PDA

View Full Version : GIMP falling further behind



AlexC_
March 28th, 2007, 03:28 PM
Hey,

With the upcoming release of PhotoshopCS3 it seems The Gimp is falling even further behind after reading some of the features that Photoshop CS3 will offer such as;


Nodestructive layer based effects
Advanced photomerge
Advanced and improved Clone brush that allows for the basic brush rotation/scatter etc
+ a load of other great features and UI improvements.

Yet, what will the upcoming release of The Gimp offer us?


Still destructive layer effects (filters)
Extremely hard to use and basic brush engine that does not even allow for such basic operations, that I personally feel are necessary for anyone doing serious work, brush rotation/scatter/malipulation.
An interface they couldn't make any harder to work in if they tried
A heal brush! ... Yeah, nice. Photoshop has had that for years.

I use Photoshop nearly every day when on Windows, but when I am on Linux I try my hardest to use The Gimp, it just simply does not compare to the industry standard, Photoshop. It's perfect for the average user who just wants to resize some images, scribble some text on some picture, or generally just play around applying random filters ... but for anything serious, to be honest, it's the worst tool to use.

It's interface, I know this has been discussed many many times ... but come on, it sucks, it really does suck. Having all those windows open filling up the Window List thing (forgot what it's called) is just a pain. Hell, I even had Gnome the other day grouping all of the windows that The Gimp had open. How does that help the person using the program? That meant to get to any window I wanted to use, that may have been hidden behind another random Gimp window, I had to click on the group at the bottom and select it - then get the tool/button I wanted. Try doing something serious in a messy interface like that, drives you mad and slows you down a lot.

Brush tools, seriously The Gimp lacks some very very basic brush tools such as simple brush rotation, on-the-fly brush resizing and brush scattering. Until The Gimp devs decide to pick up their pace and get the brush engine sorted out, I doubt it will ever get used for anything serious. I don't know a single (serious) Photoshop user that does not use at some point brush rotation, scatter and on-the-fly resize.

Layer Groups, very very simple feature that again Photoshop has had for years, yet the Gimp still does not implement. It's a great feature and one that I use often in Photoshop. It means I can hide an entire group, even change the entire opacity of a group.

I would say the missing feature of Fill opacity rather than full opacity ... but then again The Gimp does not have layer effects that are not destructive (Drop Shadow, Stroke, Glow etc), again this is a feature a lot of users use, and is missing in The Gimp, well they exist but in a destructive form, I can not go back afterwards and edit the Stroke width or color for example.

When PhotoshopCS3 is released, The Gimp will not be able to compare to it, features that have been in Photoshop for years are only just starting to make it's way in to the latest, slowly developed release.

What I feel needs to be done is to fork The Gimp, and get a seriously devoted team together and rip The Gimp apart to do a lot of re-building and implementing of basic features that will allow us Linux and Unix users to use an open-source program that is on the same level as Photoshop.

Sluipvoet
March 28th, 2007, 03:38 PM
You do realize that the GIMP is made by volunteers and paid for by donations.

If it would be that simple to just fork the GIMP and transform it into a perfect Photoshop-clone, it would have already been done.

Either accept this or buy Windows or Mac OS X or beg Adobe for a Linux-port.
Besides Joe Sixpack doesn't need all those extra Photoshop-features.

AlexC_
March 28th, 2007, 03:46 PM
There are many great open-source projects our there that are far better than many commercial software, why should The Gimp be different?


If it would be that simple to just fork the GIMP and transform it into a perfect Photoshop-clone, it would have already been done.
I never once said a fork of The Gimp would be simple, nor did I say it has to be a clone. Just add some basic features to make it more acceptable for people who do graphics work for any serious work.


Either accept this or buy Windows or Mac OS X or beg Adobe for a Linux-port.
I already have a Windows machine, which I only keep for Photoshop.


Besides Joe Sixpack doesn't need all those extra Photoshop-features.
If you mean you're average joe user, like I said in my post - it's great for them, does the job well. My post was on about The Gimp and serious work, for any serious work it's currently not the right tool to use.

koshatnik
March 28th, 2007, 03:47 PM
Photoshop runs under wine perfectly well I find.

And GIMP is aimed squarely at the average Joe. Use the right tools for the job.

