The GIMP Now Has a Working Single-Window Mode

An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix is reporting that The GIMP now has a working single-window mode, a long desired feature by the open-source graphics community to be more competitive with Adobe Photoshop. There's also a number of other user highlights in the new GIMP 2.7.3 release. The GPLv3 graphics software can be downloaded at GIMP.org."

Comments

Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the photoshop people still don't switch, because it doesn't have their favourite plugin.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[MightyYar]

No they don't do this every couple of years.

But the main reason Photoshop people don't switch is that Photoshop isn't all that expensive if you use it every day. GIMP also does not have 16-bit color or CMYK.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[somersault]

More like because they've already learned the Photoshop interface, and can't be bothered learning another.. especially if they already suck with computers.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[errandum]

And maybe because Photoshop is actually good value?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[croddy]

Okay, cool, so they don't want to use it? Good deal! I guess we can stop porting their shitty 1980's UI and window management models to it now, then, can't we? Can we just rip this fucking single-window crap right back out and put the GIMP back the way GIMP users use it, and not the way a handful of Photoshop dilettantes keep saying the GIMP *should* be so they can switch?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[nomadic]

Whoa, you're saying the PHOTOSHOP users are the "dilettantes"? Does that mean GIMP users are the "professionals"? Because I have never met a graphics professional who used GIMP and most have never even heard of it. And no, a webdesigner is not a graphics professional.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[croddy]

I am saying that the Photoshop users clamoring for GIMP to be like this and GIMP to be like that are the dabblers, and don't represent the vast majority of Photoshop users, who as far as I can tell are happy with what they have and just have some work to get done.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[djdanlib]

No, the main reasons are: it's a recognizable brand, employers provide Photoshop for their employees, colleges have it in their labs, it supports most digital cameras' RAW formats, and everyone freakin' pirates it when they're studying photography or design or print media or whatever other visual art. Seriously, it's rampant. I know MANY people who pirated Adobe products and continued to use them in their careers. Basically, nobody ever paid for it except the odd one or two. I feel like the oddball, having actually purchased Photoshop CS rather than pirating it back when I was in college - my peers even made fun of me for it. "You mean you actually paid for that? Why didn't you just download it? I would have given you a copy." (Of course, mine actually worked properly, and theirs didn't always.) You'd think that would be something you could buy with your student loans, even though the 'student price' is still rather expensive for an average photo student.

GIMP is poised to be at least average in digital photo manipulation. It doesn't stand out as a shining example of technological achievement, but it's at least average.

Most digital photography goes straight to the Web, and you don't need CMYK for that. You need sRGB. If you're the one sending images to a printer, yes you want to handle CMYK. Once you profile your average photo printer, as long as you're outputting in the right color space - you should get really good results. CMYK is mostly of interest to electronic prepress: think books and newspapers. But your average photographer doesn't need that. They have a prepress department to handle the conversion and bit depth reduction. In fact, many printers and RIPs accept profiled RGB images these days, so converting to CMYK may or may not gain you anything in the end. Your mileage will most definitely vary.

Your point about HDR is valid. HDR has been the new hotness for years.

One thing Adobe products do well is decoding Camera RAW formats. That's a big deal, since you can slightly adjust your exposure post-shoot. Otherwise you have to either use 8-bit-per-channel JPEG, or pay the manufacturer for the full software. The 'lite' version usually comes with the camera but you can't do everything Adobe does. GIMP could really break into the market if they packaged UFRaw with the software.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Robert Zenz]

No no no no no...there are two groups of PS users out there. Those who use it for their work (and bought it), and those who should that it is superior to everything else (illegal copies). Ironically, only those who didn't buy it seem to shout loudest that GIMP is bullshit and can't be used. I have yet to meet one graphic designer who says that GIMP is not usable for him because of the multi-window-environment.

I'm pretty sure croddy meant the second group, because the first group does have constructive/good criticism and better things to do.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we just rip this fucking single-window crap right back out and put the GIMP back the way GIMP users use it, and not the way a handful of Photoshop dilettantes keep saying the GIMP *should* be so they can switch?

It says "working single-window mode." Mode implies that single window functionality can be turned on and off. So there should be no need to "rip this fucking single-window crap right back out" as you so quaintly put it.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[roman_mir]

Here is some work by photoshop dilettantes

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[E IS mC(Square)]

Right. Because GIMP's only goal is to be usable to Photoshop users and make them stop using Photoshop.

Not!

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

And the photoshop people still don't switch, because it doesn't have their favourite plugin.

Why does it have to be about switching?

As an experienced Photoshop user let me give you a little tip: Instead of trying get Photoshop users to switch, why not tantalize them with how it can be an additional tool in their toolbox?

Let's say, for example, that GIMP has an extra awesome macro-recording/playback capability that makes Photoshop look like a toy in comparison. (I don't know if this is the case or not so please forgive my ignorance.) If you were to say to me: "You can record a macro in GIMP, then apply this sophisticated set of rules to it that PS doesn't have, and easily set it up to run on all the files in a folder", then I'd go and try it out!

Take out the switching talk and you'll gain a lot more interest. Otherwise you're fighting this huge uphill battle where you have to take into account way too many things that are of importance. Then you'll sit there thinking Photoshop users are mindless fans that lack your vision when in reality you just haven't addressed their needs.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[UnknowingFool]

I haven't used Photoshop in years and I'm no professional. I have used GIMP and I can say that single window is a welcome change for me.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

What is GIMP's goal?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Intron]

There's a reason that the dabblers complain about the GIMP. Have you ever read through one of those tutorials on how to do some cool graphics technique, like floating semi-transparent 3D letters above a picture? They tend to be written as "go to the *X Menu* and select *Name*" so they can't be translated to a program that has different menus and names. The dabblers don't know how to do things, just how to follow recipes.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[silanea]

croddy falsely assumes that anyone who believes the multi-window approach sucks donkeys' balls has been spoiled by Photoshop. GIMP is the only application I have ever consciously encountered and used for more than two seconds that uses this paradigm, and it annoys the bloody hell out of me. Just how Microsoft's ribbons suck for me, and how I hate GNOME 3 and Unity for breaking conventions that work extremely well for me and replacing them with something that does not reflect my way of using a computer. The multi-window approach is one out of many possible paradigms. That very few other applications (relicts from the computational stone age excluded) use it should be sufficiently strong indication that it may not be an unproblematic approach. And that insight should, in an ideal world, lead to the conclusion that offering the dominant paradigm as an option will enhance the software and improve its usefulness for a significant number of people.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[hedwards]

As well there should be. Having a single window that spans two monitors only works well if both monitors have the same resolution. Otherwise it tends to be somewhat awkward. What's wonderful about the current system is that I can place my tools on one monitor along with a view of the whole image and do my manipulation on the other monitor.

Just as long as they keep the older multi-window mode I don't have any problems with this.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[X0563511]

Erm, you mean 16-bit per channel right? I'm pretty sure it supports 32-bit color (24-bit if you don't use alpha)

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[maxwell demon]

What is GIMP's goal?

Being good at image manipulation?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[GameboyRMH]

For 16-bit color:

Image --> Mode --> Indexed --> Generate optimum palette --> Max colors = 65536, Convert?

For CMYK support, maybe this?

http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[GameboyRMH]

This is how I have it set up on my work PC (and how I use it on a PDA - with the tiny screen, switching windows is easier than trying to cram everything into the already crowded 4" screen) but on most computers a single-window mode would be preferable.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

They don't have aspirations of becoming the standard image editing app?

I'm not asking to argue, I've just never followed GIMP enough to know if they were just trying to make an image manipulation app or if they want it to be the app everybody uses.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to mod this up, not because it's right, but because everyone should have an opportunity to laugh at your gross misconprehension of what 16-bit color is.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[jellomizer]

I use to use GIMP all the time... Then I switch to Photoshop and I found Photoshop being much better then the GIMP for the stuff that I needed to work with. GIMP has a lot of good features but getting to the ones that I need the most are more cumbersome, then with Photoshop.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[GameboyRMH]

I've read further down that by 16-bit color they mean 16 bits per channel. But then they should say that. By the strict definition of 16-bit color my post is correct, what I outlined is part of the procedure used to make images compatible with bootloader screens etc. that can only use 16-bit color images.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Tsingi]

I haven't used Photoshop in years and I'm no professional. I have used GIMP and I can say that single window is a welcome change for me.

Photoshop is good software. I haven't used it in years either, the Gimp does way more than I need. If I used it all day, every day, maybe Photoshop would be worth the megabucks, but I don't.

Long live the Gimp.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[robthebloke]

GIMPs UI has hideous usability issues that largely preclude it from any serious work. Last time I attempted to use it, the simple fact you couldn't see the brush when you moved the mouse over the canvas infuriated me to the point I doubt I'll bother with it again. Just because a photoshop user points out these flaws does not mean that it gives you the arrogance to simply ignore these comments. The GUI was hideous. If there is development work going on in this area, then IMHO it should be applauded. Taking your approach of simply poo-pooing everything because you absurdly believe GUI enhancements to be the work of satan (photoshop users), isn't really going to move the product forward now is it?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[uniquename72]

Can we just rip this fucking single-window crap right back out and put the GIMP back the way GIMP users use it

Of course you can -- it's open source. You can change it however you want.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[mad_minstrel]

I have two monitors too and moving tools to the second one doesn't work for a single reason - you have to reach your tools with your pointer. Now, as long as you don't mind waving your mouse-arm like a madman every two seconds it's ok. But as soon as you pick up your stylus you're faced with the hard choice of either squeezing your two monitors into your tablet's space, effectively dividing its useful surface area by a factor of about 2.5 to 4, or confining the cursor to one of the monitors, in which case you can't reach your tools with your stylus. It means that for any tablet-wielding professional multi-window mode is mostly useless. Effective UI hiding and workspace organization is vastly preferable.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Grishnakh]

Last time I attempted to use it, the simple fact you couldn't see the brush when you moved the mouse over the canvas infuriated me to the point I doubt I'll bother with it again.

This seems like a totally different issue from the single-window mode thing, and I don't see how any GIMP user would complain about this being implemented.

The GUI was hideous. If there is development work going on in this area, then IMHO it should be applauded. Taking your approach of simply poo-pooing everything because you absurdly believe GUI enhancements to be the work of satan (photoshop users), isn't really going to move the product forward now is it?

Going to a single-window mode isn't an enhancement, it's a regression. The GIMP's UI is superior for Unix-like systems, especially if they have multiple monitors, and allows the window manager to manage the individual windows rather than reimplementing a separate window manager inside the application. MDI is an abomination from the Windows world, and is only there to make up for the terrible window manager that Windows uses.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[bonch]

Right, people wanting a single-window interface are just a tiny niche of users. No, wait, they're practically every graphic artist ever.

But sure, go ahead and keep things "the way GIMP users use it." All three of them.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[roman_mir]

So this is done in photoshop

Oh, and here is what can be done in GIMP ;)

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[hedwards]

The correct fix for that isn't moving to a single window system, it's adding an option to switch between monitors.

And ultimately, even in your case, if you're better off with a single window then you're doing it wrong. Even in the case of those using a tablet, you're still better off under the current system where you can simply just use that second monitor for the second view and keep the tools on the same monitor.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Grishnakh]

There's no miscomprehension. If you say "16-bit color", that means 16 bits per pixel, with 65,536 possible values. It's just like 8-bit color meaning 256 possible values, or 24-bit color meaning 16.7 million values. Computer graphics systems have used this terminology since the 80s, and probably earlier.

If you mean something else that's specific to the printing industry or whatever, then you need to spell it out. This is a general forum, not a forum for printing professionals.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[mad_minstrel]

Monitor switching is a nice idea, but it also doesn't work because it disallows any drag-and-drop actions. Like dragging a layer from one monitor to another. And if I am to keep my tools on my primary monitor, I'd like them nicely organized so that they don't waste so much space. Single window mode does some of that. Actually, what I'd really like is customizable tool shelves where I can put my often-used tools from various windows and contexts and just turn everything else off most of the time. But I guess that's just too radical a concept for GIMP (and Photoshop too).

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[ChrisMaple]

but on most computers a single-window mode would be preferable.

The single-window photoshop configuration does cause some problems. Images disappear behind subwindows (like the layers subwindow) and can't be brought forward of the subwindow. To see the image, the subwindow has to be turned off, then turned back on a few seconds later when i need it again. Nuisance.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Grishnakh]

GIMP isn't going to become "the standard" by simply copying Photoshop in every single thing it does. To make a car analogy, when was the last time you saw a car company become a market leader by making an identical copy of their competitor's model, instead of making their own model?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[E IS mC(Square)]

>> They don't have aspirations of becoming the standard image editing app?

OMG!! THEY DON'T HAVE ASPIRATIONS!!

Yep, that's how Firefox, Thunderbid, Apache and all other Free/open/FOSS tools were conceived - let's become Photoshop, IE, Outlook and ISS.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[UnknownSoldier]

> And the photoshop people still don't switch, because it doesn't have their favourite plugin.

No, they don't switch because GIMP is crap. I have a PSD created in 2003 that GIMP still can't render properly ...

Wake me up when GIMP supports ...
- 16-bit/channel
- Effect Layers
- implements ALL the PS layer blend modes
- Layer Groups (nested layers)
- fixes it stupid name

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Machtyn]

I suppose you don't have a dual monitor setup then. Being able to put the tools on one screen while leaving the workspace on the main screen is very, very nice. Having a one window UI breaks that ability. Hopefully, this one window paradigm is not the default setting in the new GIMP.

The thing I would like fixed, at least for the MS Windows version is that the image window is always popped under all other applications, but it is focused. Therefore, I have to go through clicking on another window and then back to the image frame to get it on top.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Is0m0rph]

Haha too true. I use Gimp but I can't stand the UI on it. This will be a much welcome change for me.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[UnknownSoldier]

Forgot the most important option!

An option Out-Of-The-Box to have Photoshop key bindings / hotkeys.

If your users have to fuck around searching the Net for an alt. build / config just to set the default keys to something they are already familiar with, you're screwed.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[JDG1980]

The overwhelming majority of users run Windows and don't have multiple monitors. It makes no sense to optimize for the few at the expense of the many.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Machtyn]

Dabblers have to learn somehow. Once they figure out cool technique, they can then modify the steps to their flavor. The problem I have with the tutorials is that they are mostly written for older to much older versions of the GIMP. The latest version has changed its menu names and some options - so finding the function from the tutorial is not as easy as it used to be.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The FF team wanted to dethrone IE. They made a better product as a result. Is that what the Gimp community is aiming for as well or are they more in the mind-set of satisfying their own needs with it?

Seriously, it's a straight-forward question, not a set-up for an arguement.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Grishnakh]

The overwhelming majority of GIMP users run Windows? I figured most Windows users just used pirated versions of Photoshop.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[MightyYar]

Photographers know what I meant.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Uhyve]

If they were giving the identical car away for free I'm pretty sure it'd do well...

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[hairyfeet]

Oh good grief! You can't HONESTLY be saying the Gimp UI is professional, can you? You DO realize that was literally a kid's class project, yes? I'm fucking serious, look it up, it was a kid's class project and then he FOSSed it. You are literally trying to make us believe that a kid's class project is better than a piece of software that has had millions spent on R&D, and QA, and focus groups made up of top notch pro photographers.

As for why they won't use it.....uhhh...its a kid's class project which doesn't have the tools professionals need like CMYK, really good layer and object controls, and about a bazillion other things that makes their lives easier? But of course when it is pointed out what pros would need to consider using it guys like you will instantly pop up shouting don't care and you don't need that feature anyway! And you wonder why the FOSS "alternative" gets ignored for yet another year.

You want to gain share? it is actually quite simple, been used for hundreds of years, even before FOSS in fact! you see the public? Those people you snark at, look down on, and generally act like a giant ass to, like you are DOING RIGHT NOW? Yeah those are your CUSTOMERS. They are either your current customer or your potential customers, but either way they are the ones you want to walk in the door and "buy" or in this case use your software. And YES SPARKY you DO want them to use your software, why? because THAT is how you get support for the hardware like tablets and pens, that is how you get the plugin writers to write for you, that is how you get OEMs to install your software.

But instead of doing the most simple and logical of things, which is listen to your damned customers you spit upon them and tell them "Fuck u noob, our way is leet! U don't like it u go fix it uself or go back to photocrap LOL!"

And then you have the balls to wonder why they ignore you. Well sparky you are living proof why they ignore you. you are so delusional you honestly believe a kid's class project is more professional than a multimillion dollar software ecosystem, how's the koolaid BTW, is it cherry flavor?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[MightyYar]

Naturally. We are talking about an image processing program, right? And in the context of a discussion about why Photoshop users won't jump. Not only that, but GIMP quite obviously supports 16 total bits.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Machtyn]

Oh, good grief. The situation doesn't have to be black and white. Why can't both modes be implemented? (Just as long as the single window mode is NOT default.)

Tell me, how many graphics artists are out there that have only a single display? I hope not very many. For example, every "extras" I've seen on DVD movies that show the graphics artist doing his work shows that person with at least 2 displays (sometimes 3).

