoshop if you are already invested in it, and I suspect it'd be equally foolish to start an investment in Photoshop today when there is a free alternative available.

  25. Re:I just love Gimp by Tx · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Photoshop CS3 you have the best of both worlds, you can undock the various elements and have them independently anywhere on the screen, or you can dock them in the main application window. That's always been the problem with the GIMP UI, those of us that don't like the default behaviour don't have the option of changing it (short of becoming a GIMP developer and forking the code, anyway). It doesn't look from the screenshots as if the old GIMP UI behaviour has really changed in the way implied anyway, but maybe I'm missing something.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  26. Re:I just love Gimp by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [note: I won't have a chance to try the new version until later tonight, so this post is based on earlier versions. This sounds fair to me, since the "MDI/SDI" debate has raged for centuries, and has, until now at least, been completely inapplicable to Gimp, which is neither]

    Got it. Agreed.
    Now show me ANY window manager which handles such a thing as well as, say, Photoshop's MDI for a single application.

    It seems that everyone who makes this argument seems to be of the "virtual desktop" bunch (usually 1 application per desktop). ie: Those who don't actually use the primary feature of a windowed environment: Windows!

    Meanwhile, GIMP tries to have it both ways, sharing arbitrary windows whose context depends on the last window selected, while (arbitrarily) putting "cross-window" features in [not a shared interface, but instead:] EVERY WINDOW.

    There's MDI, there's SDI, and then there's GIMP, which has taken the worst features of both.

    When I get home, I'll download the latest version, which may have actually addressed all of these complaints (the release notes tease more than any previous versions' has. I still expect it to be usability hell; but, for example, removal of the menu bar from the toolbox window sounds very promising.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  27. 16bit depth support, yeah! by davFr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is good news for us photographers! 90% of the time, photographers only set constrast/brightness/level/curves of their photos. These tasks cause lots of color aliasing in 8bit mode, but they are just fine in 16bit mode. With Gegl support, I can use gimp for my photo flow :)

    --
    RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
  28. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No really I want GIMP to be able to do this.

    It can.

    Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

    Circle somebody: Ellipse select tool, select an oval. Stroke selection. Choose a line style, you're done.

    Cartoon speech bubble: Ellipse selection, shift-lasso select the arrow (if you can't draw a straight enough line, convert to a path, edit the path to put an arrow in, then convert back to a selection). Fill with background colour using the paint tool (fill whole selection). Stroke selection, choose line style. Put the words in it with the text tool. If you're doing that a lot, make a generic text balloon and save it, then insert it as a layer when you need one.

    These things should be single step operations from the main control pane.

    Why? What's wrong with a 2-step operation? It's still relatively quick considering how often people want to do what you described (not very often; heck, the people who just want to do that generally get by with MS Paint).

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  29. Gimp, the love that dare not speak its acronym by julian67 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know this is something of a surprise for people who hate the name GIMP but much of the world doesn't actually speak English (how the fuck do they manage to talk to each other? Nobody knows) and doesn't care, it means nothing. Can those prudish repressed souls who dare not speak its acronym please just use the full name and stop bothering everyone with your tedious hang ups? Thank you.

  30. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by grumbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why create entirely different "line", "rectangle", "polygon", and "ellipse" tools when "stroke selection" and "stroke path" do all of those -- and more?

    For one reason because they don't. Stroking a selection gives a rather ugly circles compared to a real circle tools, since to much information gets lost along the way. And of course also usability, lack of proper circle tools has been an issue for a decade and yet it is still not fixed and still continues to be an issue and the issue won't go away by pretending its not there. Name a good reason why Gimp shouldn't have a set of geometry tools. I frankly can't think of one. If somebody worries that the toolbox is getting crammed, just add a way to remove tools from it.

    All that aside, there is also a larger issue with the lack of those tools, namely that tools can't be plug-ins, so any new tool has to be done directly in Gimp and can't be supplied as an add-on. If they could be this issue would have already been fixed long ago.

  31. Re:I haven't seen Pulp Fiction, you insensitive cl by Toonol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As are books. Have you ever read one of them?

  32. Re:I just love Gimp by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some of us like the separated windows.

    Yes, myself for one. I think it is an excellent idea to be able to leave a "family" of utilities floating there when they are to be called upon repeatedly. But it's a matter of habit and perspective: if you are used to working this way, Photoshop's approach seems unnecessarily clunky. It doesn't mean to say that one or the other is wrong.