Sluipvoet
March 28th, 2007, 03:56 PM
There are many great open-source projects our there that are far better than many commercial software, why should The Gimp be different?
Apart from the Linux-kernel and some Command-Line apps, the best projects tend to be proprietary(Office, Exchange, AutoCAD, Photoshop,Games,...)

kopilo
March 28th, 2007, 04:06 PM
the only thing I would disagree on this tread is MS Office being one of the best projects.

SunnyRabbiera
March 28th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Really the gimp is good if you dont want to fork over $800 for photoshop

Brunellus
March 28th, 2007, 04:28 PM
I have not yet exhausted the GIMP's capabilities; but my image-management needs are relatively modest.

Photoshop gets the nod in pre-press or production environments. But for the money, the GIMP is simply unbeatable.

izanbardprince
March 28th, 2007, 04:40 PM
Use WINE and run Photoshop then.

Toadmund
March 28th, 2007, 04:46 PM
Really the gimp is good if you dont want to fork over $800 for photoshop

I agree!
I use the GIMP semi-often and it meets my needs, sure I could use more interesting features.
For me if the GIMP developers could reduce the steps necessary to create works (like pick pencil, pick colour, pick copy, pick paste, pick move, etc. without having to go back to the main terminal. (right clicking is still a chore)
I know there are shortcut commands but takes time to memorize them all.

I've never used photoshop, can't afford it, but luckily we have GIMP, and for that I am eternally grateful, been using GIMP for years now, has it's faults but the price makes that quite tolerable!

Shay Stephens
March 28th, 2007, 04:59 PM
Photoshop runs under wine perfectly well I find.
Photoshop 7 runs adequately in wine. But not the CS versions.

DoctorMO
March 28th, 2007, 05:07 PM
I hear you don't need to fork gimp, they will accept your patches. but like most developers they require a kick up the backside. look at the features inkscape is getting and their working against a static svg specification and an unwilling adobe svg standards member.

I find most Gnome centric tools to be developed like molasses. they fix something and then their minds wander onto fixing something else or writing the perfect gtk widget library. then you just get the 'well we don't use that kind of tool' mentality which infects gnome, gimp and gtk development.

But this is all just easy speak, who will get up and do something about the problems? will AlexC fund this group of developers to rip apart gimp?

newbie2
March 28th, 2007, 05:10 PM
try GIMPSHOP then :)

http://gimpshop.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-is-gimpshop.html

EdThaSlayer
March 28th, 2007, 05:12 PM
I still prefer the GIMP. I also don't have the patience to learn all of those fancy "thingies" that Adobe has.

cunawarit
March 28th, 2007, 05:29 PM
the only thing I would disagree on this tread is MS Office being one of the best projects.

In the corporate environment MS Office still beats OpenOffice 9 times out of 10.

Until OpenOffice has the collaborative features of MS Office it will remain second best.

How about Apache as another good OS project? The only serious rival out there IIS, but correct me if I'm wrong, don't most mayor websites use Apache over IIS?

But in a way opinions are like assholes and everyone has one. Just today a guy who did his PhD in the same lab as I did, he is a Linux developer and has pretty much been using Linux since day one, but was telling me that as far as he is concerned Linux on the desktop is dead. He uses a Mac and XP at home and swears they are way better desktop OSs than Linux will ever be. He did praise Ubuntu saying it was one of the few distros that was a decent desktop. But for every one of him, there is another very experienced person that thinks the opposite.

Anyway, I use The GIMP and have never even used PhotoShop... Everyone else in the office uses PhotoShop except me who turned down the offer to buy a license for my machine.

GameManK
March 28th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Looking forward to Krita 2.0 (http://wiki.koffice.org/index.php?title=Krita/Roadmap)

Krita is still way behind the GIMP even, but it has a better interface and is under fairly heavy development, so I suggest you try it out. It can do layer grouping, at least. Maybe get in touch with developers and tell them the tools a "serious" user needs (I don't know if there are plans to do the brush rotation/resizing you're talking about, for example).

tageiru
March 28th, 2007, 05:46 PM
Nodestructive layer based effects

GEGL? (http://www.gegl.org)

foresth
March 28th, 2007, 05:47 PM
I absolutely agree.

It is amazing that the devs make GIMP just for free, but I would even love to buy some GIMP "Pro" version, if it helped them.

Dragonbite
March 28th, 2007, 05:49 PM
I agree on how annoying it is with Gimp opening up a bunch of windows seperately and would prefer it to be a MDI.

