Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GIMP 2.7.2 Released — Another Step Toward 2.8

Posted by Soulskill on from the slowly-but-surely dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The developers of GIMP have finally released a new development version on the way to GIMP 2.8. GIMP 2.7.2 includes a huge bunch of changes — but it is not intended for production use. 'The new release comprises layer groups (which were introduced after 2.7.1), an almost done text-on-canvas feature, the all-new brush engine and of course the new single window mode.'"

35 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. One reason alone by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 4, Interesting

    'The new release comprises layer groups (which were introduced after 2.7.1), an almost done text-on-canvas feature, the all-new brush engine and of course the new single window mode.'"

    Single window mode is all you need to know about why you should upgrade.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    1. Re:One reason alone by JanneM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Single window mode is all you need to know about why you should upgrade."

      As long as I can not use single-window mode I'm happy to upgrade. If it becomes the only way to use gimp, it's time to fork the code.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:One reason alone by Anrego · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I actually prefer the floating windows (in all applications, not just gimp) although I find gimp makes them fairly unintuitive. I have several (6) monitors, and being able to spread stuff out is nice. Not sure why people have this desire to have everything crowded in one window, I mean, I get that photoshop does it that way and can see why people looking for a photoshop replacement would want this... but the preference for single window over floating window appears to be moving through all applications.

      When did floating windows become a bad thing :(

    3. Re:One reason alone by vux984 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have several (6) monitors, and being able to spread stuff out is nice.

      You do, of course, realize the vast majority of people using the software have a single monitor, right. A tiny fraction have 2. The number of people on the planet with 6 monitors using gimp regularly would probably fit in my garage.

      So although you are happy with your setup, and the way you organize windows works for you, its not an option for most people.

    4. Re:One reason alone by Anrego · · Score: 2

      I agree 6 is rare.. but 2 seems to be quite popular, especially with graphics people.

      Even when using a single window though, I still prefer floating windows. Sometimes it's nice to full screen something, and use shortcuts ... sometimes you want to have toolbox/layers and such beside the image. Various expand/maximize functions in single window apps always seem cumbersome to me... I'd rather use my window managers tools for managing windows than some application specific set of tools. I actually don't use gimp very often... but this extends to other things I do use quite frequently (like qt designer).

    5. Re:One reason alone by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      The number of people on the planet with 6 monitors using gimp regularly would probably fit in my garage.

      The number of atoms in the universe would conveniently fit into your garage as well. It only has about 80 digits.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:One reason alone by lahvak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK, I will bite. Just some of the reasons I like multiple windows better:

      * Multiple windows actually do not cover as much screen space as a single window, so I can have several GIMP windows arranged with several other programs, and use them together.

      * With a good window manager, it is easier to hide and show individual components of the program. Windows can iconify or shade at a key-press or mouse click.

      * I can send some windows to different virtual desktop. I can make my toolboxes sticky, and put one image on each virtual desktop, and easily switch between them.

      * I can tear of a frequently used menu and arrange it on the screen next to my toolbox, or where ever I want it.

      * If I have multiple monitors, I can put some windows on one of them, and others on another.

      * With some window managers, I can make some windows translucent, so you can see what's behind them. That way I can cram more stuff on a small monitor.

      Most of these I actually use with GIMP all the time. I am not saying that GIMP user interface is perfect, but the multiple window interface in my opinion is not a problem. In general I think that for a sufficiently complicated program a multiple window interface is vastly superior to a single window one.

      One think I really miss in GIMP is an ability to easily create my own custom toolboxes and menus where I could place frequently used operations for different types of work. Right now I have to constantly hunt for things in the ever expanding menu structure.

      --
      AccountKiller
    7. Re:One reason alone by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Everyone using a modern OS can have virtual desktops of some sort. This makes floating windows useful to everyone.

      Think about it, when you use single window applications with multiple windows inside the main window, the application essentially has to reinvent the window manager for those internal windows. Of course, it does so badly. Why not let your window manager do the job it was designed to do?