  33. Re:I just love Gimp by jdgeorge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.

    Helloooo, tabbed interface?

    Damn you, Firefox, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari, and unnumerable other applications with your ungodly tabbed interfaces! Why won't you just let the window manager do its job?

  34. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everybody else doesn't manage it just fine. I used GIMP for months before I figured that out. And I, just like the GP, am relatively intelligent and computer literate.

    It's not a complicated process, and it even makes a bit of sense, looking at it in hind-sight. But it is not intuitive. When practically every new user of a program has the same issue, the user may not be the problem. Maybe the process is fine, but it needs to be told to the user more clearly.

    I use GIMP nearly every day, and really like it. I'm a fan. I'm glad to see improvements.

  35. Re:It really didn't have this? by theeddie55 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I myself enjoy comparing apples and oranges in my copious free time.

    that sounds like a really boring hobby, you should try comparing apples with jet engines and oranges with elephants, it will make you a much more rounded individual who is happier about life in general.

  36. There is another option by pavon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree, however it should be pointed out that there is a third option - have all the toolbars and pallets docked to the top/sides of the image window. This is what Krita and Paint.net both do, and new users generally find this layout to be much easier to manage. The disadvantage is that if you are editing more than one image at a time you end up wasting space with duplicate toolbars, but as long as you retain the option to undock the pallets for advanced users, then you haven't lost anything.

  37. Re:Your workplace is scary! by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, and "faggot" has also been used as an English term for a log for centuries. That doesn't mean I'm going to advocate for a software program named that to a bunch of middle-aged business people.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  38. Gimp fork. by Sasayaki · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't like the name GIMP.

    Is it possible to fork GIMP and change absolutely no functionality but the name? Or is this in violation of some kind of licensing or other issue?

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    1. Re:Gimp fork. by not+already+in+use · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not at all. Look at what debian did with Firefox > Iceweasel or whatever the fuck stupid name they came up with.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
  39. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by Draek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

    These things should be single step operations from the main control pane.

    ...of Inkscape, as should be obvious given the relative complexity of a "cartoon speech bubble", and the obvious problems that'll occur when you try to resize it if you did it in a raster editor.

    Photoshop needs to have everything and the kitchen sink, because Adobe can't expect normal people to pay more than $700 for their image editing needs. F/OSS has no such obligation, and is therefore free to follow UNIX's philosophy of "do one thing, and one thing well", and *drawing* is the domain of Inkscape and Xara.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  40. Re:I just love Gimp by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.

    Or they could just rip-off other (better) applications like Paint.NET that have the best of both worlds, and which would shut up all those complainers in one fell swoop.

    Why don't they? Two possibilities:
    1) Either the code is such a mess of spaghetti that changing toolbar behaviors would be a total and complete bear to accomplish, and as such nobody's taken that task on
    2) GIMP developers don't care about usability or pleasing users

    I think it's some mix of the two, personally.

  41. Re:Your workplace is scary! by kitgerrits · · Score: 3, Funny

    You should have seen the shit-fit a colleague threw when I remarked on the picture of her hairy pussy(cat).

    --
    "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
  42. Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet? by Atriqus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I alone in this? Is Gimp not getting users because of it? Is this in turn slowing Linux adoption?

    1. No, I'm sure there's other PS people out there who don't like it.
    2. Gimp has plenty of users: invalid premise in question
    3. No, Gimp has little to no affect on linux adoption

    Gimp is not intended to be a PS clone, nor cater to PS users. The devs feel the current layout suits the application just fine. They don't have customers or shareholders to answer to, so their word on the matter is final. If someone tries it out and doesn't like the interface and/or doesn't want to learn a new one, they can simply look for other options. Best of all, they didn't have to drop $130 - $1780 to find out they weren't going to like using it before moving on.

    --
    Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
  43. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by ardcomics · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I.E. http://anotherrandomday.com/ [shameless plug] BUT the talk about ugly circles is spot on. I have used G.I.M.P. for years but it still holds a personal record for being the only graphics app that forced me to google "how to draw a straight line"

  44. Re:It really didn't have this? by The+Moof · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the FAQ:

    In their own words, "GIMP is our answer to the current lack of free (or at least reasonably priced) image manipulation software for GNU/Linux and UNIX in general."