Krita does look like an insteresting project, and may be well suited for the average and semi-power user. I look forward to future incarnations of it.

The Mono team has done some porting of Paint.NET which is located in Mono's SVN (http://www.mono-project.com/WinForms). In Windows Paint.NET (http://www.getpaint.net/index2.html)does a nice job of bridging the gap between (basic) Paint and Photoshop while using the familiar Paint easy interface but providing for much more than (basic) Paint ever has.

At home, though, we've kept a Windows machine because my wife is comfortable with Photoshop (and MS Publisher) and hasn't been too keen on trying to learn Gimp's interface.

qamelian
March 28th, 2007, 05:53 PM
Personally,
I use GIMP everyday for a variety of graphics tasks. I dumped Photoshop because, for me, the GIMP interface was more flexible and more usable. And frankly, it has been a loooong time since Photoshop gained any new features that I found to be particularly useful for me.

DigitalDuality
March 28th, 2007, 06:52 PM
d

Stone123
March 28th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Looking forward to Krita 2.0 (http://wiki.koffice.org/index.php?title=Krita/Roadmap)

Krita is still way behind the GIMP even, but it has a better interface and is under fairly heavy development, so I suggest you try it out. It can do layer grouping, at least. Maybe get in touch with developers and tell them the tools a "serious" user needs (I don't know if there are plans to do the brush rotation/resizing you're talking about, for example).

Yes i like krita better then Gimp . it has simple and understandable schortcuts and tools .

Magic pen + shift = same as in photoshop.

maniacmusician
March 28th, 2007, 07:06 PM
I agree with the OP, and I think a lot of people are misunderstanding his point. He concedes that the GIMP is fine for the average user, but he stresses that for people who do serious, even semi-professional level work, it's not even close to enough.

And yes, everyone's saying that GIMP is fine for the average user, but what about advanced users then? is there no open source tool for them?

As someone else said, the GIMP developers are pretty lackadaisical (sp?) and don't move very fast, so they're probably not going to take an initiative on it. I also agree with that, and yes, Krita is moving at a much more rapid pace of development? What does this all mean? Well, hopefully, it means that the GIMP devs may feel the heat of competition and get moving on features.

Stealth
March 28th, 2007, 07:12 PM
I don't get why, if so many people want it, we can't run a bounty on an open-source photoshop clone. I'd be willing to put money into it.

Brunellus
March 28th, 2007, 07:13 PM
I don't get why, if so many people want it, we can't run a bounty on an open-source photoshop clone. I'd be willing to put money into it.
because putting up money hurts more than b*tching.

ice60
March 28th, 2007, 08:04 PM
you can probably just use the online version of photoshop if you really need it :)

Shay Stephens
March 28th, 2007, 08:05 PM
perfectly well? lol no.

I don't care if you use wine, crossover or any variation thereof.

I don't care if you copied and pasted every file and reg key installed on a windows machine over to a linux/wine setup and then installed it.

All windows software through wine, is buggy. This goes for MS Office, Flash, Dreamweaver, and all Adobe products. Not to mention the window drawing is sluggish and can cause the app to crash as well. You're better off running it on a vmware instal of xp or just dual booting.

Well now you have gone the opposite extreme. Photoshop 7 does run adequately in wine now, not perfect as mentioned, but I would rather run it in wine than through a virtual machine running windows...and that is exactly what I do now. The last few wine versions have made some big steps in making Photoshop 7 run much better. It used to be that I only recommended running Photoshop 7 via crossover, but not that is not necessary.

saulgoode
March 28th, 2007, 08:09 PM
Just as it always has, GIMP development is progressing in the best tradition of GNU software. Rather than program one-off hacks which perform tasks that are more appropriately handled by other layers of the Linux software stack, GIMP developers work to implement solutions in a manner that places the proper components in their proper places. In the short term, this means the GIMP doesn't have all of the capability that it would if the devs were more selfish or conceited; but in the long term, all projects benefit from working together to provide a unified system of software functionality to address the needs of the users.

Things like Color Management, graphics printing, deep color imaging, SVG compositing, and support for alternate colorspaces are not issues specific only to the GIMP and its developers are hard at work with other projects to implement CMS following international standards (http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/OpenIcc) and device-independent graphics printing (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gutenprint/) at the system level. GIMP developers are also spear-heading the GEGL project (http://www.gegl.org/) which will provide a core compositing library with support for 16-bit and floating-point color depths, layer groups and acyclic graphs, adjustment layers and user-defined compositing modes, and a framework for CMYK, HSV, LAB, and XYZ colorspaces.