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Grishnakh]

What if you could get the "genuine" car (the one that was copied) for free too, just by going to the dealer's lot and driving away in one, and the likelihood of them calling the police or pursuing you for the theft was almost zero, and lots of people did it all the time? Why would anyone get the identical car? They'd certainly think to themselves that the original is better somehow, and that the copy isn't a perfect copy, but only a cheap superficial copy and is inferior in some way that's not immediately obvious.

After all, GIMP isn't going to copy Photoshop's source code line-by-line, it's just going to change itself to look and work more like PS, but obviously lots of things will be different. So why would anyone bother with GIMP just because it's free, when they can already get Photoshop for free?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Grishnakh]

They do? Some guy who bought a $500 entry-level DSLR from Costco, so he can take nice pictures on his vacation, knows what 16-bit-per-channel color is? I don't think so.

Or do you mean professional photographers? How many of those do you think there are on Slashdot? For that matter, how many of those are GIMP developers? This is Slashdot, not a pro photographer forum. When you say "16-bit color", it means 65,536 colors, and that's it.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[croddy]

If that's actually the case, then I strongly suggest that GIMP for Windows be forked off into a separate project to deal with the deficiencies of that OS's window manager. I am pretty sure most GIMP users run it on Linux, though, where the normal multi-window interface works really well.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[ehrichweiss]

You've just met one then. I've used GIMP since the 90's and I've worked professionally in print publishing since 2000. I used GIMP to accomplish effects that my PS peeps were utterly unable to accomplish because GIMP's open source nature allowed me to code my own plugins, which was nice since we had a limited budget for such things. One of our first uses was a photomosaic plugin(I think the code I modded for the SGI is still out there somewhere) for a front page of the paper.

Sure, it didn't do CYMK, etc. but we didn't even need the RGB->CMYK conversion done until 3 minutes before sending it off to the printer and Acrobat handled that for us automagically. I have PS laying around in case one of my clients gives me a file that requires it but I have used GIMP professionally a thousand times more than I have PS.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[UnknowingFool]

Dual window setup isn't an option when I'm on the road with my laptop. When my laptop is docked (which is rare), the multiple window mode still annoys me as the focus has problems as you mention. The multiwindow mode I suppose is better for power users who work in multiple layers at once. I'm not that kind of user.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot. The people technically competent enough to productively contribute to the conversation are capable of correctly navigating the ambiguities of varying terminological conventions (and probably have a better understanding than the average pro photographer about the nuances of image formats and camera sensor data). Those lacking actual competence will try to prove otherwise by engaging in nerdfights to defend their inflexible terminological dogmatics. (P.S.: You do realize that most digital cameras are literally 12-14bits/pixel devices, plus clever interpolation to synthesize full color information from neighboring pixels?)

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[MightyYar]

When you say "16-bit color", it means 65,536 colors, and that's it.

Okay, God. LOL. GIMP doesn't support 65,536 colors like 1980s MacPaint.

But just go on assuming that I'm an idiot.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[dgatwood]

Agreed. Single-window design isn't the solution. The solution is fixing the floating palettes so you don't have to click twice, and all the other UI abortions that GIMP is guilty of. If a single-window design is the only way to solve those problems, then that means X11 needs a fairly fundamental redesign.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[dgatwood]

Agreed. Calling it 16-bit color is just plain abusing the terminology. The correct term is "16-bit channels", not "16-bit color". Alternatively, one can call it "48-bit color".

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree with you, except that photoshop handles multiple monitors in single-window just fine. The important part is that all of the functionality that's in any kind of menu or palette be clear, easy to get to, and associated with the thing you're working on. Gimp gets this wrong and always has.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ha-ha! No one cares about GIMP that's why assholes like myself have to put it down every time it's mentioned, because no one cares and my pirated copy of Photoshop makes my dick bigger*. And since I have a big dick, I can claim to speak for everyone!"

* only in digital pictures of said dick

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[arose]

I'm so delusional I honestly believe that a kid's exercise in scheduling the printing of A and B just for fun is at least as good of server than a multimillion dollar software ecosystem. Now could you drop the origin bullshit, it doesn't matter where things start, only where they are now.

PS: A bad hack of an early version of this school project was better for film retouching than Photoshop, explain that with your "logic" of origins.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[arose]

They also know that raw is an acronym.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that GIMP's palette mode only supports up to 256 colors, and the "Indexed" dialog will clamp 65536 down to 256.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[couchslug]

As long as Photoshop is the standard and Adobe doesn't go insane with copy protection, there is no (non-ideological) reason for most users not to use Photoshop on Windows systems.

As with Office 97, being able to use a legal copy at work yet pay nothing for home use makes the parent company a fucktillion dollars by chumming the market.

If Adobe moves to heavy copy protection they will lose market share.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[marcansoft]

Even if we assume your interpretation, you're still horribly confused. You're mixing up 16-bit indexed images (16 bits per palette index), which pretty much don't exist (and which GIMP doesn't support - if you actually try what you just described you'll see that GIMP clamps the number of colors down to 256) and 16-bit RGB images (RGB 5-6-5), which do exist in many embedded devices, and which as far as I can tell GIMP has no support for either (other than perhaps via a plugin). I had to dither/quantize a PNG down to 16-bit RGB565 color recently and I ended up having to resort to an ImageMagick recipe, because GIMP couldn't do it. I also suspect you might also be confusing all of this with 16-color (4-bit) images, given that you mentioned bootloaders (grub1 bootloader backgrounds are 14-color images, i.e. 16 colors minus two reserved colors, that *can* in fact be made using GIMP's indexed mode).

16 bits per channel RGB != 16-bit indexed != 16-bit RGB565 != 16-color (4-bit) indexed. Get them straight.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Gordonjcp]

Exactly - Photoshop is an unusable piece of crap *simply because of this stupid single-window thing*. I already have a perfectly good window manager. Let *it* manage the damn windows, and stop trying to run another half-assed excuse for a window manager *inside a damn window*, of all the retarded places to do it.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[tomhudson]

Single-window mode is handy if you also have other programs open (like many people do). It's a pain to start gimp, then realize that you should have switched to the next desktop because it will stuff so many windows on your screen once you open a dozen files that it needs its own desktop - then not be able to drag stuff into it because it's no longer on the same desktop as other applications.

For those who only use it to edit one picture at a time (and for those who are complaining but never actually USE it), it's no big deal, but the fact that you are complaining about an improvement that many want makes me wonder if you even have a dog in this debate.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[silverglade00]

(Just as long as the single window mode is NOT default.)

How about it asks you during installation/upgrade? A picture of the two modes and you click on the choice you want. It will tell you that you can switch at any time by going to Menu -> Menu Item. There could also be a checkbox for "Send my choice to the developers to vote for this as the default setting." Another checkbox for "Always use this choice when upgrading."

To everyone, not just the parent:
Does EVERYTHING have to be a freaking fight? The crybabies here want choice until the choice presented is not THEIR choice. Make it a damn choice, choose the one you want and get on with life. Damn, people... I thought we were nerds and geeks here. Do you people really not go through all the menu items (or .conf file) on installation and configure it just right anyway?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[cyberstealth1024]

mod parent up. I've used Photoshop since version 5.5 (not CS 5. just 5.5) and love it. I'm not a professional user by any means, but I've tried to use GIMP, and I just can't get used to the GIMP UI.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[cyberstealth1024]

PS: A bad hack of an early version of this school project was better for film retouching than Photoshop, explain that with your "logic" of origins.

fluke.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Kjella]

Computer graphics systems have used this terminology since the 80s

And stopped using them in the 90s, I don't think a young person today has ever seen a 16 bit color device nor know WTF it is, even the geeky ones. Or maybe the 00s for mobile devices I guess. That there once was a time when computers didn't have real colors is like hearing there used to be black & white TVs and movies, it's like back in the stone age some time and we're cave men.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[PwnzerDragoon]

A guy who bought an entry-level camera from Costco doesn't care how many bits his channels have. GIMP's support (or lack thereof) for 16-bit channels are irrelevant to him. Any halfway-decent editor will support 16/24/32 bits-per-pixel images, so when someone is discussing 16-bit color support in regards to photo editors the default assumption is that it refers to bits per channel. Context is everything.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just met one then. I've used GIMP since the 90's and I've worked professionally in print publishing since 2000. I used GIMP to accomplish effects that my PS peeps were utterly unable to accomplish because GIMP's open source nature allowed me to code my own plugins, which was nice since we had a limited budget for such things.

I just checked Adobe's website, and it looks like the Photoshop plugin SDK is a free download. That doesn't say it was always so, of course, but I doubt it ever was significantly different -- I remember tons of free hobbyist PS plugins back in the day.

I don't think it's true at all that your "PS peeps" couldn't have done these effects because PS isn't open source. It's much more likely that they couldn't because (a) they aren't programmers and thus must rely on others to write plugins, and (b) at least one programmer who was available as a resource to them (you) was so blinkered by the "open source == good, closed == bad" mentality that he didn't even bother to find out if he could write a plugin for PS before concluding that he couldn't. Am I far wrong?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[WhiteDragon]

The overwhelming majority of users run Windows and don't have multiple monitors. It makes no sense to optimize for the few at the expense of the many.

even if one is stuck with Windows (I have to use it at work), why would somebody actually do graphics work on a single monitor?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[mccrew]

Kia. Hyundai.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[leenks]

Sounds like you need a new window manager?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[mabhatter654]

I'd give up the multiple monitor and gobs of little pallets for a streamlined Full screen, "Kai"-like interface for us newbies. Most people use laptops now, so The Gimp would get more mileage building a streamlined interface, with fewer gadgets and better previewing features.
People are mopping up apps on iPhones and iPads .... THAT is what Gimp needs to target versus Photoshop.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Webz]

That's a marketing/perception thing, which is completely non-technical. I'm not saying it isn't a great idea, but such things are normally outside the programmer wheelhouse.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[mabhatter654]

The problem is that Gimp needs to go after mobile and laptop apps ... Lighten up, build a streamlined branch that can port to iPads and android!! Inkscape needs the same treatment...

The computing world moved to MUCH simpler apps... OSS apps should be jumping at the new expectations.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Grishnakh]

What are you talking about? Those were never identical-looking copies, they were just inexpensive cars when they started out.

Are you going to call the Yugo a copy too? It wasn't a copy of anything, it was just a dirt-cheap car.

Hyundais and Kias have never even had the same kind of styling as the Japanese cars they were trying to take marketshare away from; Korean styling is distinctly different from Japanese styling.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother pirating Photoshop when GIMP does everything I need?

I use it for game modding, there are plugins to support the formats I need. It's widely used in the modding communities I'm familiar with.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[arose]

According to the reasoning that one has to be 'delusional' to believe that a school project is more professional than a multimillion dollar project it is not a fluke. Clearly everyone involved in picking that as their tool was delusional. The logic is flawed because whether or not something is professional depends solely on a professional's decision to use it.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Savantissimo]

The dabblers complain about GIMP, the pros ignore it entirely, and with good reason.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[he-sk]

You can put the Photoshop toolboxes on a separate monitor. That feature has been available since forever.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[hairyfeet]

Riiiight. Because all those millions spent on R&D, QA, focus groups, none of that actually exists or even matters! nope because a single kid with a class project can totally whip the shit out of that! Oh and Matthew Broderick could totally start WWIII with nothing but a modem and a shitty IBM, cause everybody knows there is NO security with those craaaazy nukes!

How about it fucking matters because that is how you make software better dumbass, you pay for R&D, and a shitload of QA, and focus groups and beta tests and a shitload of guys for document writing and bug fixes.

But hey, you don't need all that shit, right? You can just do like RMS and get a third world quality Loongson ARM POS and WGET web pages, software piffle, all you need is a term and some punch cards daddy-o! that is how the neckbeards that the FOSSies so desperately want to emulate did it, right? That is why RMS calls users "hackers" like it is still 75, right? quality software is for suckers, why there is even a TM for that!

BTW if you could do us both a favor and just link to the TM you are gonna use, it'd make both our lives easier, thanks. After all it has been the same BS for so long there is a TM for all occasions, so just link to the correct TM and call it a day. for example I figure you'll respond with one of these four but since there is about 100 stock FOSSies phrases I can never be sure, so feel free to go and pick the TM that most suits the BS you'll say and save us some time, kay? cause i'm swamped, the graphics artists want quads now for their Solidworks and Photoshops. Have you seen that stuff? brilliant software.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

(P.S.: You do realize that most digital cameras are literally 12-14bits/pixel devices, plus clever interpolation to synthesize full color information from neighboring pixels?)

So what? It's already much more than what GIMP handles. Besides it's very practical because you can typically correct exposure, bring out details from shadow and squeeze a higher dynamic range the way you want. Moreover, for real 32bit HDR, it's as simple as doing exposure bracketing and merging all the photos. > 8bit is not just gear/software gimmick, it's not like everyone just design textures for Quake...

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[arose]

Cheap shilling of your site + not being able to keep artists and drafters straight. Troll.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[ehrichweiss]

Yes, you are WAY wrong, so wrong you either avoided or didn't even know to look for some things.

First of all, find me a free compiler that would work with Adobe's SDK from around Y2K. Go ahead, I'll wait. Remember, I said our budget didn't really have room for a lot of things and a compiler that would work with the SDK cost quite a bit back then. To add to your difficulty, you might note that since we were publishing, we were also using Apple primarily thereby it wasn't going to be cheap by any stretch of the imagination. So keep telling yourself how I didn't think of any of this and how I'm blinded by the fact that I was able to do something for free that would have cost the paper a few thousand dollars before we even got started if that makes you feel better about your purchases but rest assured that you're not as bright as you want to make everyone thing you are, Mr. Adobe shill.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[atomicbutterfly]

Let's say, for example, that GIMP has an extra awesome macro-recording/playback capability that makes Photoshop look like a toy in comparison. (I don't know if this is the case or not so please forgive my ignorance.)

I forgive your ignorance, but I feel compelled to respond here by saying that it's actually the other way around. Photoshop has an awesome recording/playback capability (called Actions). You just hit record, perform the steps you desire, hit stop and there you go.

With the GIMP the nearest equivalent are scripts, but you have to write them yourself using a pseudo-scripting language. There's no simple recording feature, and I wasn't going to sit and waste time learn how to code up a script for an equivalent workflow of what I was used to doing in Photoshop, because the scripting is actually very complicated, particularly if you can't find the commands to do what you want.

People have complained about this (from 2001! - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51937), but nothing has happened because as the last post in said thread says, "we simply don't have
enough developers."

I won't bug them about it, but I won't bother with GIMP anymore because it simply lacks easy of use and important functionality. Open source doesn't always work in practice.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking out loud here, as I haven't done enough graphics work to know what works in practice (professionally, I'm an engineer, and of course some of the same problems apply when you start undocking toolbars and splattering them across two monitors, but they only give me a single 21" CRT at work; I have two multiheaded personal systems, which are rather underutilized), but you describe a credible problem that deserves a solution -- however, I still don't see single-window as the best solution feasible.

First line of defense is simply limiting the distance, by stacking your auxiliary monitor above or below your T221 or Cinema display, thus leaving your workspace along the short dimension rather than the long dimension. This cuts your average distance to edge from 1920px down to 1200px -- a modest improvement of 1/3. You can do this even if your monitors are physically side-by-side, you'll get used to it in a few days, but it'll bug the hell out of anyone else using it. ;)

Second, I use a gaming mouse with selectable counts/inch on my 1xT221 + 1x1080p rig; this reduces the mouse distance for a given traverse by a factor of 4 (or 8), while still permitting sensitive control locally.

Better yet, we all know you can put a touchscreen on a monitor, or buy one with a touchscreen (used to be expensive, but now there's some consumer-targeted=cheap 22" 1080p touchscreen). So get a cheap touchscreen monitor (doesn't need to be calibrated or anything, even a TN panel would be tolerable), lying at a low angle (20degrees or so) to avoid ape-arm, and use your fingers for that... I suppose it might not help much with a tablet, unless you work with the tablet mounted to the desk instead of held with your off-hand -- that's a part of the picture that I as an engineer hadn't seen. Also, there's a gotcha for mouse use -- you need an extra bit of code to warp the cursor back to its previous location, else you touch one of the toolbars, and then have to slide your mouse 2 feet to get back up; I don't know if there's a script to handle this, or if it can more-or-less be automatic under multitouch/multicursor, but it should be pretty easy.

This last one, actually, is something I'm working on. I still need to patch my kernel and/or Xorg to support the new multitouch monitor (Dell ST2220T) I got a couple weeks back (I saw some people had success before I bought it, but haven't looked up the details yet), then I'll be looking into that script. I don't know how things will work out yet, but to me it seems like a more logical solution than cramming everything into one screen.

Finally, you do know about the Tab key in the GIMP, right? You can leave your toolbars splattered across the image area, and just use tab to hide/summon them -- sounds like a better fix than single-window mode under the work style you've described...

