Slashdot Mirror
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."
I just learned the old interface! :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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).
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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.
Get a web developer
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 ;)
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?
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 ...
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.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
You'd think a story about a major UI change would come with a screenshot or something...
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.
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.
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.
Here is some work by photoshop dilettantes
You can't handle the truth.
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.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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.
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
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.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
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.
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.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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?
+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.
Stupid flounders!
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.
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.
So this is done in photoshop
Oh, and here is what can be done in GIMP ;)
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
> 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
The overwhelming majority of GIMP users run Windows? I figured most Windows users just used pirated versions of Photoshop.
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.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
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.
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.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
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.
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.
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.