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."
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! :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
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.
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
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.
Then you want Inkscape instead.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
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.
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.
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.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blazing Spiders
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
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."
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.
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)?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
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.
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.
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:
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.