Yes, the GEGL project has been over four years in the making (and I am sure the developers would admit that it has taken longer than expected) but some important milestones have been attained recently and it is expected that after the GIMP's next stable version (2.4) is released, developers will focus on substituting GEGL for its core graphics code.

Free Software's greatest advantage is sharing of code and I admire the GIMP developers for their universal approach to the problems with which they are presented. Just as the GTK has provided the core graphics functionality for the majority of Linux programs over the last decade, I think that GEGL will provide it for the next.

mech7
March 28th, 2007, 09:00 PM
Well now you have gone the opposite extreme. Photoshop 7 does run adequately in wine now, not perfect as mentioned, but I would rather run it in wine than through a virtual machine running windows...and that is exactly what I do now. The last few wine versions have made some big steps in making Photoshop 7 run much better. It used to be that I only recommended running Photoshop 7 via crossover, but not that is not necessary.

Yeah photoshop 7 but how old is that :lolflag:

weatherman
March 28th, 2007, 09:06 PM
you can probably just use the online version of photoshop if you really need it :)
does anybody know when it's coming out?

ice60
March 28th, 2007, 09:30 PM
does anybody know when it's coming out?
i thought it might be out by now, but maybe not. it has been mentioned a few times on podcsts i listen to. i know at least some of the new online adobe services have come out, maybe a video editor was one :confused: it should be out any day though if it isn't already out now :)

AlexC_
March 28th, 2007, 09:37 PM
Hum, weird - I didn't get email notification


I agree with the OP, and I think a lot of people are misunderstanding his point. He concedes that the GIMP is fine for the average user, but he stresses that for people who do serious, even semi-professional level work, it's not even close to enough.

And yes, everyone's saying that GIMP is fine for the average user, but what about advanced users then? is there no open source tool for them?

As someone else said, the GIMP developers are pretty lackadaisical (sp?) and don't move very fast, so they're probably not going to take an initiative on it. I also agree with that, and yes, Krita is moving at a much more rapid pace of development? What does this all mean? Well, hopefully, it means that the GIMP devs may feel the heat of competition and get moving on features.

Exactly, The Gimp is perfectly fine for you're average Joe user who just wants to resize his holiday pictures, maybe remove the odd red-eye now and then, whack some text on something.

That's as far as it goes with The Gimp, anybody who does any serious graphics works like my self need a better tool than The Gimp. It's all good and well going "Well it works fine for me" - to those people who have said that, have you used The Gimp to do some serious/professional work? It's a right pain in the ***.

We have no open-source alternative to Photoshop, none at all. Running it under wine just does not work, and when it does work you end up running Photoshop 7 and so you may as well be running The Gimp anyway, as The Gimp I would say is on a similar (though still behind) level to Photoshop 7.

I started a thread a while back with a poll asking how many people would like a native Photoshop version, over 70% of you said you would like a native Photoshop version. That shows just how much demand there is for something better than The Gimp.

P_Badger
March 28th, 2007, 09:57 PM
Running it under wine just does not work, and when it does work you end up running Photoshop 7 and so you may as well be running The Gimp anyway, as The Gimp I would say is on a similar (though still behind) level to Photoshop 7.

But running PS 7 under Crossover Linux DEFINITELY does indeed work. And, unfortunately, it works much better than Gimp. Gimp is wonderful for web-based graphics, but PS 7 is still tops for pre-press and high bit rate stuffs.

And, if you consider the speed the Gimp folks are going, and what they have to say on their site, we're looking at probably another 2 to 3 years before Gegl gets involved in Gimp.

There's also the possibility of the Pixel Image Editor getting involved, but that's likely going to take a few years before it becomes even remotely usable.

DirtDawg
March 28th, 2007, 10:01 PM
I also have to agree with AlexC. I have recently gone out of my way to learn to use GIMP over Photoshop (I really hate booting Windows), but the fact of the matter is, GIMP has serious issues.

Some things work way better in GIMP. I like creating animated Gifs, for example, in GIMP over ImageReady. But at the same time, Photoshop can create Gifs with transparent backgrounds while retaining anti-aliased edges. Gimp cannot, you have to choose a matte color. So annoying!