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[2.7182]

Yes! Down with the clicking twice. I use it regularly and still don't feel comfortable with it. It's just all sort of out of sync with what I expect.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's not correct, but a Q&D way of accomplishing RGB565 dithering in the GIMP is to create a new layer, use the noise filter to stuff it with randomness, and then use Levels to scale the noise appropriately (0-7 for R and B, 2-5 for G), and set the blending mode to "Add". Obviously, this creates a positive bias -- another layer could be added (mode "Subtract") to remove it, but it was good enough for my application.

I was converting 5040x1050 tri-screen wallpapers from digitalblasphemy down to 3x800x480 wallpapers for my N900; since some manual editing was required (a comparison of aspect ratios will show there's a 96px gap on one side, and I was doing shenanigans to combine a manually selected part of the image and the "digital blasphemy" logotype in that strip), I needed to run it through the GIMP for that, and I was determined to avoid scripting external tools (netpbm or imagemagick) as well. I saved a template with the logotype mask and dithering layers in it, and a script to chop it and save the 4 pieces as 24-bit jpegs (which the N900 then ignores the last 3/2/3 bits of).

It's pretty galling that I had to jump through those hoops though, and _still_ didn't get a clean RGB565 image (which I can only assume would have compressed better, by virtue of not preserving 8 bits/pixel of utterly useless information).

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[dgatwood]

I couldn't disagree more.

First, people want simplified user interfaces on tablet-based devices because the hardware design (touching the actual screen) cannot handle more complex user interfaces. I'm not convinced that dumbing down the desktop to look like mobile devices is a win for anyone. Different devices are best served by different interfaces.

Second, for the people who want simplified UIs, there are already plenty of cheap or free apps out there that provide basic drawing (or, more commonly, basic photo cropping, scaling, and color correction, which turns out to be what 99% of novice graphics work entails). For GIMP to be useful, it needs to focus more on the underserved high end, not the thoroughly served low end.

A streamlined interface for newbies certainly isn't a bad idea for tripling the newbie traffic on the help mailing lists, if that's your goal, but it benefits few current GIMP users, whereas fixing the flaws in the existing UI would help current users and would make it more attractive to (moderately advanced) new users as well.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[gullevek]

This is a non argument. Photoshop for Mac doesn't have a single GUI interface either, just because the Windows version has.

I personally think the single Window interface is horrible.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it works better. Ever used Wacom?

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually many, many design studios often have graphics artist working with a single monitor. Video editing, 3D and such may be another matter.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[_0xd0ad]

The way I'd have attempted to do that is separating the 3 channels (hide two then shift-ctrl-c to copy the visible image), then separately dither them either to custom palettes with 32/64 shades of R/G/B or use the levels tool to quantize them (0-255 -> 0-32/64 -> 0-255), depending on whether or not I wanted them dithered or just plain converted. Then recombine them into a single image using layer mode "addition".

I'm not sure why you're going to the trouble, though, if you're saving them as JPEG. It's lossy compression... it doesn't save 8 bits per channel anyhow.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[_0xd0ad]

*facepalm* obviously I meant 0-31/63, not 0-32/64.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[_0xd0ad]

Don't forget that GIMP's palette mode only supports up to 256 colors

So do indexed PNGs, so I don't understand what the big deal is. Indexed PNGs can contain a full 24 bits per palette entry but only 8 bits per pixel, so you're limited to a palette size of 256. Unless the Wikipedia article was wrong about that...

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[DaVince21]

Are they supposed to switch? They bought an expensive graphics package, for crying out loud.

No, the GIMP is more useful for people who like me, who don't even want to think about cashing out too much cash for something that is ultimately only marginally better than the GIMP.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[DaVince21]

But also more bugs.

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[hairyfeet]

So you choose #1 correct? I got it in 1, woo hoo! Oh and it isn't my site, I just found it when hearing the same string of horseshit from FOSSies over and over AND OVER again. It is ALWAYS "U no leet, u M$ Ninja!" if you don't suck teh koolaid, it is always "U don't need that" and "Freedom by missing features" and "freedom of hypocrisy".

So please, wrap that tux blankie tightly over your head, or even better pull it over your head while you cry "Why are u picking on us? Leave poo Gimpie alone!" maybe you and the Britney guy can team up on Youtube!

it will NOT change the facts. FACT-It is a lame piece of software written as a kid's class project. FACT-It is a bad joke and the fact that dumbasses like you even have the nerve to compare in the same breath to professionally written software is both an insult to real software as well as the intelligence of anyone who has actually tried your garbage, FACT-It has abysmal support for things that ALL commercial photo software has had FOR A DECADE or MORE, such as CMYK, Decent layer and object control, hell I could write a fucking book on all the shit Gimp CAN'T do, and finally FACT- While I'm sure it gives neckbeards a chuckle to say "bring out the Gimp" it has to be the worst fucking name you could have possibly used. what's next Goatse email client? Its open!

But don't worry I simply added FOSS to my list of "things I should ignore" so you can go back to your circle jerks while myself and the professional world ignores your asses. You go be leet little tuxie, nobody fucking cares. hey maybe you can pay RMS with a sandwich to sing the hacker song for you!

Re:Don't they do this every couple of years?

[Lanteran]

That it started as a project, hobby, whatever is totally irrelevant. I'd have to say that most people wanting GIMP to copy photoshop (though of course there are exceptions) are not the professionals, they are the newbies who are used to photoshop because they pirated it. GIMP's UI is excellent on a multi-monitor setup as has been mentioned before- and I think it's better than photoshop's even without. There's no reason to ditch one of its best features for the sake of copying photoshop to get these users- wait... yeah I think I told you the exact same thing the other day about the command line in linux.

Suffice to say, (FOSS PROJECT X) does not need to gain users from (PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE Y) by copying (Y) (especially if it means removing incredibly useful features), it needs to do it by being better than (Y). Bitching about the somewhat unconventional UI is detracting from the technical shortcomings of GIMP, which are numerous in comparison to photoshop. The learning curve is not steep, it [the UI] is rewarding, and lacking features will turn potential users away.

to be competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

It needs (A) not just single window mode, but a complete overhaul of the UI and manner of operation to make it more intuitive, and (B) GPU acceleration. Among other things! It lacks many professional features.

Re:to be competitive

[datapharmer]

Can I add proper detection of image dpi to you list? Gimp seems to think every jpeg is 72dpi which is kind of a non-starter when using it for anything but web images.

Re:to be competitive

[maxwell demon]

Actually I consider it very intuitive. Maybe it's because I've not been trained by Photoshop, and thus don't confuse "it works like Photoshop" with "it is intuitive".

But if they now have a Photoshop-like MDI interface, maybe they can undo some negative changes in the multi-window interface (like, add back the main menu to the tools window and don't force an otherwise useless image window without an image to be open just to have the main menu available). The Photoshop-UI-lovers can just use the MDI interface.

Re:to be competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Just smashing all those floating windows into a single-window mode shows that the developers actually had no idea what users were wanting. The GUI just looks atrocious. The saddest part is this actually took years of work to do.

Re:to be competitive

[R_Dorothy]

+1. I've been using GIMP for over a decade and recently had to start using Photoshop and, when you are used to GIMP, there's nothing intuitive about Photoshop's UI. I'm not saying GIMP is intuitive either but, if you are heavily invested in one program, then trying to achieve even a simple task in the other is going to make the UI seem like hard work.

Re:to be competitive

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, I love the people who think that Photoshop's UI is intuitive because they have been working with it for years. My wife plays Second Life. Another friend of ours develops content for Second Life (he actually makes pretty good money at it). He came out with a new product a couple of months ago and was very proud of his "intuitive" user interface for making modifications to it. My wife tried it out and found it difficult to figure out She told him that he needed to make it simpler and easier to understand. His response was, "What's the problem? It is intuitive, it works just like in Photoshop." She explained to him that she had never worked with Photoshop and had no idea how Photoshop worked and that neither would most of his potential customers.

Re:to be competitive

[arose]

You can not "detect" DPI as it is meta information. There literally isn't anything in the image data that it could be derived from, you can tell it what the DPI should be, that's as good as it gets.

Re:to be competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I consider it very intuitive. Maybe it's because I've not been trained by Photoshop, and thus don't confuse "it works like Photoshop" with "it is intuitive".

What you don't seem to realize is that you're playing exactly the same game: using your familiarity with the Gimp as an excuse to think it's intuitive when it is far from it.

I don't use Photoshop. On the rare occasions I've tried to, I didn't get very far. But it seemed like a fairly standard professional's tool: an app with an interface which is complicated because the needs of its users are complicated.

I don't use the Gimp either. On the rare occasions I've tried to, I was induced to a state of white-hot rage, all due to the amazingly horrible UI. It was literally the worst GUI program I have ever used, of any type. My reaction to Photoshop's UI can be distilled to "meh, this is a bit baroque, but I could learn it if I wanted to." My reaction to the Gimp was "I would like to kick the designers of this UI in the balls until they agree to stop writing computer software. Humanity will thank me."

Keep in mind that in my profession, I routinely have to use very user-unfriendly software. EDA tools have a limited and very deeply geeky professional audience (electrical engineers), so usability is almost never in the front seat. The Gimp blows them all away in sheer maddening unusability, or did the last time I bothered to try, which was probably ten years ago. It earned itself a lifetime ban from me. I literally don't care how much anyone says it's improved; the scars are too deep.

Re:to be competitive

[leenks]

What about metadata that tells it?

Re:to be competitive

[arose]

Depends on whether the given metadata is understood by GIMP. If it doesn't read the metadata of a given format correctly you might want to file a bug/feature request.

Anyway, datapharmer complained about JPEGs in particular. Thing is, most cameras explicitly specify a DPI of 72, you can hardly blame GIMP for using that.

Re:to be competitive

[Savantissimo]

I wish programs for monitors and cameras would not say DPI. It's PPI, pixels per inch, which is not at all the same thing as the DPI that a printer produces.

Re:to be competitive

[maxwell demon]

What you don't seem to realize is that you're playing exactly the same game: using your familiarity with the Gimp as an excuse to think it's intuitive when it is far from it.

I said "I consider it very intuitive" not "it is very intuitive". That's a big difference.

The Gimp blows them all away in sheer maddening unusability, or did the last time I bothered to try, which was probably ten years ago.

The UI 10 years ago was very different from today. It didn't even have a menu bar back then!

It earned itself a lifetime ban from me. I literally don't care how much anyone says it's improved; the scars are too deep.

Well, it's OK if you decided for yourself that you don't want to look at it again, it's your decision. However if you have no idea what the interface looks like today, you should refrain from claiming it to be very bad. You simply don't know the current interface, therefore you're simply not qualified to say whether it's good or bad.

Note that I don't say the GIMP UI is perfect. It isn't. But overall I consider it quite well. It allowed me to discover a lot of functionality without reading manuals or tutorials.

NOOOOO!!!!

[MightyYar]

I just learned the old interface! :)

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[tepples]

It's not clear from the summary or even the article whether the new single-window mode can be turned off. Nor is it clear whether I can try GIMP 2.7.3 (development channel) for Windows on the same system as my existing 2.6.11 (stable channel) installations.

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Single-Window mode has to be explicitly turned ON.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/08/gimp-2-7-3-released-working-single-window-mode-layer-groups/

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be turned off, it is not, afaik, even turned on by default.

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And the only reason people demanded a single-window interface, is because their window manager is so retarded* (hello Windows! ^^) and because Gimp didt't work with it to enable smart and snapping positioning. Otherwise one can easily do all the stuff that you can do with those panels in e.g. Photoshop with the window manager. And IMO, that's how it should be.
People are just too ignorant.

Interestingly, Compiz is the best tool for that job. People who hear Compiz often think "pointless bling". But actually, you can simply not enable all that bling, but enable the smart functionalities, like forced window positioning/resizing, quick keyboard combos for window layouting, etc, etc. Add a bit of shell scripting and usage of dbus (e.g. via qdbus), put user-controlled mode switching on shortcuts, and voila, all windows always act exactly like you want them to.
No stupid clicking on the title bar to drag or on the border to resize. No dragging or manual resizing at all even. Just one keyboard combo, and boob, everything is perfect!

But what am I doing, telling this to a bunch of people who stopped being geeks, bought Apple devices, and started treating their universally and easily programmable machine as a gadget or appliance?

* And I didn't realize this either, until I got accustomed to my regained freedom.

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[doubleplusungodly]

Last time I checked, GIMP offered the user the choice between choosing whether to use single-window or multi-window interfaces.

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[wsanders]

Don't worry, all the controls are in the window, leaving you a 150 by 150 pixel region to view your image.

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[MightyYar]

I thought you were going somewhere and then you turned it into an Apple rant? LOL.

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[jgrahn]

I just learned the old interface! :)

I recently upgraded from the older interface to the old (with a big empty window with a smirking coyote when I'm not editing an image), and I don't like it at all. I suppose I will dislike the new one even more, when it hits my Linux installation in a few years.

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, Compiz is the best tool for that job. People who hear Compiz often think "pointless bling". But actually, you can simply not enable all that bling, but enable the smart functionalities, like forced window positioning/resizing, quick keyboard combos for window layouting, etc, etc. Add a bit of shell scripting and usage of dbus (e.g. via qdbus), put user-controlled mode switching on shortcuts, and voila, all windows always act exactly like you want them to.
No stupid clicking on the title bar to drag or on the border to resize. No dragging or manual resizing at all even. Just one keyboard combo, and boob, everything is perfect!

And you don't think that there's anything at all wrong with needing to go to these measures?

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[DaVince21]

http://partha.com/ has Windows builds for the GIMP. You don't have to keep 2.6.11 because single-window mode has to be turned on by the user.

Hasn't this been around awhile?

[Anonymous Coward]

I started my new job 4 months ago. This was one of the features that I hated about gimp that they *had* added which makes it easier for me personally to work with. Dare I say, 'more like photoshop?'

Re:Hasn't this been around awhile?

[carcomp]

Sorry, claiming my comment.

Re:Hasn't this been around awhile?

[hattig]

I think you installed GimpShop by accident.

YES!

[Anonymous Coward]

For so long I've waited. Now my dreams have been realized.

Re:YES!

[carcomp]

You still have to fight the layers system when working with PSD files though. ARGHH why do designers get CS5 and us web guys get to use whatever we can find ;)

Re:YES!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Could I trouble you to elaborate more on what you mean by 'fight the layers system'?

Just curious.

Read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is single window mode and what will it buy me?

Re:Read the article

[mdmkolbe]

Seconded! I want pics!

Re:Read the article

[asdf7890]

So what is single window mode and what will it buy me?

The current GIMP interface is a multi-window affair which many find hard to grasp for one reason or another, or just find inconvenient.

A single window environment will improve your productivity if:
* you have trouble with the existing interface
* you have never used the existing interface, and are trying the program after using other graphics tools (i.e. less retraining effort as it should in theory be closer to what you are already used to using)
* you just don't like the existing interface

I'm quite happy with GIMP the way it is, though I would probably be quite happy with the single-window mode too if that became default (caveat: I don't do a lot of graphics editing, so I can't claim my opinions on the matter come from a position of expertise). I think the multi-window arrangement made more sense than it does now back when focus-follows-mouse was the dominant focus control method in unix-a-like environments, but almost everyone now uses click-to-focus.

That's development release

[Pecisk]

Use it with care, as it is development release with rather large rewrites and therefore not suitable for production use. For this release I honestly don't care about single window mode as I'm not Windows drone - GEGL improvements and usage, new text entry mode, and lot of other small improvements interests me more.

Official release in fall/spring (as far as I understood).

Re:That's development release

[hattig]

Does it now include effect layers and better text support?

I remember playing with Gimp in 1998, and in many ways it just hasn't moved forward UI-wise. It will be interesting to see how, err, gimped this single-window UI is.

Re:That's development release

[isopropanol]

Still no 16 bit per pixel images (it can import them, but not work in 16 bit).

Re:That's development release

[mwvdlee]

For this release I honestly don't care about single window mode as I'm not Windows drone

Only Windows can do single window mode? Linux always has either none or multiple windows?
Otherwise how would caring about single window mode require one to be a Windows drone?

I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click. Particularly the visually distraction of it all. Ever noticed how Photoshop has a very dull and gray interface?

Re:That's development release

[isopropanol]

erm .. I mean 16 bit per channel.

Re:That's development release

[maxwell demon]

Only Windows can do single window mode?

Of course programs on other operating systems could do "single window mode" (i.e. MDI). However normally only programs on Windows do.

Linux always has either none or multiple windows?

"Single window mode" here means MDI, i.e. having a single main window with subwindows instead of multiple independent windows.

I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click. Particularly the visually distraction of it all. Ever noticed how Photoshop has a very dull and gray interface?

Nobody forces you to have a distracting background. And if the desktop GIMP is running on contains any windows other than those related to your image editing (which may include non-GIMP windows), well, why did you open them on that desktop to begin with?

Re:That's development release

[EvanED]

Otherwise how would caring about single window mode require one to be a Windows drone?

