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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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. )