I also agree about the brushes. What a rude surprise when I found I could not even change brush sizes on the fly without downloading and installing brush packages. I don't have the time to screw with such things when there's work to be done.

I also find it difficult to use the wand and paint bucket tools successfully without getting aliased or sloppy edges.

And, of course, I have the usual gripes about no CMYK support and multiple, annoying windows, etc.

I've been trying to use Gimp for professional work for awhile now, but time and again I run into these small problems that make using Gimp more hassle than it seems to be worth.

Again, I think Gimp is amazingly mature and always seems juuuuust on the cusp of total bad-assness, but considering how long it's been around, why is it still missing the mark?

hoagie
March 28th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Of course Gimp can't compete with Adobe Photoshop, I mostly look at the Gimp as an advanced version of microsoft paint rather than something that can replace photoshop. I still use but I'm not a professional image editor or whatever.
Can't we make adobe make a port for linux?

maddog39
March 28th, 2007, 10:22 PM
I think you (AlexC) are totally off and very opinionated. I am taking photoshop classes in school and I find that the GIMP interfacing is much more intuitive and much easier than PS-CS2 which we use on the macs in our mac lab. I am also able to do everything we learn in class at home on The Gimp.

DirtDawg
March 28th, 2007, 10:24 PM
Actually I read *somewhere* that the people at Pixar (or was it Dreamworks?) love Linux and they're pressuring Adobe to release a ported version of their suite. Of course, I have no idea if that's true, but as unfounded rumors go, it gives me a little hope to think there's power players working with us.

EDIT: I should say that I don't dislike the Gimp. There's lots of things about it I like. Creating selections from paths is easy, I really like the way the tab features work in the toolboxes, I like the menu system (how you can get to any menu from any window), and there's lots of small design touches that make it more efficient overall than Photoshop. Just to be clear this isn't a hate-fest, 'cause it's not.

AlexC_
March 28th, 2007, 10:31 PM
DirtDawg, yeah I heard something like that as well, but more along the lines that The Gimp developers turned down direct help from a big studio in developing it. Just think what it could be like now if a big studio that are currently using Photoshop had helped develop The Gimp.

DirtDawg
March 28th, 2007, 10:40 PM
DirtDawg, yeah I heard something like that as well, but more along the lines that The Gimp developers turned down direct help from a big studio in developing it. Just think what it could be like now if a big studio that are currently using Photoshop had helped develop The Gimp.

Wow, I hadn't heard that. I can only assume the Gimp developers had their [good] reasons.

AlexC_
March 28th, 2007, 10:45 PM
I'll try and find where I heard it from and post the link back here, hopefully I can still find it!

Brunellus
March 28th, 2007, 10:46 PM
I'll try and find where I heard it from and post the link back here, hopefully I can still find it!
actual facts are preferable to hearsay.

tbroderick
March 28th, 2007, 11:12 PM
Actually I read *somewhere* that the people at Pixar (or was it Dreamworks?) love Linux and they're pressuring Adobe to release a ported version of their suite.

Maybe, but they have been known to use CinePaint. Check the CinePaint (used to be Film Gimp) website.

http://www.cinepaint.org/

"Studios such as Sony Pictures Imageworks and many smaller studios use CinePaint. Disney, DreamWorks, and Pixar funded Crossover (Wine) to make Adobe Photoshop for Windows run nicely on Linux and that's what they use."

TBOL3
March 28th, 2007, 11:26 PM
Well, it wont remove the 'lack of features', but if you want a more Photoshop type interface, try Photogimp. However, I have never tried it.

BuffaloX
March 28th, 2007, 11:49 PM
In graphics I'm a bit of a joe six-pack, and not even a good one.

The other day I needed to make a very simple image,
I have Beryl with 3 sides on the cube, because if I have 4,
the "back" one look ugly on my transparent desktop.
So I can't use square images for top and bottom of the cube, and I needed
a triangle in PNG format, with transparency.
Guess what...
GIMP doesn't support simple geometric figures, like triangles and pentagons.
I needed pentagon shape for a speaker project.

Gimp is great, and I use it a lot for photo manipulation and enhancements.
But I wonder why something as simple as geometry figures is missing?

I ended up doing the drawing in a vector based program, converting to pixel based.
Which of course means I have almost no pixel control...

Oh how I wish somebody would make an up to date Pixel painter ala De Luxe Paint. Even if I have to run it under Wine.