"Require" is a strong word, but my long-term impression of the Gimp is that it is fine if you can give it its own virtual desktop, and moderately unusable if you can't.

Practically speaking, what that translates to is that it works fine in Linux and is moderately unusable in Windows; not many people have a virtual desktop application for Windows. (They do exist, and are definitely usable, but they aren't as smooth as WMs on Linux.)

Things are better than they used to be though. I'm not sure about this because I haven't used it in a while, but I think the Gimp will now raise all its tool windows when you raise one. Before that it was almost completely unusable if you couldn't devote a virtual desktop.

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

You can track the progress leading up to the official release here: http://tasktaste.com/projects/Enselic/gimp-2-8

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

On Linux, the multiple-window thing is manageable - you just throw the Gimp windows on a separate desktop (maybe set the desktop background to something dull and grey, if you like). If you have it on the same desktop as other applications, you're going to have problems, because it's very easy to have some of the Gimp's windows at the front, while others are hidden behind other windows. You could work around that by making some of the windows always-on-top. It still sucks, but at least you can actually use the thing.

You have the same issues on Windows (focus problems, having loads of extra entries in the taskbar), but you can't really work around them as easily without additional software (that, generally, only Linux users would have).

It's also manageable on a Mac. You have Spaces, which are equivalent to virtual desktops, but you don't need them. Window management works a bit differently on a Mac - when you switch to an application (or an application's window), all of the windows associated with that application are bought to the front. You can't accidentally click on an icon in a background window either - clicking on a background window brings that application to the front, and nothing more. You've also got the application-level menu bar, and applications keep running even if they have no windows open.

The Mac version of Photoshop used to be multiple-window until CS3 or CS4. It worked just fine. Admittedly, their implementation was better than Gimp's, and the multiple-window thing works better on a Mac than it does on Windows (or Linux). I think they only changed it to be consistent with the Windows version. Pixelmator still has a multiple-window interface. So does Xcode, come to think of it.

I think the Gimp's problem wasn't really the multiple window thing. The problem was that their implementation sucked. There are plenty of things they could have done to make it more usable. They didn't do any of them.

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

"I remember playing with Gimp in 1998, "

and therefore do not have any right to talk about it.

Go download it, try it and then you are allowed to post about it. Otherwise you are just a mee too wanting to flap your lips about something you barely remember correctly.

Re:That's development release

[lgarner]

I like the multi-window interface, and I'm not even a Linux drone. What I'd really like is better printer support, but for now will print from PS Elements.

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is Linux doesn't on single window as much because it was more common to use multiple virtual desktops. And I did enjoy spreading my GIMP windows over a couple of desktops, so I doubt I'll use the single window mode.

That wasn't common under Windows.
In current stable GIMP, they even moved most functions to a bar just above the main edit window, so you could always work that way for each image window.

Could be due to the different window modes as well. Pinning windows, or windows always on top, isn't common under Windows either.

As for distraction... If that's a problem for you, why not just use a plain desktop background? Heck. Don't even really need any icons on it. That's been less common these days.

Perhaps you could even just put a little discreet console info dumped to the root window in the corner or something.

Personally. I'm glad that GIMP has a new option now. It is a shame that Photoshop will never support a more flexible mode as GIMP does, but what can you do.

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't care about single window mode as I'm not Windows drone.

Great! You must be glad, then, as you're not a Windows drone and this is what was missing for the year of the linux on the Dekstop to become true.

Re:That's development release

[aztracker1]

I'm actually more fond of Pinta (or Paint.Net), as a layout, which is a lot like Paint Shop Pro used to be (prior to version X), though it's slid down hill imho since 7-8.

Re:That's development release

[Andreas Mayer]

Window management works a bit differently on a Mac - when you switch to an application (or an application's window), all of the windows associated with that application are bought to the front.

That's wrong. Normal windows on the Mac interleave. But you can create windows that are always on top or windows that are only visible when their application is frontmost.

You can't accidentally click on an icon in a background window either - clicking on a background window brings that application to the front, and nothing more.

That, too, is wrong. It's up to the application if a widget is usable in the background.

and applications keep running even if they have no windows open.

Yes, that's the norm, especially for document centric applications. But there are others. (And in Lion the system can decide to terminate an application on it's own - if it has no visible windows - or keep it's process active even if the user told the application to quit. But I guess your point was that an application may run without displaying a window, which is true in any case.)

Pixelmator still has a multiple-window interface. So does Xcode, come to think of it.

Xcode 4.x is mostly single window. And of course, Lion now provides API for fullscreen windows.

I think the Gimp's problem wasn't really the multiple window thing. The problem was that their implementation sucked. There are plenty of things they could have done to make it more usable. They didn't do any of them.

There's not even a real Mac version. What you can get is a straight portet binary that runs under X11. That's a no-go right there.

The GIMP seems to be predominately a Linux/Unix-Application with a windows port as an afterthought. And it's popular mostly because there is no Linux version of Photoshop. (Nor any other commercial equivalent that I know of.)

Re:That's development release

[Unequivocal]

I tried and tried to make gimp work but it's just (interface-wise) a total POS. Maybe this new version will fix things. I happen to be on Windows and if you're in the same boat, I'd suggest anyone interested take a look at this program: http://www.getpaint.net/

Free (as in beer) also, and made it so much easier for me to take care of basic graphics activities than gimp. FWIW.

Re:That's development release

[Hatta]

Otherwise how would caring about single window mode require one to be a Windows drone?

The only reason to require single window mode is if your window manager is broken. If you're on UNIX, you can just get a wm that works. If you're on windows, you're screwed.

I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click.

So dedicate a virtual desktop to the multiple window version of the GIMP and maximize the image. You don't have to see anything you don't want to see.

Re:That's development release

[TeknoHog]

I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click.

My thoughts exactly. This is why I use Linux with a simple window manager, with one virtual screen per each task. No icons, panels, taskbars etc. to distract me.

Re:That's development release

[jalefkowit]

There's an effort underway to make a Paint.NET-alike for Linux, but it's currently extremely rough. Which is too bad, because Paint.NET on Linux would be nice.

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one think it's nice to be able to have the screen focused on a single purpose without a distracting background or icons and windows you might accidentally click. Particularly the visually distraction of it all. Ever noticed how Photoshop has a very dull and gray interface?

It's not really about avoiding distraction, the background is your reference. All serious software where you work with color in any way has a neutral background, usually dark grey. It is really hard to judge if an image has an unwanted tint if the surroundings are tinted in any way, the surrounding walls and images become your reference of what is neutral. I worked at a tv-station a while ago, the video editing rooms had neutral lights, gray mat and gray walls.

Re:That's development release

[Qzukk]

When Paint.NET allows me to scroll past the edge of the canvas so I can get to the corners of my image without having to either drag all the toolbars into the center of the window or turn them all off, then we'll talk about great interfaces.

Of course, I suppose I COULD drag the Paint.net toolboxes out of the main window so they're not in the way, but that's BLASPHEMY, isn't it?

Re:That's development release

[Unequivocal]

Can't you just set the zoom to smaller and see things beyond the edge of the canvas? I thought I've done this before with that app but I don't have it where I am..

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the single window approach. No having to maximize my image. No having to dedicate a virtual desktop to it. I end up doing less for what I need while you end up doing more.

Re:That's development release

[imroy]

how would caring about single window mode require one to be a Windows drone?

Because Windows is the only desktop that makes managing windows so primitive. Unix/X11 has had multiple virtual desktops for decades. Even Mac OS/X has had Spaces since 2006. MS Windows just piles windows onto the single desktop. So to keep things cleaner, apps have to use the horrible MDI system, which nests document windows inside the main app window (essentially mimicking the original Mac layout inside a window). The downside is that the main window covers up your desktop and any other windows, which may need to be accessed.

You know the funny thing about this supposed Photoshop emulation? PS on Mac uses multiple windows and I haven't seen anyone complaining about that. So this single window BS is just emulating PS on Windows. I wish they'd put their effort into integrating GEGL instead and allowing use of 16-bit component images so I can finally do away with buggy CinePaint.

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason to require single window mode is if your window manager is broken.

Or, you know, personal preference? The ability to customize Linux is one of the best features.

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

it is development release with rather large rewrites and therefore not suitable for production use.

People actually use the GIMP in production?

Re:That's development release

[Anonymous Coward]

"The only reason to require single window mode is if your window manager is broken"

Said who?

Re:That's development release

[drb226]

If it matters that much to you, then a) fix it yourself, or b) hop on irc channels, mailing lists, forums, bug trackers, etc, and beg repeatedly. Offer to buy someone free pizza for adding it. (Or, you know, donate enough money to compensate someone for adding the feature)

Re:That's development release

[hattig]

If you learned to read, you would see that when I write "and in many ways it just hasn't moved forward UI-wise" that's because I still use it, and that in many ways it just hasn't moved forward UI-wise.

I.e., I've used it frequently (i.e., multiple times a year) every year since 1998. I mentioned 1998 to emphasise that the UI issue isn't new.

Idiot.

Re:That's development release

[hattig]

It doesn't help if you want to be zoomed in though!

Pixelmator on the Mac has the same issue. Don't these application writers know that the border around the canvas is very important - especially when being off by one pixel on the image could mean clicking outside the window, and thus doing all sorts of annoying behaviour like bringing another window forward.

Re:That's development release

[Qzukk]

Nope. Even when zoomed in, the edge of the canvas stops at the edge of the window.

And MAC OSX Just Got..

[Anonymous Coward]

And MAC OSX just got windows that can be resized at more than one corner.

Technological breakthroughs are happening all around us!
 

need to fix the critical bugs!

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, in the most recent version of GIMP, it doesn't even START without segfaulting in the default configuration of many distros:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1746905&mode=linear
http://www.techjail.net/solved-gimp-not-launching-on-kubuntu-11-04.html

Yes, there is a workaround, but sheesh - this looks *massively* unprofessional compared to photoshop. Having your program not work *out of the box* on the single most popular linux distro out there makes for a horrible initial impression.

Very unprofessional.

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[buchner.johannes]

You say many distros, and quote ubuntu&kubuntu (which have the same gimp package)? So it works in all but ubuntu?
Doesn't that just mean that ubuntu's packagers screwed up?

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Photoshop doesn't work out of the box on the single most popular linux distro out there, either.

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually just Kubuntu, some kind of screwup related to the Oxygen KDE theme.

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Photoshop doesn't work out of the box on the single most popular linux distro out there, either.

Yeah, because that "most popular" Linux distro has half of 1% of the desktop market share. Basically it is nothing more than statistical noise.

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[Anonymous Coward]

sheesh - this looks *massively* unprofessional compared to photoshop. Having your program not work *out of the box* on the single most popular linux distro out there makes for a horrible initial impression.

You run photoshop with Wine, aren't you? Kebab!

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, in the most recent version of GIMP, it doesn't even START without segfaulting in the default configuration of many distros:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1746905&mode=linear
http://www.techjail.net/solved-gimp-not-launching-on-kubuntu-11-04.html

Yes, there is a workaround, but sheesh - this looks *massively* unprofessional compared to photoshop. Having your program not work *out of the box* on the single most popular linux distro out there makes for a horrible initial impression.

Very unprofessional.

Never once had that issue with SuSE, Fedora, RHEL, Knoppix, Mint, Slackware.... yes I do try lots of different distos and never once had GIMP segfault. And yes I do use GIMP often.

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[hedwards]

1% can be an awful lot of money left on the table. Corporations that ignore a subset of the market because it's only 1% tend not to do well in the long term.

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[GameboyRMH]

No GIMP segfaults here, on Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS...or any Windows versions.

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[ColdWetDog]

1% can be an awful lot of money left on the table. Corporations that ignore a subset of the market because it's only 1% tend not to do well in the long term.

Apple is just laughing their tits off at that concept, mate...

1% hell, they ignore the bottom 50% and still do fine. Adobe doesn't give a shit about the bottom of the market. It costs one hell of a lot of money to support a product. They're barely interested in supporting Apple at what, 10% market share, much less Linux.

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a developer build, not a production release.

Re:need to fix the critical bugs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe could ignore Linux completely and it would make absolutely no difference. Linux on the desktop is dead and the number of professional graphic designers that use Linux on the desktop is close to zero... Should they also start supporting OpenBSD and Plan 9 too? At least those operating systems have some semblance of quality.

How to create new Exif data?

[tepples]

Gimp seems to think every jpeg is 72dpi which is kind of a non-starter when using it for anything but web images.

Exif data is supposed to handle this, but has anyone else figured out how to create Exif data for a new image? The "Save Exif data" checkbox in Save as JPEG appears to be grayed out unless the image already had Exif data when I opened it.

Re:How to create new Exif data?

[_0xd0ad]

I wonder if somebody could hack exiftool into a GIMP plugin.

Personally, I've just snapped a picture of the inside of my lens cap and then edited it in GIMP on the rare occasion when I wanted to have EXIF data in something I'd created.

Working on the right features, I see

[MSojka]

Wake me up when I can finally use 16, 32 or 64 bits per channel, and the channels aren't restricted to RGBA or integers ...

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[0123456]

While that would be nice, by far the worst thing about Gimp is the UI. It may be OK on a desktop with a big screen but I was trying to edit an image on my laptop recently and with all the windows splattered everywhere, most of them forcing themselves to the front all the time because, my God, the font window is so much more important than the image I'm trying to edit, I ended up with about a quarter of the screen available for editing.

I'm really hoping that this is an improvement.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[vlm]

Wake me up when I can finally use 16, 32 or 64 bits per channel, and the channels aren't restricted to RGBA or integers ...

Overkill slightly? Power dynamic range from single photon starlight to laser eye damage is only about 100 dB... You can't buy 64 bit A/D converters, unless you're talking about some kind of marketing thing where you have 4 16 bit A/D in the same box. LCD monitors are very low contrast, just barely above 20 dB, paper and ink's only about 10 dB.

There does not seem to be a practical input or output technology that can use more than 16 bits. 8 bits is probably too low. I would advocate for 16 bit, but 32 is as pointless as using scientific notation for each channel.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, GIMP is not for you. As a professional highly trained graphic artist, sorry virtuoso!, GIMP will never be able to fulfill your needs. Only the best is good enough for you. Only the best can ever be enough for you.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

There does not seem to be a practical input or output technology that can use more than 16 bits. 8 bits is probably too low. I would advocate for 16 bit, but 32 is as pointless as using scientific notation for each channel.

He may not be talking about 32 bit integers. 32 bit floats do have advantages.

Anyway, if you can't think of a use for 32 bit integer image channels, maybe you're the one lacking imagination.

CAPTCHA: penciled

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Ragondux]

I'm not so sure single-window is an improvement on small screens. I remember much frustration while using Inkscape on a netbook a while ago, because its single window didn't fit in my resolution, and my window manager had strange ways of dealing with that.

With a Gimp-like UI I would just have move the toolbars to another desktop and switched between desktops with a keyboard shortcut.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[dada21]

16bits per channel is really important.

I own some print shops, we take artist original prints and paintings and produce reproductions, a la Giclée. We scan as high res as possible, with as many bits per color channel as possible.

Since no scanner is eprfectly color accurate, we do some post production work in Photoshop. 8bits per channel does bring some loss to saturation, contrast and gradients during post production. 16 bits per channel lessens these effects.

Do we use 32 bits? Almost never, but it does come in handy in *rare* instances. Recently we had to scan a painting with metallic inks. 32 bits per channel actually allowed us to properly map the metallic colors to our metalic ink on our printer.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Desler]

I'm not so sure single-window is an improvement on small screens.

Not with the way Duh Gimp people implemented it, that's for sure. All they did was take the lazy route of smashing the formerly floating windows into a single window. That's really not the way to have done it. The single window mode also needed a subsequent REDESIGN of the UI. The UI now just looks like a cluttered mess.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[QuasiSteve]

32bit per channel isn't out of the realm of sanity - think computer graphics.

But 64bit? That's pushing it more than a little.
http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html

Maybe if you wanted to capture in a single scene the darkest material ever made, in the shadow of a nuclear explosion.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[GroundBounce]

True, and lets not forget to add:

Non-destructive editing.
a 10x increase in speed of the basic engine (which will be needed for non-destructive editing)
A macro recorder to easily record repetitive operations.
photo-shop like history operations

A single window mode is not the most important thing GIMP needs to compete with Photoshop

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[hedwards]

That's not true, having extra bits per channel doesn't expand the dynamic range, it does however give you more values in that range than you would otherwise have. Most of the extra values end up corresponding to things that would be unrecoverable because they're too dark to be registered.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Not to mention they spent that effort duplicating something that has already been done years ago by GimpShop:

"It shares all GIMP's advantages, including the long feature list and customisability, while addressing some common criticisms regarding the program's interface: GIMPshop modifies the menu structure to closely match Photoshop's, adjusts the program's terminology to match Adobe's, and, in the Windows version, uses a plugin called 'Deweirdifier' to combine the application's numerous windows in a similar manner to the MDI system used by most Windows graphics packages."