      Besides, Photoshop has floating windows too. I just opened CS2 and count 6 windows. Tell me, what is the major difference between this and this? I just don't see it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:One reason alone by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      probably because most computer artists types are homosexual deviants and not seamstresses.

      --
      Do you even lift?

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

    9. Re:One reason alone by Sensiblemonkey · · Score: 2

      'The new release comprises layer groups (which were introduced after 2.7.1), an almost done text-on-canvas feature, the all-new brush engine and of course the new single window mode.'"

      Single window mode is all you need to know about why you should upgrade.

      Heck with that.

      The lack of layer groups has been the single greatest barrier to my migrating to GIMP as a production tool. Without them, working on large and complex files becomes an organizational nightmare. Creating blank layers with names like "---- BEGIN Name of Subdivision ---"/"---- END Name of Subdivision ---" to lend structure and delineate groups of layers like we did in 1999 just doesn't cut it in modern production environments where decompressed file sizes can be measured in gigabytes.

      A stable release with layer groups is definitely something I'll be putting through it's paces.

    10. Re:One reason alone by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2

      If they did floating windows like Paint.NET does nobody would complain. The problem isn't the concept, but their half-assed execution.

      --
      Comment of the year
    11. Re:One reason alone by kikito · · Score: 2

      "the application essentially has to reinvent the window manager for those internal windows."

      No they are not. Any modern OS has implementations of windows-inside-of-windows.

      "Tell me, what is the major difference between this [uberdownloads.com] and this [yeniprogram.gen.tr]? I just don't see it."

      There's no difference in those screenshots because you are not using any other programs, at least with the gimp screenshot.

      Add a browser window, a notepad, and a music player. They will intermix with the gimp windows, but not with the photoshop windows. You will probably say that that can be solved by having a virtual desktop just for gimp. And to that I'd answer that I just don't need a virtual desktop for photoshop. So it's still a difference.

      Another difference I can think of is that the photoshop toolbars stay on top of the images. They only hide if you want them to hide. A particularly irritating case for me is maximizing an image. In Photoshop you simply double blick the title bar, and you can use all the available screen space on it, without hiding the toolbars. In gimp you have to do it manually (specially if you are using the default Ubuntu theme, with its 3-pixel corner handles for windows).

    12. Re:One reason alone by jabelli · · Score: 3, Informative

      The PhotoShop ones are "Palette Windows" (WS_EX_PALETTEWINDOW in Win32-land) and so go with the main window and the window manager knows not to give them separate entries on the task bar and alt-tab list. However, they added this as an option somewhere in the 2.6 series, as I have it set that way.

      Well, knowing Adobe, they're probably some owner-drawn hack instead.

      If you open more than one image, however, GIMP gets one window per image, while Photoshop still has a single entry in the window manager.

  2. Re:Still in use? by pipatron · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe your motor skills improved since then, have you tried using a mouse the last years?

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  3. Re:Still in use? by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lots of people use gimp. But no it won't be worth your time.

  4. Wake Me When They Change The Name by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, I know, Noble Open Source coders are supposed to be above the cosmetic issues and petty concerns of Man's World, but when you are looking for credibility amongst designers, illustrators, photographers and other arts professionals, would it really hurt -- would you really lose so much integrity -- to slap this thing with a flashier moniker than "G.I.M.P."?

    And if not, why GIMP? Why not just go for the gold in the shoot-your-own-snarky-foot Olympics, call it TARD or DOUCHE or FLACCID? I'm sure who ever came up with "GNU Image Manipulation Program" could just as easily reverse-engineer an acronym for HOMO or DICKLESS...

    1. Re:Wake Me When They Change The Name by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      blah blah blah GIMP sounds funny blah blah blah

      Does anyone really care about this anymore? Everyone I know who has started using the GIMP had a chuckle about the name, then really forgot about the name and got on with editing photos.