If I had better skills, that would be my no 1 project for Linux.

BuffaloX
March 29th, 2007, 12:02 AM
Of course Gimp can't compete with Adobe Photoshop, I mostly look at the Gimp as an advanced version of microsoft paint rather than something that can replace photoshop?

If you look at it like that, GIMP is suddenly extremely powerful and feature rich. :popcorn:

cowlip
March 29th, 2007, 01:11 AM
Krita will be great; I don't think the GIMP really can catch up once 2.0 is released. I've heard enough things about rude GIMP developers refusing bugs and refusing offered help. Which is fine, I guess they're doing it on their own time but it doesn't mean we users can't move on to better-developed software. It's their loss.

And as people have said already Krita will be cross-platform too..

qamelian
March 29th, 2007, 01:23 AM
perfectly well? lol no.

I don't care if you use wine, crossover or any variation thereof.

I don't care if you copied and pasted every file and reg key installed on a windows machine over to a linux/wine setup and then installed it.

All windows software through wine, is buggy. This goes for MS Office, Flash, Dreamweaver, and all Adobe products. Not to mention the window drawing is sluggish and can cause the app to crash as well. You're better off running it on a vmware instal of xp or just dual booting.

Well, I've using Wine for a number of years and I can tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. I've used many programs under Wine over the years and quite a few of them run as well or in some cases even better than under Windows. Even 7 years ago Wine was capable of running some fairly complex Windows apps. For example, I ran Lotus SmartSuite 97 (my office suite of choice at the time), completely crash free on Wine for almost two years. I've also run a few games under Wine that performed with better frame rates then under Windows, sometimes as much as 8-10% faster.

kopilo
March 29th, 2007, 02:57 AM
In the corporate environment MS Office still beats OpenOffice 9 times out of 10.
Well in reality it needs better cross-platform compatibility, that is what annoys me the most, I would say that MS office is good but it still has a long way to go for cross-platform preformance, as opposed to other word processing applications such as Adobe Acrobat.

I mean who cares about functionality if the documents don't even display or print properly?

To bring this back into perspective, yes adobe probably is a heck of a lot better then gimp, but at least with gimp I can go to any commonly used platform, install (w/o having to install something that can attribute to security holes, ie wine) and it will be the same, no matter if it is windows, mac or linux.

Shay Stephens
March 29th, 2007, 05:41 AM
Yeah photoshop 7 but how old is that :lolflag:

It's like a hammer, it's kind of timeless in its functionality right now ;-)

IYY
March 29th, 2007, 05:50 AM
I use Gimp for some semi-professional art, because it's Free, but even I can see that it's not nearly as good as the new versions of Photoshop. The interface is not even that bad once you get used to it, the window problem can be solved by setting a configuration option (set the window types to utility), but it just doesn't have enough features! It truly is not good enough for a professional.

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 05:58 AM
Here's something interesting.

There's a site called LinuxMovies.org. From their homepage:
Linux is used to create practically every blockbuster movie in theaters today, movies produced by Disney/Pixar, DreamWorks Animation, Sony, ILM, and other studios.

Linux is the most popular operating system for big budget feature film animation and visual effects, with more than 95% of the servers and desktops at large animation and visual effects companies. People outside the film industry, and even inside the industry sometimes, don't realize that Linux is so big at large studios. Linux is the norm in Hollywood and considered the state-of-the-art. In this upside-down world where Windows and Mac are minority operating systems, Linux evangelists would be hard-pressed to find anyone left to convert. The free operating system built by the people for the people has been embraced foremost by film studios. They have a page called Software (http://www.linuxmovies.org/software.html) that has a long list of Commercial Linux Tools. At the very bottom of the page, after listing all the tools the big studios use, it says this:
Odd Free Tools

Often recommended by those who've heard of them but never used them personally, people enthusiastic for these tools aren't working at studios.

* Cinelerra - Quicktime NLE
* GIMP - 8-bit paint
* Jahshaka - Compositor My emphasis (bold) added.

super breadfish
March 29th, 2007, 07:04 AM
Well considering that Photoshop is big budget software targeted at professionals, and GIMP is maintained through volunteers, aren't you being a bit unfair? Of course Photoshop is going to have these features, the majority of it's users needs them and it's developers have the money to do so. For a piece of free software, GIMP is great and it's developers have done very well.