    It is a raster editor, which means that it performs operations directly on the pixels that make up the image, and not a vector editor. Other (proprietary) raster editors include Adobe Photoshop, Jasc Paintshop Pro and the humble Microsoft Paint. An alternative free editor is the KOffice project, Krita. Users wanting to edit photographs will certainly want a raster editor like GIMP. Graphic designers and illustrators may prefer a vector editor depending on their tastes.

    If you're not trying to compete, perhaps you shouldn't mention them and critique their pricing in the official FAQ.

  45. Re:I just love Gimp by bucky0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even if you hit the option to not have all the toolboxes show up in the alt-tab window (under ubuntu), then you have nothing to alt-tab to once all your documents are closed and you want to start a new one.

    It's crufty and it shows. I use linux on all my machines, and despite trying my damndest to get the gimp to play nice, it simply won't.

    --

    -Bucky
  46. Re:It really didn't have this? by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For what 99% of people do with graphics, The GIMP DOES compete with Photoshop.

    Or is Linux not a competitor to Windows because it doesn't do everything Windows does (even though it does many things better)?

  47. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cartoon speech bubble: Ellipse selection, shift-lasso select the arrow (if you can't draw a straight enough line, convert to a path, edit the path to put an arrow in, then convert back to a selection). Fill with background colour using the paint tool (fill whole selection). Stroke selection, choose line style. Put the words in it with the text tool. If you're doing that a lot, make a generic text balloon and save it, then insert it as a layer when you need one.

    I'm seriously waiting for someone to mod this +1 funny ...

    Rich.

  48. Re:But does it look like Photoshop yet? by Max_W · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I use GIMP to handle 300 - 500 photos a week. You will start realize the advantages of GIMP after first 20 000 of photos.

  49. Re:It really didn't have this? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've got Gimp and Photoshop on my machine. Until this latest version of Gimp was released, I had the most current version of both.

    I'm always grabbing Gimp for the simple photo editing I do, because I'm more familiar with it than I am with Photoshop.

    What's amazing is that my daughter, who was not familiar with either application, has decided on her own to use Gimp more often for her (admittedly basic) photo editing.

    Yes, I've made a cash donation to gimp.org more than once in the past several years.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  50. Re:I just love Gimp by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let window management be handled by the window manager.

    I think that is the reason why some people bitch about the GIMP interface. I used to bitch about it too, when I was using the GIMP on Windows.

    The problem is that the default window management in Micorsoft Windows is awful, reduced to minimze, maximize and restore. Therefore, using the GIMP there is an absolute hell.

    In contrast, when using The GIMP on Linux, you have several other functions like Virtual Desktops, always on top, always on back, pin to all desktops, among others.

    That is why I would suggest getting something like Dexpot or other decent window manager for Windows which provides some of such features (I use VirtuaWin, unfortunately it only provide the virtual desktops and no other functions).

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  51. Re:No native OS X support? by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would tell you that, no, you should not install the Gimp if those are your requirements. Congratulations, you're free to use whatever fits your actual needs! However, the Gimp does fit my requirements and plenty of other people's, so kindly stop bashing it and go quietly use whatever your tool of choice is instead. Thank you.

  52. Houston, I think we have a problem here. by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Gimp developers don't care what you think.

    .

    There is really nothing I can add to this.

    1. Re:Houston, I think we have a problem here. by BrentH · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can:

      In Soviet Russia, you don't care that Gimp developers think YOU!

  53. Mod this man to Mount Olympus! by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sir, I wish I could mod you to infinity. That's one of OSS's biggest hurdles right now, keeping it locked out of mainstream awareness. OSS has great coders, but a real dearth of UI designers, technical writers, and basic marketing people. So you end up with coders (who think they don't need these people) designing great software that is rendered completely inaccessible by horrid UI's, poor to non-existent documentation, and stupid marketing moves (like this kind of poorly-thought-out naming).

    Just look at 99% of OSS websites, done by coders who have no idea how to present their software to anyone but other coders--leading to my tip:

    • The first page of your application's webpage should explain what the software *IS* and *HOW TO USE IT*, not just provide a long list of your bug-fixes.
    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Mod this man to Mount Olympus! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The first page of your application's webpage should explain what the software *IS* and *HOW TO USE IT*, not just provide a long list of your bug-fixes.

      The same could be said about a lot of /. stories:

      Technology: FRXM 4.0 is out!

      posted by: CmdrTaco
      from the It's-Like-Christmas-Morning dept.