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[QuasiSteve]

and add: unified transform tool.

I think GEGL might be a good aid in points 1 and 2 you made, though. I do hope they'll be making use of it to work at the resolution on display (manipulate only a few pixels) and 'render' that to the full res in the background, and tiled management so that if I do work on a small piece of a gigapixel image, it doesn't try doing so on the full copy in RAM (and inevitably swap file), but just the tiles I'm hitting.

In the mean time, I guess I keep adding RAM and speeding up the SSD RAID.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

well said

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Andrewkov]

It's not just about dynamic range, it's also about manipulating the image without degrading it due to rounding errors.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[bobaferret]

32Bit per channel ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

and even then it's not enough.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[donscarletti]

This is expected for GIMP 3.0, which isn't all that far away in the scheme of things. The main issue as of 2011 is not so much implementing high channel depths, it's porting the obscenely huge amount of existing tools and effects to use it. Someone long ago, in 2000, before I was allowed to drink, decided that the GIMP's core should be replaced by a high tech and elegant solution called GEGL which not only ups the bit depth and allows colour-space conversions but allows pixel's values to be re-calculated to what value they would be had a previous filter operation gone a different way, should the user wish to, in real time on enormous images. It also allows for filters to be implemented independently of colour depth and space.

The end result has been an absolute monstrosity (much like the GEGL logo) that has taken 12 years to build. But in theory, it's 90% done and does a lot of things rather well. 9 times out of 10, such a lofty and lengthy fork is doomed, but I have faith that they're possibly going to pull it off this time.

In response to your statement, they are working on it and have been for some time... I suppose it's faster to take several bites out of a doughnut rather than cramming it all in your mouth and trying to swallow it, but it gets down eventually.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've done anything with astronomical imagery, you need this stuff. Of course you're probably not going to use GIMP for anything scientific, but if you're an amateur astronomer and you're just trying to make a picture look pretty...

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the dynamic range - the ratio of the smallest nonzero representable value, and the largest representable value. Just like with sound...

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[ColdWetDog]

This is not your father's imaging paradigm....

32 bits is quite useful in HDR (High Dynamic Range) manipulations. (64 is probably overkill.) Just because I/O devices have a limited bit depth, it doesn't follow that image manipulation should be limited to same. 16 bit depth allows you to do heavy manipulation on RGB images without posterization or pixelation. Yes, you typically collapse the image to 8 bit before printing / viewing but you need the higher bit depth in order to avoid trouble during the manipulation phase. HDR is 32 bit for the same reason.

And, just to be pedantic, there are 16 bit printers and 10 bit LCD screens. They're very high end and from what I've seen not necessary for most use although there probably are times when it's important. It's a big world out there.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[mad_minstrel]

You're missing cases where you have data other than an actual image that you want to manipulate. Like a heightmap.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point. The higher precision isn't about what you can see, it's all about increasing the accuracy on mathematical transformations, i.e. filters in the case of images. The same thing goes on in the music field. When you're processing something over and over, more bits mean less artifacts and undesirable rounding errors.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[m50d]

Just use krita. It can do all that, and has a one-window UI already.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

32bit per channel isn't out of the realm of sanity - think computer graphics.

But 64bit? That's pushing it more than a little.

Go back and read up a bit on numerical analysis and how computers can break calculations and cause ever increasing errors rather quickly.

1 * 1 is not always 1 when it comes to computer math...

(In short, you need more bits then you think you would actually need to keep various calculations from introducing noise into the data.)

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[ColdWetDog]

Deweirdifier

Now, if that isn't a concise analysis of what's wrong with Open Source projects like GIMP.....

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

> and with all the windows splattered everywhere

Photoshop demonstrates the same problem when it floats pallettes over your image.

You can close the ones you're not using, or even move them elsewhere. Computers are amazing.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[steelfood]

64-bit channels is plain ridiculous.

But 12, 14, and 16 bits per channel is absolutely necessary to properly process RAW files. Until they have this support, it'll never be taken seriously by anyone who works with photographs. They'll need it if they want to be an actual competitor to Photoshop instead of a free but not-very-useful photo editing software.

32-bit channels is a bit excessive, but there's a use for it, albeit rare. They don't necessarily need to support 32-bit channels immediately, but if they're going to (eventually have to) add support for 16-bit channels, I don't a reason why they couldn't add 32-bit at the same time. However, combine the demand for 32-bits channels with the demand for 20- and 24-bit channels, and 32-bits is no longer quite that overkill.

Immediately, though, they really need full support of the ranges between 8-bit and 16-bit channels. There's no excuse not to have it after 16+ years of development.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[tlhIngan]

Overkill slightly? Power dynamic range from single photon starlight to laser eye damage is only about 100 dB... You can't buy 64 bit A/D converters, unless you're talking about some kind of marketing thing where you have 4 16 bit A/D in the same box. LCD monitors are very low contrast, just barely above 20 dB, paper and ink's only about 10 dB.

There does not seem to be a practical input or output technology that can use more than 16 bits. 8 bits is probably too low. I would advocate for 16 bit, but 32 is as pointless as using scientific notation for each channel.

There exists 32-bit DSPs, even though they operate on 16-bit information (e.g., audio).

The reason is not dynamic range, it's to prevent early saturation and large error accumulation during processing. The 2D equivalent is all the image manipulation. Basically you're keeping extra significant figures during the calculations that you throw out when you're done. The purpose is to ensure the errors don't accumulate as there are many operations where you can lose 1 or 2 bits of operation, and if you repeatedly do it, you can rapidly lose dynamic range as the effective bits left gets smaller and smaller.

If you want, you can think of it as currency - you often keep track of fractions of a cent while doing calculations, even though the final output has to be rounded to a penny. By keeping track of fractions, you're less likely to end up accumulating huge errors that can lead to many pennies in the end.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you actually *need* 16 or more bits per channel. Do a gamma or curve correction on 8 bit channels and see what the histogram looks like. You loose *lots* of information. And errors add up, the quality degrades very fast. For serious, high quality image processing you really need those 16 bits.

GIMP's toolkit is better than any other open source image editor's, as far as I'm aware, and it doesn't try to dumb down things the way krita does (krita does support high color resolutions but I found I didn't understand how to use important functions it does support because it tries to hide things from me that I understand perfectly well, I stopped using it because I found the UI very limiting).

I have an awkward relationship with GIMP's UI, but I can handle it. It is workable.

The lack of 16 bit channels unfortunately is a show stopper for many purposes. As an alternative I learned to love Python's numpy and scipy libraries (PIL is unusable for the same reason GIMP is). Accessing littleCMS using ctypes turned out to be very straightforward. For loading and saving images I use dcraw and imagemagick. Nowadays I mainly use GIMP for obtaining rectangle coordinates and quickly prototyping some things before doing the heavy lifting in Python.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, I did the same thing for a remote sensing application. A highly elegant pixel-size independent engine, using super ultra template wizardy I just learned. It took years to work as it should. I feel the pain.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[flux]

Well, here's a pro-tip that enhanced my GIMP experience tremendously: try the tab key!

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have CMYK compatibility. I know that isn't happening in the foreseeable future and it's not GIMP's fault, but that would make me quite happy.

Besides, the UI isn't exactly a nightmare. I, for one, prefer the selection transformation options in GIMP over Photoshop.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[marcosdumay]

"Of course you're probably not going to use GIMP for anything scientific"

Yeah, because you can't use a double for each channel. And you GIMP won't support a double for each channel because nobody would ever use it for scientific computation...

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[vurian]

Krita (http://www.krita.org) actually supports 10 and 12 bit/channel displays directly in its opengl mode. People tell me it works perfectly, but even though I coded it, I've never seen it work for lack of a high-end display :-).

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, where do you print people go when there *isn't* a Gimp discussion online? Do you all just go back into status until the next piece of Gimp news appear? Is it like those golems in Kabbalah where you're just summoned into existence? Is there a necromancer in charge of all of you? How come I never encounter print shop workers in any other context, and yet all I have to do is visit a Gimp discussion and all of a sudden the entire Internet is populated with print shop workers whose lives depend on CMYK and 32-bit image channels? Do all print shop workers own a computer for the sole purpose of having "Gimp" set to permanent Google-alert status so they can auto-post flames about how much Gimp sucks? Do you have families?

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, having a UI that has to span desktop is not the fault of the program, it is the fault of either the user forcing program to deal with a very small screen or the tablet/netbook/smartphone hardware vendor not making the screen big enough. I don't think screens smaller than 800x600 are appropriate target for a full-blown "professional" image editing suite like the GIMP.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[vlm]

It's not just about dynamic range, it's also about manipulating the image without degrading it due to rounding errors.

That answer does make sense, if you're very extensively manipulating the image.

Another answer I just though of was digital watermarking support. If no human eye can see details beyond 10 to 16 bits, encode your copyright notice in plain black and white english text down in the 24 bit level where no one could ever (normally) see it.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Andrewkov]

It's true, for example, a picture that has a large expanse of sky with a subtle gradiation .. if you start messing with the curves (adjusting brightness, contrast, etc), you will start seeing banding in the sky pretty quickly, but if you're working in 16 bit mode, you won't have this problem. This is also the reason we work with camera RAW files instead of JPEG's, there's just a lot more data in the files. (I'm a part time/semi-pro photographer, so I spend a lot of time in Photoshop). Actually since we're on the topic, this is one reason I don't use GIMP, I find that the algorithms in Photoshop are much better and keep your image in tact better when doing adjustments.

You could water mark like that, but I suspect that if anyone re-saves the image as JPG (due to resizing or whatever), the JPG compression will probably throw away that data.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Even 16 bits becomes too little once you have enough layers of processing, due to rounding errors showing up. 32 bits can too, but if that ever actually happens accidentally, you're probably better off rethinking what you're doing than going to 64.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

I own some print shops, we take artist original prints and paintings and produce reproductions, a la Giclée.

So you scan the painting and make an inkjet print. Then you charge em an arm and a leg for it? Niiiiiceee.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a valid point, but only if we were talking about global dynamic range image registration. On the other hand:
1) one could be after enhancing the image by artificially blowing up small differences in pixel values within a narrow intensity range,
2) applying a number of filters consecutively leads to accumulation of rounding errors, which is more serious if only 8 or 16 bits are stored.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that you're thinking of images as literal pictures of things that only the human eye might see. I use images as control information in GPU-based calculations - also for thermal imaging and stuff like that. When you start working on less traditional applications, you really do yearn to have a float for each of R,G,B and A.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Rinikusu]

And 640kb RAM is more than anyone will ever need.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[gknoy]

Well, we've got to see the Hotblack Desiato concerts somehow, right?

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to be nit picky but you could use 1 bit per channel to display the example you gave.
The number of bits per channel isn't about maximum and minimum (which is always 100% and 0%), it's about the granularity of the values between the max and min.
The only problem using more than 8 bits per channel solves that I can think of is the banding that occurs when you have a gradient between 2 values that stretches out over enough pixels that your eye can see the boundary where the pixel values increment. Of course this issue can be solved with dithering.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about averaging multiple 16bit images - e.g. in scientific image processing. A state of the art sCMOS camera nowadays can do 1000 frames/sec, each with 16bit depth. After adding image frames collected over only 1 minute (60k \approx 2^16 frames), already 2^16*2^16=32 bit depth are required. Now imagine averaging over multiple hours, as required in astronomy etc.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[QuasiSteve]

You're missing cases where you have data other than an actual image that you want to manipulate. Like a heightmap.

I think that falls under the 'computer graphics' bit - although I suppose land survey groups may also use bitmap graphics here and there (they mostly deal with vector contours, no?)

But even in those, 32bit per channel is quite a bit. Suppose 1bit = 1mm.
2^32mm = 4,295km (That's four thousand, not four point etc.)
Way higher than any mountain on Earth. Conversely, if you were to map the height of Mount Everest to the full 32bit spread, each bit would be just over 2 microns.

Given how ridiculously large 2^32 is, 2^64 in imaging(-related) data is just completely insane in all but the most academic of contexts.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

I use 32bits per channel all the time, because you don't know doesn't mean it's useless

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

May I ask what you would use this for?

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[thoromyr]

I don't know where you came up with your numbers for contrast rated in dB, or what dB scale you think you are using, but the argument is entirely irrelevant. An HDR image uses 32 bits per channel, but it isn't just more accuracy than 8 bits or 16 bits per channel, it is a floating point number. Instead of being locked into a set dynamic range you have the possibility of storing something brighter than the brightest white that can be displayed.

If all you are doing is painting images for display on a computer screen without any manipulation or processing then it *is* irrelevant, but if you are going to do any processing of the image it becomes very important. As a trivial example consider a process that results in half values -- in 8 bits per channel each usage is going to lose information -- the difference between 126 and 127 is now gone. Several iterations of this and you get noticeable deterioration. This is exactly why sound engineers don't use 16 bits per channel at 44.1khz.

The GIMP's inability to use HDR is extremely limiting. Look at tutorials on how to approximate combining bracketed exposures and then realize that with Photoshop you can just do it.

Disclaimer: I have both Photoshop and the GIMP. I use the GIMP almost exclusively. Photoshop is plainly superior in pretty much every way, even to a complete amateur like me. But Adobe don't make a version for linux and my copy is for OS X (so Wine doesn't help). I do almost all work on my linux desktop and the GIMP is usually "good enough" for my hobbyist usage -- but when I need to do something serious (like a set of image processing steps on a directory of images -- batch editing is a dream in Photoshop) I have to use Photoshop.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

press tab: panels vanish, you win.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

I use netbook a lot when traveling and needed to edit photos for magazines (examples in JPEG format and RAW for them to edit in color proofed environments)I can not even get photoshop run on that machine!

http://i.imgur.com/dAyx9.png

And you can even notice how big my bottom panel is and how I have only photos on taskpanel and not a other GIMP windows.

And I bet you did not know that you can place the image/photo what you edit to fullscreen with F11 button and then use TAB button to show/hide GIMP tool windows. They will pop-up top of the image when summoned.

Have you tried to run Adobe Photoshop on 1280x800 resolution screen? It is terrible! Single window graphic application is terrible! Multi window system is best. Especially when having great window manager like KWin and when you add multi-display system to it (like 3x1920x1200) it just starts showing why single window does not work so well.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about absolute values. That's nonsense anyway.
It's not even about relative values.
It's about resolution. How many steps is it from 100% brighness to 0%?
Because 256 per color just is a bit few, don't you think? I think our cone cells can recognize more than 256 levels between eye-damaging laser and the fewest photons that trigger any neural signal at all.

Also, even if you have all levels your eyes can do, you still need some air for editing. Because the more multisampling you do, the more you can edit the data without aliasing effects.
Explanation: If the result of a filter lies between two values and then gets rounded before the next filter is applied (which is the case for all image manipulation software), and this continues a few times, you will get quite a lot of distortion.
You can try this out yourself.

Which is exactly what dada21 sees.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical response of someone who has no idea about the technology being discussed. We're not talking about 32 and 64 bit monitors or graphics cards. We're talking colour depths, as is how much colour information is stored in the photo. 32-bit colour depth is commonly used today, in HDR photography (you've heard of that, right?), you can't even see the the 32-bit .hdr (usually produced by combining 3 or more 16-bpc images at different exposures) until you tonemap it and downsample it to 16-bit or 8-bit. (and the 16-bit formats are approximated and displayed on 8-bit monitors).

The point isn't to actually display 32-bit graphics, but to retain the colour information (which is why you don't see colour burn, and are able to see the detail in the midtones, shadows and highlights all at the same time, in HDR photography). We're not asking for 32 and 64 bit display technology, we're asking to be able to open files and retain all the extra colour information, like we can with Photoshop, PhotoPaint or Photomatix. Or even just to be able to do 16-bit (like Cinepaint (formerly FilmGIMP), Krita or Pixel32.

What gimp does is open higher colour depth images in 8-bit therefore discarding all the extra colour information, making it useless for this rather common workflow, I'll concede though, I'm a bit out of the loop as I've never heard of 64 BPC ever being used (but some people mistake 64-bit (which is 16BPC, for each of C, M, Y and K which adds up to 64) CMYK to mean 84 bits per channel).

So, I'll reiterate, in case anyone missed it. What is being talked about isn't some obscure display technology, but actually a common feature, used in a common workflow that is available in almost every pro-grade commercial offering.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[arose]

Yes, working on the right features, as in, this UI change is not the focus of 2.8, GEGL integration (the groundwork for extended color support) is.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

32Bit per channel ought to be enough for anybody.

Is that you Bill? :) Long time no see.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

I would advocate for 16 bit, but 32 is as pointless as using scientific notation for each channel.

I wouldn't say pointless. You could still store exposure-bracketed HDR images up to 32 or even more in single files. Anyway, I guess the problem is simply that the code is full of constants and places where they rely on things being 8 bit. Not really a smart way to build it...