For the non-professional who needs something with a bit more power than Paint but doesn't want to pay out several hundred pounds, GIMP is perfect. I don't even know what "Advanced photomerge" is, because I don't need it. If I did, I would probably be using Photoshop.

If you are really concerned about GIMP not having these features, then why not join the team? Because moaning about them when they've done far more than most would expect is a tad out of order.

karellen
March 29th, 2007, 08:02 AM
Well considering that Photoshop is big budget software targeted at professionals, and GIMP is maintained through volunteers, aren't you being a bit unfair? Of course Photoshop is going to have these features, the majority of it's users needs them and it's developers have the money to do so. For a piece of free software, GIMP is great and it's developers have done very well.

For the non-professional who needs something with a bit more power than Paint but doesn't want to pay out several hundred pounds, GIMP is perfect. I don't even know what "Advanced photomerge" is, because I don't need it. If I did, I would probably be using Photoshop.

If you are really concerned about GIMP not having these features, then why not join the team? Because moaning about them when they've done far more than most would expect is a tad out of order.

you took the words out of my mouth :)

AlexC_
March 29th, 2007, 09:28 AM
Well considering that Photoshop is big budget software targeted at professionals, and GIMP is maintained through volunteers, aren't you being a bit unfair? Of course Photoshop is going to have these features, the majority of it's users needs them and it's developers have the money to do so. For a piece of free software, GIMP is great and it's developers have done very well.

For the non-professional who needs something with a bit more power than Paint but doesn't want to pay out several hundred pounds, GIMP is perfect. I don't even know what "Advanced photomerge" is, because I don't need it. If I did, I would probably be using Photoshop.

If you are really concerned about GIMP not having these features, then why not join the team? Because moaning about them when they've done far more than most would expect is a tad out of order.

Then you, like many others, have mis-read what I have said. The Gimp is perfectly fine for anyone who just wants to resize a few pics, doodle on an image or play around. It's great for the average Joe, I never once said The Gimp is bad for everyone , I said The Gimp is bad for professional/serious work. Please read what I've said!

Average Joe = Great
Professional/Serious work = Impossible

cunawarit
March 29th, 2007, 11:19 AM
If you are really concerned about GIMP not having these features, then why not join the team? Because moaning about them when they've done far more than most would expect is a tad out of order.

Why is it that every time someone says that some bit of free software isn't ideal for them the reply seems to be "join the team" or "contribute". That's not what potential corporate users want to hear, some may want to contribute toward their ultimate solution... But the majority just wants a solution now.

I firmly believe that any open source software that wants to compete with commercial software has to listen to the users without expecting the vast majority of them to contribute to the project. Otherwise open source software becomes nothing more than a hobby and not a real solution to anything...

sloggerkhan
March 29th, 2007, 11:36 AM
If I have 1 single complaint about gimp is that it's menu/pallets/etc are all independent floating things that show up on the taskbar that can fall behind the image being edited and minimze seperately. I wish they'd implement their floating palletes like Scribus.

I think otherwise it's pretty much fine.

Must admit I like inkscape and scribus more.

slimdog360
March 29th, 2007, 11:44 AM
Then you, like many others, have mis-read what I have said. The Gimp is perfectly fine for anyone who just wants to resize a few pics, doodle on an image or play around. It's great for the average Joe, I never once said The Gimp is bad for everyone , I said The Gimp is bad for professional/serious work. Please read what I've said!

Average Joe = Great
Professional/Serious work = Impossible

I suppose it depends on what the professional/serious work actually is. For someone who actually took the time to learn GIMP inside and out Id imagine that they could do plenty of what the photoshop guys could do. Just look at the quotes from aysiu.

javierfh
March 29th, 2007, 12:26 PM
Hello,

i have to say that im really impressed with Gimp, for a free tool, for me is more than enough. I have read that has limitations for professionals...i dont doubt about that.
I like photography and I have been always able to do all i needed, to change sizes, rotate pictures, correct levels, even using layers.
If people argue that ui from gimp it is clumsy, you can still try Gimpshop, it tries to mimic the ui from photoshop and in my oppinion does very good job,having gimp in the background.
Only thing i miss from gimp and that it annoys me little bit, it is the possibility of batch processing. When you have to do the same opperation to hundreds of pictures ...believe me its a pain in the *** :D

So i would like to ask a question. Do you know if that krita can be used standalone? or do you need to install the whole KOffice? Will Krita work properly in Ubuntu (meaning using gnome) not Kubuntu? The ui from Krita looks very nice and promising..