      FRXM_Fan37 writes: FRXM 4.0 is out with a brand new Python API, and now runs on Windows as well as Linux and OSX. The community has been waiting a long time for the bugs in the 3.x version to be sorted out, and with 4.0 you can be sure that this will be the best version of FRXM ever. Art Linkletter says, "I heartily endorse this application."

      I mean, how hard is it, during a long day of not editing spelling and grammar errors, is it to say:

      FRXM 4.0 [a popular app for herglesnorzing your brindlefreen] is out...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  54. What about non-destructive text manipulation? by argent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The thing that causes me problems in the Gimp is that text is rasterized as soon as it's scaled or otherwise manipulated by any means other than changing the point size in the text dialog. This means that if I have a block of text that I've resized by drag handles, or if I've rescaled the image, as soon as I edit the text content it reverts to the original point size.

    Has that been fixed in any recent versions?

  55. No Binaries by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are no binaries for windows yet. Therefore it is basically not released. No I will not jump through a billion hoops to compile it for windows when someone else is already doing that and will most likely finish sooner then me.

    1. Re:No Binaries by conlaw · · Score: 2, Interesting
      However, if you are running Windows XP or Vista, there's a great little program available at http://www.paint.net/ While it's not as full-featured as GIMP or Photoshop, it still does a great job of picture manipulation. And it's FREE to download and use. As to platforms other than Windows, the authors state:

      We are currently not doing any work to directly support Mac OS, Linux, Mono, or any other platform. It's not that we dislike any of them, it's just that they're entirely differenet development platforms than Windows + .NET. They all have their own set of implementation intricacies, bugs, and support issues. Remember, there's only 2 (yes two) of us on this project. We only have so much time, and by focusing strictly on Windows + .NET we can make sure that the experience there is the best we can possibly make it.

      Maybe some /. developers would like to volunteer to do a Linux version or two?

  56. Re:I just love Gimp by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since Gimp 2.0 (which was released years ago), you can dock any tool dialog.

  57. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

    No really I want GIMP to be able to do this.

    Example: Take a family photograph and circle somebody. Or add a cartoon speech bubble.

    Nope, you still want Inkscape. Take the cartoon speech bubble example: how do you decide how big you want it to be? The answer is "big enough to fit the text I want inside," of course! And the easiest way to do that is if the speech bubble is a vector object, so that it can just expand as you type text (also inherently vectors) into it. And the program suited to working with vectors is Inkscape, not GIMP.

    All you have to do is import your bitmap into Inkscape, which is easy to do, and go from there.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  58. Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You sure you don't just want a better workflow between GIMP and Inkscape, but allowing them to remain separate programs?

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  59. Re:It really didn't have this? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thing is, there are a lot of us that want to do more than what MSPaint allows (besides, it's not even available on my choice of OS), but don't need the CMYK separation or any of the other stuff. I still want to tweak levels and do color adjustments, resize pictures well, scale, crop, rotate, reduce red-eye, and so on. But I don't need Photoshop for that... I can get the capability to do everything 99% of people would ever want to do with an image for free with the GIMP, instead of paying for Photoshop. Which was my point, that the GIMP does everything with images that most people would use Photoshop to do.

  60. Re:I just love Gimp by legirons · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Multiple windows are great for multiple monitors and / or multiple documents being edited at once.

    Talking of which, it would be nice if selecting 20 documents in Windows and "open with... GIMP" didn't launch 20 separate GIMP tasks (each with its own long-winded "loading plugins..." startup sequence)

  61. Re:It really didn't have this? by 2short · · Score: 2, Insightful


    I just threw out MSPaint as an example of something really low end - it does very little, but that very little is easy to do, and handles some fraction of my image manipulation needs. I too want to occasionally do stuff that it can't, primarily the sorts of things you mention.

    I know both Photoshop and the GIMP are capable of everything I need, and much more. But I've tried to do the things I need in both, and in both I have pretty much utterly failed - or at the least taken an hour to figure out a 2 minute job. Either may be great for someone who uses them more than once a week, but the learning curve is just too steep for someone who wants to use it for five minutes a month.

    For my image manipulation needs beyond paint, I turn to the (really fairly craptastic) program that came free with my low-end digital camera.

    GIMPs learning curve means most people will never use it to "tweak levels and do color adjustments, resize pictures well, scale, crop, rotate, reduce red-eye, and so on." . It's only going to get used by people going well beyond cleaning up snapshots, so it's going to get compared to Photoshop on CMYK separation, etc.