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Savantissimo]

Yes. A digital photo can have a dynamic range of over 12 stops in each channel, even 14 on a really good camera. Half the light level codes in a channel are in the brightest stop, e.g. 1024 of 2048 for a 12 stop dynamic range.
There is no point in shooting RAW format with its additional dynamic range if you're going to edit it in a lousy 8 bits per pixel.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

GEGL provides support for bitdepths and formats other than 8 bit integer per channel.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Savantissimo]

Well that's one way of thinking about it, but it seems backwards. Yes you can span the whole range from a supernova to the inside of a coal seam using just 1 bit, but typically dynamic range is measured in stops or bits (essentially the same thing, a power of two in light intensity), and what we want to know is the range of different gradations that can be distinguished.

The extra values are actually always mostly in the highlights. Sensors are linear. The brightest stop (of between 8-14 stops of dynamic range in a digital camera) always has half the values, the next stop has another quarter, the next another eighth. The top three stops (highlights to upper midtones) has 7/8ths of the codes. For an 8-bit per channel device that leaves 32 codes to represent all the data in the bottom 5 to 11 stops of dynamic range, which leads to noise, dithering, banding and other artifacts. With 16 bits per channel there are 8192 codes for that lower region (and 57,343 for the upper stops), so that's the same factor increase for both ranges (256x), but the extra midtone and shadow information matters more - we can visually distinguish (with our log-sensitive eyeballs) more than 32 shades in that lower range, while 224 codes for the upper range is far closer to adequate. In that way, you're right about most of the useful new codes going to the darker areas.

  The effective black level is set by the noise floor, which is mostly an inverse function of the size of the pixels plus a set amount of read noise for each readout. The white level in photometric terms is limited most directly by the pixel full-well capacity, and the amount of light excluded from the camera, so there is a lot more room to capture brighter things than fainter things - we can always cut out more light, even if it means going to a pinhole camera with a welding-mask filter, while we can't improve the noise floor much or gain more information from longer exposures past a certain point. Most of the increase in dynamic range comes from the highlights, most of the useful increase comes from the shadows.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Savantissimo]

"...has taken 12 years to build. But in theory, it's 90% done ..."

So we should check back in 2024 or so, then, I guess?

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[imroy]

The end result has been an absolute monstrosity (much like the GEGL logo) that has taken 12 years to build.

It's not that GEGL (and BABL) is large, simply that not many people are working on it. And like you said, porting/rewriting the internal tools to use GEGL, not to mention all of the plugins and scripting languages, is/will be a lot of work.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[AliasMarlowe]

It's not just about dynamic range, it's also about manipulating the image without degrading it due to rounding errors.

Indeed. And this is why many scientific images are converted to the FITS format before processing. FITS files allow floating point representations of images, and support multiple image planes, such as multispectral images, as well as simple photometric and spectral measurements. Obviously, there need be no loss of precision in manipulating images with float or double datatypes. Software such as NASA fv will render FITS images as well as is possible with your hardware. However, they are not properly handled by any of the tools mentioned here (Photoshop, GIMP, Irfanview, etc.), which can only import a subset of the FITS formats, generally truncating resolution in the process.

When you're just manipulating an image to enhance it for presentation on screen or printer, there is rarely even a need to use 16 bits per channel (of which only 10-12 might be significant, even with "professional" cameras).

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[vurian]

Krita can handle 32 bit/channel floating point images -- painting is fine, for instance. It's got fairly complete support for exr files as well.

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[RogerWilco]

The UI now just looks like a cluttered mess.

And how is this different from the normal GIMP interface?

Re:Working on the right features, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

If the other windows are forcing themselves to the front that is the fault of the window manager.

It'll buy you familiarity

[tepples]

As far as I can tell, it'll buy you familiarity: an easier transition from Adobe Photoshop software or other mainstream proprietary image editing software. It'll also buy you less frustration when working on a smaller monitor, as Ctrl+E (resize window to fit image) won't push the window controls under the tool palettes anymore.

Screenshot?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think a story about a major UI change would come with a screenshot or something...

Re:Screenshot?

[whoop]

Everyone here would just say it was photoshopped.

Re:Screenshot?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to wait for the programmers to work out how the hell to do that in GIMP...
...or download the Photoshop torrent.

Re:Screenshot?

[jonahbron]

No, they'd say it was gimped.

Re:Screenshot?

[gnalle]

Here is a screenshot: http://cdn.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Screen-Shot-2011-08-22-at-22.01.02.jpg

It is indeed single window, but it doesn't look like a standard gnome program. I was hoping for a little more.

Re:Screenshot?

[jalefkowit]

Which is what everyone already says about GIMP anyway.

Re:Screenshot?

[T-Ranger]

It looks like a standard Gnome 3 window to me.

Re:Screenshot?

[Anonymous Coward]

better than being gimped :)

Re:Screenshot?

[coolmadsi]

Here is a screenshot: http://cdn.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Screen-Shot-2011-08-22-at-22.01.02.jpg

It is indeed single window, but it doesn't look like a standard gnome program. I was hoping for a little more.

Thanks for the screenshot. I was wondering what it looked like when I read the article. I am fairly used to using the current interface, but my first impression of the new one is that it looks quite decent, so hopefully won't have any complaints when it updates.

How about a mode...

[Anonymous Coward]

where you don't have to do "Flatten Image" after each operation, and where you're not prompted to "Save the changes to image before closing" just because you selected a rectangle?

Re:Golden Girls!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your heart is true, you're a pal and a confidant.

FTFY

Yes but....

[Yo Grark]

Yes but can you draw a straight line yet intuitively without having to look up a tutorial? :)

Yo Grark

Re:Yes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but can you draw a straight line yet intuitively without having to look up a tutorial? :)

There is a research project along those lines. See http://www.adaptablegimp.org/w/Welcome_to_AdaptableGIMP

Re:Yes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can draw a straight line in Gimp??? No way! Really???

Re:Yes but....

[Osgeld]

hold shift dumbass

Re:Yes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, click where one end of the line will be, then shift-click at the other end of the line, or hold shift while you mouse around to see where the line will be placed. Add the control key if you want to restrict the line to nice even angles.

Re:Yes but....

[grumbel]

I doubt it. The sad part is that most people don't even realize that this isn't just an UI issue that is fixed by pressing Shift, but an actual issue that will make getting desired results not only far harder but sometimes even impossible to achieve.

For example the shift-line drawing thing of course works for basic lines quite fine. But when you try to draw transparent ones, your first click will produce and artifact that you have to undo. So you make it Click, Ctrl-Z, Shift-Click to draw a transparent line. Now you want to draw multiple connecting lines in a row. Wopos, again artifacts where transparent lines join and this time Ctrl-Z doesn't help. So you have to switch the procedure complete, instead of drawing the line directly, you draw the line on the selection mask, then create a new transparent layer, fill that layer by using the mask, adjust opacity and then merge it down. You still get the results you want, but it takes way more clicks and knowledge then a proper line tool would have used.

Of course the trouble continues with other geometric shapes, drawing a circle only works via selection mask to begin with. You will get a circle-like looking thing out of it, but try to get a proper 1 pixel width Bresenham circle out of that method, good luck, the results always tend to look like shit no matter what you try and even regular wider circle look completely awful. And this isn't rocket science, this is stuff your 1985 C64 drawing app would get done right.

Gimp simply doesn't provide the right tools for some jobs and all the alternatives it offers as "solutions" are nothing more then ugly cludges that don't really do what you want them to do when you investigate closer.

This also highlights a broader problem with Free Software: The goal of software should be about giving actual freedom to the user, letting him do what he wants to do, how he wants to do it and extent the software when he likes. Instead most Free Software projects only focus on theoretical freedoms, sure they give you a bunch of source code and a license that allows modification. But that the source code actually encourage extension? Is it flexible enough to handle new features without rewriting large parts of it? In a lot of cases the answer is simply: No. The code is inflexible and feature limited and as a result the user can do far less with it then with some proprietary software. For example 15 year old Corel Draw 6 allowed me to customize every menu and toolbar, macro record every function and script everything, Gimp doesn't even have a toolbar and I haven't seen a macro recorder either, making it a far less flexible tool as a result.

PS: Yeah, I have actually patched the Gimp and build by own toolbar.

Re:Yes but....

[_0xd0ad]

So you have to switch the procedure complete, instead of drawing the line directly, you draw the line on the selection mask, then create a new transparent layer, fill that layer by using the mask, adjust opacity and then merge it down.

*facepalm*

No... if the "shift to draw a straight line" afterthought feature of the paintbrush tool isn't good enough, the proper way to draw a line in GIMP is with the path tool. You can then stroke along the path using whatever brush settings you want.

Re:Yes but....

[grumbel]

the proper way to draw a line in GIMP is with the path tool.

Which is every bit as awkward and still force you to click through a dialog for every line. The path tool in Gimp is on the right track (i.e. full vector operations/layers in your pixel application), but it's such an half done ugly mess that I prefer to avoid it most of the time. It also doesn't help with the circle problem.

Re:Yes but....

[sgt scrub]

Some of us don't have a dumbass key you insensitive clod!

Re:Yes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

>every bit as awkward and still force you to click through a dialog for every line

Dialog for every line? Are you fucking kidding? You're nuts.

>It also doesn't help with the circle problem.

Outline selection.

Re:Yes but....

[kayoshiii]

From the description of the work you are doing you are probably better off using a vector graphics tool such as Inkscape. Or using both GIMP and Inkscape (you can drag and drop layers or images from the GIMP directly into Inkscape). Inkscape has the advantages that your lines and shape remain editable. I might be wrong here.

However kudos for explaining the short comings in a way that a software designer could actually use.

 

Re:Yes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you were lucky enough to be born knowing this.

Re:Yes but....

[grumbel]

Dialog for every line? Are you fucking kidding? You're nuts.

How else do I get the lines stroked, if not by going through the "Stroke Path.." dialog?

Outline selection.

And that gives a proper circle exactly how? It just produces a slightly different kind of broken circle-looking mess.

Re:Yes but....

[_0xd0ad]

How else do I get the lines stroked, if not by going through the "Stroke Path.." dialog?

Ah, you meant a dialog for every path. I was trying to figure out how you were managing to get a dialog for every line segment in the path. Point duly noted and accepted. Still, it remembers your previous settings - and you don't have to make all the points in a path connected. Hold Shift to set a point that isn't connected to the previous point. Then you just have one dialog at the end to stroke the entire disconnected path.

And that gives a proper circle exactly how?

By using the ellipse select tool? I've never noticed the result looking broken. Or convert the selection to a path, then stroke the path as you typically would.

bloody hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of actually use a decent window manager.

Yet another case of a small but vocal minority screwing things up for the rest of us.
"Oh noes, this don't work like photoslop, it sucks, rebuild it the way I am used to."

This is why we can't have nice things.

Repeat after me, "Photoshops ui is NOT the one true way"
Different programs work differently.
It is hard and akward because it is different, Not because it is bad.

The few times I have used photoshop, I get anoyed and angry because I can't figure anything out.
So, obviously, I go to all the photoshop forums and yell how crappy it is.
Because my being unable to use the program is not my fault, It is the programs.

Diverse user inferface can be a wonderful thing.
Look at blender, pain in the ass to learn, one of the fastest workflow interfaces I have ever seen.
I can only hope the efforts to make it easier to learn do not hurt it's useabilty(hint: they usually do)

I despise user friendly software.
I prefer my software "Expert Friendly"

Re:bloody hell

[brainzach]

GIMP's UI is awkward because it differs from almost every program out there, not just Photoshop. It is harder to learn even for non Photoshop users.

Making software user friendly benefits experts not just the average user. People want to spend time actually manipulating images instead of figuring out a wonky new interface.

Re:bloody hell

[kayoshiii]

You do realise that this is an optional feature and not even on by default.

It never fails...

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the years I love reading stories and comments on gimp, I enjoy using the program. For the record I absolutely love the multi window layout when I am using Linux but in Windows or OSX I hate it. Every time a story comes out about Gimp there are always people who bash it mercilessly. It is sad to see, if you don't like it don't use it. Is it perfect? Of course it is not. Is it continually getting better? Absolutely and once they get layer effects and more bits per colour I will have every thing I want in an image manipulation program!!

So can someone please tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone tell me what makes GIMP "more competitive with Adobe Photoshop" by having a single window mode?

Re:So can someone please tell me

[Desler]

Because they have this ludicrous notion in their head that if all they do is smash the floating windows into a single Window that Photoshop users will in droves flock to it. This is ignoring the lack of hardware acceleration, non-destructive layers, the high-bit depth support that is still lacking, etc. Not to mention the fact that the UI actually looks more hideous and cluttered now because they didn't do a proper redesign of the UI.

Re:So can someone please tell me

[jellomizer]

Well those separate windows end up being a real pain in terms of finding what you want to do. Click to many Close of your images then you program quits... File -> New on one of your images you are working on to create a new window is very annoying. also with all that space you are wasting on having duplicate menus clutters things up more then they should. OS X handles this concept with that Global Menu bar, but for windows and Linux you need that Single Window Mode for the best UI for that platform.

Also those floating windows makes it so you cannot SNAP them in the same spot taking less overall space and giving you more room to work.

Or just get a Mac and buy Pixelmator...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I have no faith that GIMP will ever be good enough for real productive work.
Comparing it to Photoshop is just some kind of sick joke.

For web developers who need something that works reliably and reasonably well with a good UI, they should just go out and buy a copy of Pixelmator. (I don't have any interest in the product other than being a happy user.) It let's me do those random little tweaks without jumping through hoops.

YES!!!!I

[csumpi]

This is a great step in the right direction. While I know the GIMP is far behind the current Photoshop in feature set, having a similar UI will encourage more users to give it a try. Even with the features of Photoshop years ago, the GIMP will be more useful with a decent UI than it is currently.

Re:YES!!!!I

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about multiple monitors?

I don't care if it's MDI or SDI as long the application allows you to use multiple monitors in an effective way.

The thing that drives me nuts

[raddan]

IIRC, toolbar behavior was especially frustrating for me-- they weren't floating, they tended to be buried under things, and they sometimes got sent to the wrong virtual desktop. GIMP's usability issues made me finally throw in the towel. I went out and bought an old copy of Photoshop, which installs and runs just fine on WINE and Ubuntu 11.04. Now I'm happy.

The GIMP probably has more features than said old version of Photoshop, but if they're unusable to me, they might as well not be there, right? As a point of reference, I spend at least 10 hours a day looking at code (mostly Scala, C, and Ruby). I find using the GIMP harder than reading code. I think the single window thing is a step in the right direction-- maybe I'll try it again.

Re:The thing that drives me nuts

[maxwell demon]

IIRC, toolbar behavior was especially frustrating for me-- they weren't floating,

There's an option about whether to keep toolbars on top (it might be that this wasn't yet there when you used it, though). Of course it also depends on whether your window manager honours the request.

they tended to be buried under things

Isn't that the same complaint as before?

and they sometimes got sent to the wrong virtual desktop.

Never happened to me. Maybe I was just lucky, maybe my window manager is better (it's the window manager's job to put the window on the correct desktop, AFAIK GIMP cannot do anything about it), or maybe my usage pattern just doesn't lead to such problems.

Re:The thing that drives me nuts

[Splab]

Don't know about the keep on top, but the other two complaints are still spot on, even on windows.

When I fire up Gimp it usually places toolbars on one screen and the main window on the other, regardless of me changing the positions each time I use it.

Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[eepok]

Prior to graduating, I used GIMP because I couldn't afford Photoshop and didn't want to pirate it. When I started working for the university, I used it and Open Office specifically to show low/no-funding educational organizations that they don't need to spend thousands of dollars so their workers could edit documents and make beautiful images.

I continued to use it in different departments so the departments wouldn't have to spend the $200 university license fees.

In all these instances, I used GIMP portable either from a thumb drive or from the desktop. No installation because no one has permissions to install programs on their computers. A couple weeks ago, though, a new campus-wide update prohibited the launching of ANY exe not explicitly installed by an IT admin. I appealed and they said to buy and use photoshop. /sigh

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have to buy Photoshop, ask for the IT admin to install it for you, and... your story makes no sense.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[tepples]

It appears from the grandparent comment that IT has a standing policy of installing Adobe® Photoshop® software for the price of one seat of a license for Adobe® Photoshop® software but not installing GIMP software at any price.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[xaxa]

Package GIMP on a CD (i.e. copy the installer), and sell it to the university for $1. Might they then install it?

Or, show that there's a need for you to use software that's affordable in the developing / academic / whatever world. Where I work I'm hoping "no, we must use MySQL/Postgres as our partners in African countries can't afford the higher-up-in-government mandated Oracle, and we have joint projects with them as a key part of what we do" will work. (It's worked before, apparently we're told to use some other system every few years.)

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not have your IT people install GIMP on the systems then...?

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[CCurzon]

ANY exe not explicitly installed by an IT admin.

Rename to ".scr"?