      Basically, noone cares anymore.

      And also, language changes. Google "gimp". You have to get to the bottom of the second page before you reach an "urban dictionary" definition of the old meaning. The first two whole pages are about image manipulation.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Wake Me When They Change The Name by mdielmann · · Score: 2

      Obviously people who have chosen to use the software either like the name or don't care about the name. The issue the GPP raises is, is GIMP's market share being reduced due to the poor name? And if it is, why on earth would you want to keep it? By the same logical premise where calling it GIMP shouldn't matter, since the name has no bearing on the functionality, why keep it if it's having a negative effect on your product?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    3. Re:Wake Me When They Change The Name by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2

      Does anyone really care about this anymore? Everyone I know who has started using the GIMP had a chuckle about the name, then really forgot about the name and got on with editing photos.

      Yes, people still care. Anyone in a position of power is not going to allow this due to the name. Lots of people find the name offensive / or too risky so it will never be installed. To the point that they would rather pay money, then to use GIMP. Heck, there are developers that won't touch the source code because nobody wants that on their resume.

      The developer's choice to stick with the name can only be seen as the blatant stubbornness of a 3-year old throwing a tantrum. The issue is never going to go away. Even if they stick their head in the sand for another decade.

      Grow up, change the name.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  5. Coming anytime now by arielCo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cue:

    * Griping about the interface, or Photoshop's interface. Obligatory mention of GIMPshop
    * "Not up to scratch for pro work", followed by "I'm a pro and I like it" and "Not much of a pro then" retorts
    * "Hey it's free and Photoshop costs $$$"

    In 3... 2... 1...

    Another day in Slashdot

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:Coming anytime now by Geeky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK, I'll bite.

      Has it got colour management yet?

      I switched from Linux to Windows for Photoshop and OS level colour management (with support for calibration tools). No brainer unless you want to spend more than the cost of Photoshop on printer ink and paper.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    2. Re:Coming anytime now by Geeky · · Score: 2

      Maybe, for artwork. Less so for photo editing. A calibrated screen is still useful for knowing that at least on your screen the colours meet some objective standard - you can't control how they appear on other people's screens, of course.

      I use adjustment layers extensively on my photos. Rather than trying to dodge and burn on the image, for example, I'll create an adjustment layer and then paint it in over the areas I want to affect. I then blur the mask to soften the edges of the effect, and adjust the opacity until it looks right.

      The other thing that stands out for me about Photohshop is how quickly you can preview the effects of filters. Seeing immediate feedback as you change the sliders is pretty much essential for judging effects, and the Gimp was never so good at that. Again, that might be different now.

      The other killer for me is that I've now got a couple of actions I use almost all the time, including a really good skin smoothing one that saves so much time when retouching images of people (and applies itself in a layer).

      On the other hand I still use ImageMagick for a lot of batch resizing tasks for web-sized images.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    3. Re:Coming anytime now by gmueckl · · Score: 2

      To continue that list: Does it even have support anything higher than 8 bits per channel yet? I really require that for some of my work and I always end up using Photoshop in a Windows VM. At least I've written my own little viewer for HDR images, so I can at least get by without having to fire up PS constantly.

      Last I checked, the ability to handle 16 bit integer and floating point formats has been deliberately removed from Krita as well - supposedly because it was suddenly intended to be a painting program which doesn't need such fancy stuff. *sigh*

      --
      http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
    4. Re:Coming anytime now by steveha · · Score: 2

      The GIMP guys are working towards support for 16 bits per channel. I was hoping to learn about the progress toward that, but I didn't see it discussed here; mostly people were griping about UI.

      As I understand it, the GIMP core engine has 8 bits per channel pretty much hard-wired into it and it would be a pain to fix that. Instead, the GIMP guys have been working on a new engine called GEGL, and this was designed from the ground up to handle higher bit depths and to allow non-destructive editing. I believe GIMP 2.8 is the target for full GEGL integration. GIMP 2.7.x has GEGL partly integrated (used in some filters).