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your draconian university doesn't seem to care about your education if they won't let you run non-approved software. Time to get a laptop? Or, does this campus-wide rule apply to personal laptops as well? Not sure how they could enforce this rule on your personal equipment.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[eepok]

They will not install it because they don't want to have to "support" it where "support" = keep up to date and answer questions. Of course, if I could just run it off my thumb drive, I would be able to keep it up to date on my own. As I have.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[eepok]

Never thought of this, just tried it, no worky.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior to graduating, I used GIMP because I couldn't afford Photoshop and didn't want to pirate it. When I started working for the university, I used it and Open Office specifically to show low/no-funding educational organizations that they don't need to spend thousands of dollars so their workers could edit documents and make beautiful images.

I continued to use it in different departments so the departments wouldn't have to spend the $200 university license fees.

In all these instances, I used GIMP portable either from a thumb drive or from the desktop. No installation because no one has permissions to install programs on their computers. A couple weeks ago, though, a new campus-wide update prohibited the launching of ANY exe not explicitly installed by an IT admin. I appealed and they said to buy and use photoshop. /sigh

So buy and use PS (or PSE.) If your accountant complains, point out the policy and explain that it's necessary.

You sound like a pizza delivery guy complaining because Dominoes now requires him to deliver pizzas in the company Mercedes-Benz.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

where is this? clown college? escalate it and try to get those IT idiots fired. take the $ savings to the people above them + the fact people are already successfully using GIMP.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[mark-t]

Doesn't work how? You can't run from the command line? Or you just can't double click on it?

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[Culture20]

Your draconian university doesn't seem to care about your education if they won't let you run non-approved software. Time to get a laptop? Or, does this campus-wide rule apply to personal laptops as well? Not sure how they could enforce this rule on your personal equipment.

Some colleges require students to run a (windows only) service that "verifies the safety" of the computer before it is allowed to request a DHCP address. The software also updates OS and adobe crap. I wouldn't be surprised if they start making part of the DHCP auth program be a local security policy to only run software with XYZ signatures.
I have no idea what Mac and Linux users are supposed to do.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[eepok]

Cannot be executed via command line nor double clicking.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[mark-t]

Odd. What's the error?

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

And you will now save the University thousands of dollars in increased productivity because Photoshop does what it is designed to do so much better than the GIMP.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditional windows group policy has an allow list of executable names. Try something you know will be on that list, such as explorer.exe or mspaint.exe.

Re:Just in time for GIMP to be prohibited at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Try renaming gimp.exe to one of these:

acrord32.exe
explorer.exe
hh.exe
iexplore.exe
mobsync.exe
mstsc.exe
notepad.exe
rundll32.exe
winword.exe

On my USB stick, Acrobat is PuTTY, notepad is Firefox, rundll32 is a copy of regedit, winword is cmd.exe and so on.

Bad design choice

[sbrown123]

People wanted an MDI like Photoshop. Instead they get an SDI. It is almost as if the GIMP devs wanted to prove they could fail at even the simplest UI design choices.

Re:Bad design choice

[Desler]

That's because the developers are incompetent at UX design. When people were asking for a single-window mode they didn't just want all the windows that used to be floating to be smashed together into a cluttered mess. The UI is just fucking terrible.

Re:Bad design choice

[jedidiah]

So the developers are bad because they give the users what they asked for?

You get what you ask for. If you can't articulate things properly, you will get a mess.

No level of "design competence" will overcome this. At best you will get something that is forced on the users but is great for HID wannabe circle jerks.

Re:Bad design choice

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong, single-window GIMP hosts multiple editing windows via a tabbed interface.

Re:Bad design choice

[Andreas Mayer]

So the developers are bad because they give the users what they asked for?

Yes.

People do not always know what they need. Rather they think they know (and thats what they ask for, obviously), but in the end there are often better solutions that they are more happy with. That's usually because no one knowns all available options. And even if they do, they don't know all the consequences. So as a professional in a field, you are often more qualified to know what people need, then people themselves.

Also, I don't think people asked for exactly this new interface. Instead they wanted a better and more streamlined user experience. It's the developer's (and/or UI designer's) job to come up with the right implementation.

Re:Bad design choice

[vurian]

Well, the single-window interface for GIMP was designed by a professional interaction designer, not by the developers. Maybe it's you who doesn't know anything about interaction design? Or maybe you just haven't given the interaction a try and are just judging based on a screenshot?

Re:Bad design choice

[Anonymous Coward]

MDI sucks big brass donkey balls. Use a tabbed interface that switches between $EDITABLE_OBJECT please.

Re:Bad design choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the single-window interface for GIMP was designed by a professional interaction designer,

Oh really? And this supposed "professional interaction designer" was who? Because they are fucking terrible at their job.

Re:Bad design choice

[maxume]

I wouldn't be surprised if it works well. I also wouldn't be surprised if it is a mess, the conflation of specialization and expertise is a frequent event.

Re:Bad design choice

[Desler]

Oh and I've found this "professional interaction designer's" webpage and it's about as terrible looking as his supposed "designs" for Duh Gimp. Who the fuck in this day and age still uses fixed-width webpages that look like they were formatted for 640x480 screens? His website is all sorts of usability problems so it makes perfect sense why this single-window version of Gimp looks like such crap.

Re:Bad design choice

[Desler]

So the developers are bad because they give the users what they asked for?

No, they are bad because they've given the users a shitty version of what they asked for. Throwing a bunch of shit together is not what anyone asked for.

there be dragons ...

[gDLL]

you are assuming that everyone knows what "gimp" means. yes we have computers too.

Re:there be dragons ...

[GameboyRMH]

I've never had anyone laugh at GIMP so far IRL, I've gotten way more laughs about Ubuntu, Gnome and SugarCRM.

Who was asking for it?

[Provocateur]

I know, must be the same person who goes full screen on
EVERYTHING, even though he has a 24" screen to begin with. GIMP
makers can stop right there and call it a one-off, heck even
sell this on street corners, make it a really rare copy that you
can't even download on TOR.

Oooh, coffee's ready!

Re:Who was asking for it?

[freezin fat guy]

From your post I am now realizing it was only one person. They turned down the wishes of the majority for only one person.

So I can answer your question. It was me.

Re:Who was asking for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Going full screen on a graphic application?? MADNESS!!

Re:Who was asking for it?

[amicusNYCL]

I never filled out a bug report or feature request or anything, but it definitely annoyed me when I would start the program and see 4 or 5 buttons appear on my taskbar, then have to hunt around my screen space to look for all of the tool and image windows (which would helpfully start out so small that they look like a single icon).

So, I never asked for it, but I definitely sent out some mental insults to the developers over it. Never once have I started Gimp and been able to launch into whatever I was trying to do. Step 1 was always figure out WTF is wrong with the windows. Step 2 is noticing how many task bar buttons just got added, and why the hell was that necessary? What is this, a dedicated Gimp computer? No, it's not. Step 3 was rearranging the windows into something that at least appears to make sense as a coherent workspace. After I got all of that worked out, step 4 was trying to remember why the hell I was starting Gimp in the first place.

..windows that can be resized ..

[advid.net]

That would be a huge improvement !

Please provide a link, as I don't see the news anywhere ...

Maybe they also managed to get [,],` and | characters printed on their keyboard ? Or at least have their shortcut mentioned in the system help.

The next revolution would be an application menu bar closer to the document itself : 9" screens of mac classic are over now, the mouse has quite a long way to go across the 22" screen to reach the file menu ...

Re:..windows that can be resized ..

[wsxyz]

No link, but I'm using it, so I promise that it's true.
However, they also added the ability to move a window from any border so sometimes when you want to resize the window you end up moving it instead. oops.

Re:..windows that can be resized ..

[xaxa]

Windows and OS X (assuming they don't have it) need the KDE / Gnome / general unix WM thing where holding a key on the keyboard (usually Alt or the Window key) and dragging any point in the window with the left mouse button moves a window; the right button resizes it. I use this every day, and it's the single window manager feature I miss most on Windows.

Re:..windows that can be resized ..

[Andreas Mayer]

That would be a huge improvement !

Please provide a link, as I don't see the news anywhere ...

It's a marginal improvement, which is why it's not touted around.
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/07/24/mac-101-os-x-lions-new-window-resizing-features/

Maybe they also managed to get [,],` and | characters printed on their keyboard ? Or at least have their shortcut mentioned in the system help.

Use the Keyboard Viewer. BTW: I guess you meant ' or ‘? ` is a diacritic (grave accent) and is usually not used on it's own.

The next revolution would be an application menu bar closer to the document itself : 9" screens of mac classic are over now, the mouse has quite a long way to go across the 22" screen to reach the file menu ...

Ever heard about the concept of keyboard shortcuts? If necessary you can define your own, you know ...

Re:..windows that can be resized ..

[advid.net]

Maybe they also managed to get [,],` and | characters printed on their keyboard ? Or at least have their shortcut mentioned in the system help.

Use the Keyboard Viewer. BTW: I guess you meant ' or ‘? ` is a diacritic (grave accent) and is usually not used on it's own.

Yeah... that's a nice game, the Keyboard Viewer !

Launch the Keyboard Viewer, then try different combinations of modifier keys, and watch out where your beloved missing character is appearing on the layout !

Having a list of characters with the right key and modifiers explicited would have been too fast and too easy, right ? Well I didn't play much with the Keyboard Viewer and I cheated and looked for such a list on the Internet...

Let me guess... are you a Mac OS user ? Every time I tell them about my needs they end up asking why do I need to do such a thing... Believe me: I do need to type square brackets, pipe, and back-quote characters from time to time.

The next revolution would be an application menu bar closer to the document itself : 9" screens of mac classic are over now, the mouse has quite a long way to go across the 22" screen to reach the file menu ...

Ever heard about the concept of keyboard shortcuts? If necessary you can define your own, you know ...

Ok, you're definitely a Mac OS user :D ... anytime I mention an easy operation on Win/Linux made painful by design on Mac OS, they end up saying "You know, there are keyboard shortcuts". Well I had once another answer "Well, I use this $15 add-on app which is very useful..." to resize and organize windows. What a joke.

I won't learn a zillion shortcuts for every app operations I use once in a while, when a quick mouse click and hover works on properly designed interfaces.

Good design choice

[Anonymous Coward]

MDI is a terrible UI. All modern software is moving away from it.

Photoshop's UI is pretty bad, and GIMP could easily do a dockable, SDI interface that would feel like Photoshop, but not be so dumb.

Re:Good design choice

[Desler]

How was it even remotely a good design choice? The UI is cluttered, the drawing screen has so much of it's real estate taken up by the cluttered Windows and you still have to trawl through so many tabs and shit just to find options. This is not even getting to the fact that it still lacks proper hardware acceleration, proper nondestructive editing, proper high-bit depth support, a proper support for professional workflows, etc. Duh GIMP is still a piece of shit but now it's UI is worse than had they not done anything to it at all.

Re:Good design choice

[advid.net]

MDI is a terrible UI. All modern software is moving away from it.

I wasn't sure about this, and finally I agree...

MDI vs SDI

Especially when we think about multiple monitor and desktops. And now window managers handle the grouping quite well in the task bar.

Re:And yet...

[FooBarWidget]

After all these years, all I've seen is complaints about the name but nobody steps up and actually forks it and changes the name.

My hang up

[dainbug]

I've spent hours learning the gimp (unlearning photoshop). I still run into several barriers and run back . And yes some have to do with my favorite plugin, several have to do with how layers are handled and just ease of use. But, I'm very excited! because the multiple windows of the gimp was just a mess to work with.

Re:My hang up

[Desler]

Yes, now you get to enjoy the mess of all those windows being jammed together and creating a cluttered single-window.

Re:And yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we at least get a fork that just changes the branding?

Yep. Can't wait to see what you come up with.

Re:And yet...

[hedwards]

There's always Cinepaint. They forked from GIMP 1.04 IIRC and they do support 16bits per channel.

Re:And yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Call it The Machine!

Re:And yet...

[cyberthanasis12]

I've posted this several times since last millennium... Please consider the fact that the vast majority of people (myself included) do not speak English (as their native language). To us, GIMP means no more than IBM, and it sounds better than Photoshop.

Tell dept heads that IT has been counterproductive

[tepples]

A couple weeks ago, though, a new campus-wide update prohibited the launching of ANY exe not explicitly installed by an IT admin.

Then how do students and faculty in the computer science department test the programs that they're working on? Or are computer science courses at your university fully Dijkstra-style courses done entirely on paper?

I appealed and they said to buy and use photoshop.

Have you tried making it known to the heads of all departments that IT's policy of declining to approve GIMP, which you have shown to be the least expensive program that fits the departments' requirements, is counterproductive to the university's mission?

Why? Photoshop went to all floating with CS2...

[Lumpy]

I love how that was the biggest Whine from the Photoshop crowd. Yet Photoshop went to floating windows design with the advent of CS2 and I did not hear them all whine to Adobe..

Honestly, you cant make them happy. Dont even try.

Re:And yet...

[maxwell demon]

Can you imagine getting up in front of a board and being asked what tool you used?

The GNU Image Manipulation Program.
Problem solved. :-)

Re:Tell dept heads that IT has been counterproduct

[eepok]

Yes. Their rationale is that they don't want to have to spend the time supporting (answering questions about and updating) another program which has such a small user-base. Of course, they said the same thing about Firefox and Thunderbird (both of which I was running that from a thumb drive for a quite a while) and now they're both supported programs.

Funny Bit: The supported campus email clients were Outlook and Eudora up until a couple years ago. Yes, EUDORA.

Also, I don't think that they would agree that part of the university's mission is to use "the least expensive program that fits the departments' requirements". I think they would argue that all the potential risk of using GIMP (I know, I know...) outweighs the monetary savings.

Such is IT bureaucracy.

Re:And yet...

[pedestrian crossing]

The GIMP was around for a -long- time before that movie came out.

In the -real- grown up world, the adults recognize that GIMP is an acronym for Gnu Image Manipulation Program and then move on without ever even thinking of ass-rape (or anything else).

IOW, maybe it's time for -you- to grow up and get over it...

Re:And yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still called The GIMP. And the Linux fanboys can't figure out why their adoption rates are poor. Can you imagine getting up in front of a board and being asked what tool you used? Or trying to start a company initiative to switch people over to The GIMP?

In the grown up world, people don't giggle about ass-rape. All the name does is cause people to doubt the GIMP team's professionalism. It's a distraction. Can't we at least get a fork that just changes the branding?

Some people think that I am a grown up and I neither giggle nor care much about GIMP. If it does it's job then I use it.
I also wouldn't hesitate to work with a company named PeniTech as long as they know their stuff.
Unless you are unprofessional I would say that the name doesn't matter much at all.
I also think that people who are easily impressed by names and flashy interfaces shouldn't work with design.

No! Just "GIMP".

[_0xd0ad]

It hasn't been called "The GIMP" for quite some time.

We're not giggling about ass-rape either

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, ass-rape isn't what a Gimp mask is about, so it seems the only anally fixated one here is you.

And if people in the grown up world don't giggle about ass-rape (or GIMP), then why is there a problem trying to start a company initiative to switch people over to The GIMP? It's just you who can't do it without thinking of being shafted up the arse.

Re:And yet...

[Beelzebud]

The only movie I can think of with a Gimp in it, was Pulp Fiction, and that came out in 1994. That's two years before the software came out...

Re:And yet...

[GameboyRMH]

Something boring and commercial with no imagination in it, like PhotoShed or PicWorks.

Re:Tell dept heads that IT has been counterproduct

[tepples]

Do they also refuse to give you a report of what they perceive to be the potential risk of using GNU Image Manipulation Program and why they expect that risk to average over $200 per seat?

ok...ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Now what about the fucking name!?

Re:ok...ok

[Anonymous Coward]

GIMP is comfortable with its name and thinks that you should apologise for your rudeness.

Re:And yet...

[Andrewkov]

You're saying with a straight face you want to fork the gimp?

I like how...

[kakyoin01]

I like how people are whining about the single-window view, even though it's a mode of viewing, meaning it's not the only way to run GIMP.

Also..."the GIMP"? Is that a hipster term for GIMP, or something?

welcome

[ILongForDarkness]

To the 1990's Gimp.

Re:And yet...

[xaxa]

It's still called The GIMP. And the Linux fanboys can't figure out why their adoption rates are poor. Can you imagine getting up in front of a board and being asked what tool you used? Or trying to start a company initiative to switch people over to The GIMP?

I think you'll be fine.

Last time someone mentioned The GIMP, I made a joke about the name. This backfired completely, since no one else knew what I was talking about. Someone Googled the word and then asked how I knew about it. "Oh, a friend of mine..." wasn't the correct way to start my reply...

(And it is just a friend of mine. I tagged along to a fetish nightclub once, but didn't really enjoy it any more than a normal nightclub.)

Re:And yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 300 million people in the US, and more in Canada, Australia, the UK, etc.

Sure, "GIMP" sounds OK to you, but in all those countries, with all those people, the name is highly awkward. I, personally, end up having to say the entire full acronym not to look like some weirdo or dork when trying to introduce it to new users.

Your argument is not very persuasive.

Of course, I use Photoshop now after years of using GIMP, and I actually have a use for its additional capabilities.