      Meanwhile, if you need something like GIMP that supports high bit depth right now, take a look at CinePaint, a fork of GIMP hacked to support 16 bits per plane; it has been used for post-processing in movies. According to Wikipedia, it has fallen out of use because GIMP can do anything it can do; but that seems wrong to me, because GIMP doesn't have 16 bit per plane support yet.

      I was really hoping that people who know about this stuff would post about it here.

      P.S. It's from 2007, but here is an article about HDR photo editing on Linux. http://lwn.net/Articles/225652/

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  6. Imp by tessellated · · Score: 2

    Lets just drop the 'G' and call it 'Imp' from now on...

    --
    'When the Going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro.' - Hunter S. Thompson
  7. Re:Still in use? by marsu_k · · Score: 2

    I do, constantly, when doing web development. As a matter of fact, if Gimp would support PSD format better, I wouldn't use Photoshop at all. As it is, I use Photoshop as a glorified image viewer - I get a layout from an advertising agency, hide/show the needed layers and copy the image to clipboard, then split it into needed chunks with Gimp and paste into separate files. I find it much faster to use the resizable rectangular selection to select a portion of the image, then Ctrl+C, Ctrl+Shift+V, Ctrl+S, type file name with extension, done. Granted, if I wanted to I could teach myself to do the same in Photoshop (although I've been unable to find how to resize the selection, I'm only able to add to it or subtract from it - is this even possible? And it's irritating having to manually specify the file type), but why bother, Gimp suits me just fine.

  8. Re:CMYK by O'Nazareth · · Score: 2

    Printing is less and less important in design. Unless you are doing textile or billboard, I do not think CMYK is a good choice.

  9. Re:Still in use? by jcupitt65 · · Score: 2

    XP SP2 is supported, isn't it?

    http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html

    GIMP requires Windows XP SP2 or newer to run.

  10. Re:Still in use? by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    I started using Photoshop several years before I started using the GNU Image Manipulation Program, but I also had MS Paint, Corel Draw, xv, Paintshop Pro, and other graphic viewing/editing program experience, so GNU Image Manipulation Program was actually easy to get used to. OP needs to vary his digital diet.

  11. Help Wanted by jensend · · Score: 3, Informative

    A decade ago, the GIMP was one of the jewels of open source, something everyone would show off to others as an example of what open source development could accomplish. But it's been so short of manpower that it's largely stagnated for quite a while. They could really use some help. See Nordholt's latest blog entry for some related thoughts.

  12. Re:Still in use? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have they made any interface changes for this new Gimp branch? I'm looking for something powerful and intuitively accessible, like Blender.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  13. Re:Wake me when you've thought of a name by Jiro · · Score: 2

    The name is a prime example of geeks not having social skills. They just don't get how the name hurts adoption of the program, reasoning that since the name has no effect on the program's functionality, no logical person would ever refuse to use it based on the name, and if someone does refuse to use it, it's their fault for being so illogical and there's no reason to cater to them. Guys, there's a reason why McDonalds isn't named "N*gger Burgers".

    It can also be thought of as a small example of how free software has a terrible user interface--after all, in a way the name is part of the user interface. And the people who created the user interface think it's really great. Of course, the Gimp has a terrible user interface in a more conventional way too.

  14. Re:CMYK by doti · · Score: 2

    What about 16-bit per channel?

    It's a must for working with photography.

    --
    factor 966971: 966971
  15. 2.7.2 is another step toward 2.8 by Tuan121 · · Score: 2

    Really.. thanks for clearing that up!

  16. Re:CMYK by perpenso · · Score: 2

    Printing is less and less important in design. Unless you are doing textile or billboard, I do not think CMYK is a good choice.

    It more than billboards. Consider business cards, letter head, flyers, postcards, etc.