Photoshop Elements

[timeOday]

While we're talking about Photoshop and its cost, as a longtime gimp user I recently bought photoshop elements (having switched to Mac, where I found gimp's UI has a number of glitches, and it was almost a freebie with Premiere Elements, which I was buying anyways). I find Elements very wimpy.

For example, in gimp I normally level the image by selecting preview with grid, reverse rotation (correction), crop to result, then line up the grid with something vertical in the image. But in PE I can't find anything like that - it's rotate freehand, specify degrees, or let it guess for you.

Moreover, it's really hard to find any information about Elements on the Web. I have the feeling everybody either buys or pirates Photoshop, and photoshop elements only exists to be bundled with flatbed scanners or something? It hasn't lured me away from gimp, even though gimp has annoying windowing issues on OSX.

Re:Photoshop Elements

[Mike Gleason]

In PSE, the crop tool's rectangle can be rotated before you finish. Go to a corner of the rectangle and wait for the cursor to change into a rotate cursor. Another nice feature is to set the aspect ratio before cropping, so you can resize the cropping rectangle and have it constrained to, say, 6x4. I presume gimp can do that, too.

Re:Photoshop Elements

[FooBarWidget]

With "annoying windowing issues" do you mean that clicks on unfocused windows don't do anything, and you need to explicitly focus a window before clicks have effect? That's actually a setting in OS X's X server. You can change it in the Preferences dialog. I found out about it recently and Gimp is now sooo much more usable on OS X.

Re:Tell dept heads that IT has been counterproduct

[mark-t]

You didn't answer the above poster's other question.... how do Comp sci students do any development if unlicensed executables are prohibited?

Re:And yet...

[kiwimate]

I actually don't know what movie you're talking about, but the etymology of the word gimp dates back to the 17th century, and its usage as a derogatory (or at least anachronistic) word meaning lameness goes back to the early 20th century. That's the meaning that always comes to my mind (and I didn't grow up in the U.S.).

SO

[Osgeld]

they just rolled gimpshop into the main program, fucking bavo only took what 6 years?

anyway its really not that convenient if your a fan of the split windows idea, I often keep all my tool windows on one monitor and my image on my large screen, its much harder to do that when boxed in

Re:Tell dept heads that IT has been counterproduct

[eepok]

They're not on the "campus network". They are on their department's network with separate policies.

I Remember Reading Years Ago...

[mlauzon]

I remember reading an article years ago that stated they were going do to a complete rewrite of the GIMP code to get rid of all the "spaghetti code" -- not my words -- that GIMP is built upon; has this ever happened or is it still somewhere in the planning stages.

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Took them long enough! This was by far the number one requested change since the project was first released.

not even really available for most

[frovingslosh]

Yea, it is not only an odd numbered development release, but it isn't really available for the vast number of potential users, the Windows community. It is available as a Linux tarball, but there is no Windows version. So we can forget about an alternative for Photoshop users again. Looks like Windows users will have to wait for 2.8, which has no planned delivery date ("it will be ready when it's ready"). That should have been mentioned in the Slashdot coverage.

All those in favor of the "weird" GIMP UI...

[ZahrGnosis]

I like the UI the way it has been. For one thing it works better with multiple monitors IMO -- I can pull my toolbars off of the main editing window and take up the full screen with the image unabated. Further, I like being able to move things wherever I want and still be able to see whatever I put behind it; the workspace can be spread out without all the grey area taken up by the useless space between MDI child windows and toolbars and such. I get that people like uniform UIs, but I never really understood why people hated the GIMP's so much except that it wasn't familiar.

Does anyone remember Fractal Painter's old UI? Noone liked that either. *sigh* Of course, I think they had things like icons which would slowly fade and disappear if you never used them... or was that some other piece of software? Brilliant idea in any case -- we should get the GIMP to do that.

Re:All those in favor of the "weird" GIMP UI...

[grumbel]

For one thing it works better with multiple monitors IMO

Unless of course you have a graphic tablet configured to work on only one monitor and Gimp insists on putting its dialog windows (mainly the resize/rotate/scale dialog) on the *other* monitor. Still have no idea how to make Gimp stop doing that, moving it around with the mouse doesn't help, as it will ignore that on the next popup dialog.

Anyway, the main hate on Gimp is well deserved, while the app isn't bad, it's development is rather stagnant and still lacks features requested and implemeted(!) a decade ago (see FilmGimp/Cinepaint mess) or the single window mode and yet still gets hyped since forever as Photoshop-killer, while it has simply fallen more and more behind in the last decade.

That's not to say it's a bad app, it's a rather reliable one, but it really could need some competition in the Linux world (Krita might be getting there, but it's still way to buggy to be usable for me, half the time it doesn't even start).

Re:All those in favor of the "weird" GIMP UI...

[Stuarticus]

I'm pretty sure the new version of Office has integrated this, I can't find the buttons anywhere now.

Focus

[6031769]

I think the multi-window arrangement made more sense than it does now back when focus-follows-mouse was the dominant focus control method in unix-a-like environments, but almost everyone now uses click-to-focus.

I'm slightly surprised at that assertion, mostly because the very first thing I have to change when using a vanilla WM is the focus behaviour to focus-follows-mouse (or pointer). Clicking to focus seems a waste of a click - the pointer is already in the window, why should I click just to get focus? And in doing so, I've got to watch what I click on - if it's a browser I would have to take care that I'm not clicking on a link, etc.

Am I so much in the minority here?

And, just to keep this vaguely on topic, I like the MWD and have no plans to enable single window mode in GIMP.

Re:Focus

[asdf7890]

Am I so much in the minority here?

In my experience, yes it would appear so.

I too prefer focus-follows-mouse, with the "desktop doesn't get focus unless I click" option, particularly on multi-screen displays, though I find it gets a bit messy when dealing with Remote Desktop sessions so I've started putting up with leaving click-for-focus on. Also some Windows apps have an annoying habit of climbing to the front of the stack when they get focus which makes the decision moot anyway.

The vast majority of users are (in my experience) either unlikely to know options other than click-to-focus exist or are so used to it that they may find focus-follows-mouse to be quite irritating during the retraining period (so may switch back to CTF before giving FFM time to settle in their routine). The people who use FFM tend to be those that have used it for a several years at least, or have tried it for fairly specific reasons (on small screens it is very useful for typing into one terminal while referring to another which has the majority of the screen, and other such tasks, and on multi-monitor displays where focus related visuals can be contradictory (Windows XP will often make it look like I have one window focused on each screen, so the pointer would serve as an extra visual cue, I don't know if this is resolved i later versions (or if it is a facet of something not Microsoft's doing, like my display drivers)).

Overlooked the main reason

[ThatsNotPudding]

Starting out 'back in the day', *everybody* pirated Photoshop and Adobe looked the other way - but only until their de facto monopoly was permanently entrenched. Autodesk did the same thing, to a lesser degree.

Re:Overlooked the main reason

[MightyYar]

but only until their de facto monopoly was permanently entrenched.

I'd say they've even made it easier to pirate. It used to be that you had to risk getting a virus from some shady usenet download of Photoshop. Now you can get the whole suite on their website and activate it with a serial or crack.

Was disfunctional in OS X

[Meeni]

Due to the way the X11 server is made in OS X, gimp multiwindow was plain disfunctional in OS X. You had to click a window to give it focus, then select the tool, then clic the image window to give it focus, then apply you tool. Obnoxious at its paroxysm. I have no strong feelings against of for multi window mode in OSes that handle that properly, but most don't ...

Why Is This a Bad Thing?

[Wintervenom]

I do not understand the all the negativity behind the single-window mode, especially when it is an optional component and is not "forced upon" users without an alternative, save for using an older version for as long as it works and is maintained, waiting for or working on a fork, accepting the changes, or abandoning ship and seeking an alternative. As a user of a keyboard-driven tiling window manager that does not completely follow the WIMP model, I find the option of using a single window mode to be a welcome change.

Single window works well for many small images

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who often works with many small images at the same time, an MDI style interface is much easier to work with. No need to manipulate each window individually, just "set aside" the entire group like a real world cutting tray.

Having a separate desktop is an OK workaround, and I am glad that most Linux users can deal with that. But multiple desktops have been tried in the Windows world using third party or manufacturer software, and from my own personal experience the average Windows user can not wrap their head around the concept.

Back in the Windows 3.x days MDI was a little overused, but this is one area that it works well. Not sure why Gimp has had such an allergy to giving this to users as an option, except that historically Unix/Linux UIs didn't provide MDI as a native feature.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a version of Gimp with a single window about 5 or so (iirc) years ago. (Granted, it was an unofficial "hack").
I had it running on one of the early Ubuntus.

Throw it out and start over

[JDG1980]

The open-source community needs a different Photoshop substitute that does a better job. What of GIMP is worth keeping? Not the stupid and childish name that will keep any reasonably sized professional organization from ever adopting it. Not the crappy user interface. Not the back-end code that can't handle 16-bit color/CMYK/Lab/etc. Time to give this project up for lost, and start from the ground-up building a better free substitute for Photoshop.

Re:Throw it out and start over

[Anonymous Coward]

krita

Re:Throw it out and start over

[serviscope_minor]

Time to give this project up for lost, and start from the ground-up building a better free substitute for Photoshop.

Go ahead.

Still chasing Photoshop? Idiots...

[Anonymous Coward]

The GIMP was created in an x-windows environment and that's where it got its multiple floating windows. I find the GIMP windowing system very effective, I put as much or as little as I want on screen at once. Forcing a large blank window to remain open with no image loaded was a mistake. Telling all new users that the GIMP is 'not effective' without a redundant window full of docks that belong on toolbox tabs was a worse mistake. Forcing the main toolbox to stay on top even in full screen image mode was a truly massive mistake. And I am going to campaign actively against this latest abomination - I see no possible excuse for it. The only things the GIMP really needs right now is improved CMYK format support and an option (only!) to adjust the bits per channel on a per-image basis. Do that, and that only, to finish the job of chasing, catching, and passing Photoshop on features, usability, and plain raw power.

Glicée

[bill_mcgonigle]

I own some print shops, we take artist original prints and paintings and produce reproductions, a la Giclée

For those who don't know what this means, here's the <WP:Giclée>.

options versus conformity to arbitrary standards

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find most useless is GIMP devs insistence on making this decision stick for all. What about having the CHOICE to SELECT between Golly-Wally-I-Wish-I-Were-More-Like-Big-Adobe single window mode and I-Like-It-This-Way multiple window mode?

If GIMP dev team is really trying to be more like Adobe, how about malicious prosecution of all the Dimitry Skylarovs out there, and charging hundreds and hundreds of dollars for per-seat licensing?

FUCK Adobe. FUCK mandatory UI schema. FUCK trotting after Photoshop like a little puppy who wants to grow up and be tough jus' like big brudder. FUCK all you stupid robots who think that having a monolithic interface is the end-all be-all of maturity, and that /your/ choice somehow equate a standard that must be met by all, for all.

Don't just roll over and take it. Challenge them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't moan to the IT people. Put your complaint in a letter. Argue each point clearly and back up any claim you make with citations. Ask why it is that the department/s force you to use software which is expensive when there is software available which does what you need and which costs nothing. Highlight the fact that there are no hidden costs. Point out that the software runs on more platforms than the application which they are forcing you to use. Ask them how the department reached the decision it reached and find out which consultants influenced the decision, and what skill sets those consultants possessed (Microsoft accredited no doubt).

Ask around. Find out if anyone else has been thinking along the same lines as you. Contact an open source shop and see if they would consider putting in a bid for the IT work on campus.

Make them suffer for their stupidity. Do anything except just sit back and take it!

Re:Still chasing Photoshop? Idiots...

[grumbel]

Forcing a large blank window to remain open with no image loaded was a mistake.

Nobody is forcing anything. It's an option.

Eh

[Jethro]

One of the things I /liked/ about Gimp was that I could move all the toolbars/whatever to the other monitors.

That said, I haven't used GIMP in a while now.

I started using GIMP back in... god. 1996? 1997? I'm not sure. Version 0.54 I think. I was always a "Who Needs Photoshop" kinda person.

Then I started getting more and more serious about photography. I'm not anywhere remotely CLOSE to being a pro, but I do love photography and take a TON of photos.

Last year I did a year-long photo-of-the-day project, and that's pretty much where GIMP (and, sadly, Linux) kinda fell apart for me.

The workflow of Bridge->ACR->Photoshop is just SO much more intuitive than Shotwell/whatever they're using today->UFRaw->Gimp. Shotwell is OK when you're not doing anything with it, really. UFRaw is nice but nowhere NEAR the quality of ACR (and neither are rawtherapee or whatever the other guy is called).

Then I got a wacom tablet and Linux/GIMP just couldn't handle it. Perhaps it's the triple-monitor setup, I haven't tried multiple-monitors with a wacom on a Mac, but it just would not work correctly. And even when I single-monitored it, it just does not work as "magic"ly well as it does on a Mac/Photoshop.

It Photoshop expensive? Well, kinda, but the student edition isn't really that pricy at all. If you're serious enough to spend money on a nice dSLR and nice lenses and a nice wacom tablet, you should be OK spending another $200 on Photoshop.

No, it's not for everyone. Yes, GIMP is just fine for a lot of people. But the more serious work you do, the less usable it becomes.

Re:And yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

gimp - noun
a physically handicapped or lame person
a feeble or contemptible person

gimp - verb
limp; hobble

That's the dictionary definition of "gimp." (Also, it's a type of fishing line, but that's kind of irrelevant to the discussion.)

Not to mention that if you ever watched Pulp Fiction, you'll always remember The Gimp as the leather-bound bondage guy who anally-raped some of the main characters. So calling something The Gimp in any place where Pulp Fiction is well known (which should be just about everywhere, given how well-received it was) is just, well, kind of silly.

So now you know why it's a dumb name, and I really hope you follow that Wikipedia link I gave and that image of the guy in the gimp suit sticks with you whenever you hear people talk about "the gimp." Because that's what comes to mind for most people when they hear people talk about "the gimp."

Thank you!

[Max_W]

I use GIMP daily. I like this program very much (by the way, the multiple widows do not bother me at all). I would like to thank the authors of this great program: Spencer Kimball Peter Mattis Michael Natterer (maintainer) Sven Neumann (maintainer) ... and dozens of others listed here: http://www.gimp.org/team.html http://www.gimp.org/about/authors.html Thank you!

Ubuntu friendly?

[sgt scrub]

It looks like they are working to make it conform better to the single window gnome "desktop" that most people absolutely hate. I like gimp. I especially like how I can have the image full screen on one monitor and the tools on another. I hope there is a user preference option available to break it back up like IMHO it should be. MDI in art/music applications completely sucks. This, in my experience, is why artists preferred BeOS and cried LOUDLY when they had to switch back to either OS/9 or Windows.

Re:Still chasing Photoshop? Idiots...

[mark-t]

Where do you change that option, exactly?

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would further:

The only reason to require single window mode is if your window manager is broken or you don't know how to use it!

Managing windows is the role of the WM, not individual applications. The right thing to do would be #ifdef BROKEN_WM, allowing the vocally ignorant to STFU while the rest of us carry on with the traditional UI. I'd also like the global file menu back on the toolbox where it belongs, guess I can live with that minor stupidity.

Re:And yet...

[serviscope_minor]

Can't we at least get a fork that just changes the branding?

Go ahead. It's OSS, so you're free to do this if you feel strongly.

Re:Still chasing Photoshop? Idiots...

[grumbel]

My mistake, the new single-window mode is an option, the older empty-window thing is not to my knowledge, that's forced, but understandably so, as having the menubar ontop of the toolbox was always rather awkward.

Re:And yet...

[kayoshiii]

I am an Australian and I don't know a single person who finds the name awkward. But then again everybody I know is either intelligent enough from the context to figure out that I am talking about a computer program and not a sex slave or a cripple. Some of them are intelligent enough to know that the word gimp also has meanings other than the American slang meaning.

Re:And yet...

[kayoshiii]

you missed
gimp (uncountable)
A narrow ornamental fabric or braid of silk, wool, or cotton, often stiffened with metallic wire or coarse cord running through it, used as trimming for dresses, curtains, furniture, etc. Also guimpe.
Any coarse or reinforced thread, such as a glazed thread employed in lacemaking to outline designs, or silk thread used as a fishing leader, protected from the bite of fish by a wrapping of fine wire. [quotations ]
The plastic cord used in the plaiting and knotting craft Scoubidou (lanyard making); or, the process itself.
(dated, chiefly NE US) Gumption; spirit; ambition; vigor; pep. [quotations ]

and
Adjective
gimp (comparative more gimp, superlative most gimp)
(dated, Scotland and N England) Neat; trim; delicate; slender; handsome; spruce; elegant.

Hell

[optymizer]

It's about time!

To be more competitive?

[DaVince21]

How about: to be more intuitive in the first place? Having multiple windows was always such a bother, for several reasons.

absoutely amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

this from a geezer who has to run imagemagick in terminal mode to simply crop a photo. i can still remember when it was possible to do this with gimp.