Thanks in advance

Javi

needtolookatascreenshot
March 29th, 2007, 12:44 PM
Well considering that Photoshop is big budget software targeted at professionals, and GIMP is maintained through volunteers, aren't you being a bit unfair?

No, he isn't. That is, unless you believe that free software is intrinsincly worse than "big budget software", which I hope you don't.

maniacmusician
March 29th, 2007, 01:35 PM
I suppose it depends on what the professional/serious work actually is. For someone who actually took the time to learn GIMP inside and out Id imagine that they could do plenty of what the photoshop guys could do. Just look at the quotes from aysiu.
Unless I'm going blind and crazy, the quotes from aysiu basically say that some people like to use the GIMP (they don't say anything about the quality of the work or how professional it is), but no one uses them in professional studios at all. It's also under a category called "Odd Free Tools." I got the impression that they were looked at as sub-par tools and it was instead the tools mentioned above them that were often used.

Hello,

i have to say that im really impressed with Gimp, for a free tool, for me is more than enough. I have read that has limitations for professionals...i dont doubt about that.
I like photography and I have been always able to do all i needed, to change sizes, rotate pictures, correct levels, even using layers.
If people argue that ui from gimp it is clumsy, you can still try Gimpshop, it tries to mimic the ui from photoshop and in my oppinion does very good job,having gimp in the background.
Only thing i miss from gimp and that it annoys me little bit, it is the possibility of batch processing. When you have to do the same opperation to hundreds of pictures ...believe me its a pain in the *** :D

So i would like to ask a question. Do you know if that krita can be used standalone? or do you need to install the whole KOffice? Will Krita work properly in Ubuntu (meaning using gnome) not Kubuntu? The ui from Krita looks very nice and promising..

Thanks in advance

Javi

You can install Krita by itself and it'll run fine in Gnome, except for the usual cost of running kde libs in Gnome.

loell
March 29th, 2007, 02:15 PM
No, he isn't. That is, unless you believe that free software is intrinsincly worse than "big budget software", which I hope you don't.

actually it is unfair , resources have always something to say about software development, its timeframe and its feature priorities can largely depend on it.

and one should also understand with how coding and solving mathematics/programmatic problems in the graphics field pose to know the obstacles the gimp voluteers faces.

argie
March 29th, 2007, 02:26 PM
Just my generic "Use xnest if you don't want multiple windows" post here. I feel obliged to mention that each time someone complains that it eats up one entire workspace.

cunawarit
March 29th, 2007, 02:40 PM
Just my generic "Use xnest if you don't want multiple windows" post here. I feel obliged to mention that each time someone complains that it eats up one entire workspace.

That doesn't help the Windows users though... I personally don't mind one bit the multiple Windows, but many graphics designers work on Windows (Mac OS X, more so... but I don't know if GIMP there uses X or not...).

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 02:49 PM
That doesn't help the Windows users though... I personally don't mind one bit the multiple Windows, but many graphics designers work on Windows (Mac OS X, more so... but I don't know if GIMP there uses X or not...).
we're not windows users on this forum.

AlexC_
March 29th, 2007, 02:51 PM
There are a lot of Windows users on this forum, I my self am one (Photoshop is keeping me tied to it)

karellen
March 29th, 2007, 02:53 PM
There are a lot of Windows users on this forum, I my self am one (Photoshop is keeping me tied to it)

yes, but not exclusively windows users. we all have linux installed (besides windows or mac os x depending on case)

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 02:58 PM
There are a lot of Windows users on this forum, I my self am one (Photoshop is keeping me tied to it)
What helps Windows users isn't of concern to me. If you have windows, are satisfied with it, and are satisfied with the tools you use on that OS, then we don't have much to say to each other. You can be happy. I can be happy. Insisting that I adopt your tools and methods is only going to make me grumpy. I have enough grump in my day already, thanks.

AlexC_
March 29th, 2007, 03:03 PM
What helps Windows users isn't of concern to me. If you have windows, are satisfied with it, and are satisfied with the tools you use on that OS, then we don't have much to say to each other. You can be happy. I can be happy. Insisting that I adopt your tools and methods is only going to make me grumpy. I have enough grump in my day already, thanks.

Wow, what - hold on. I never once insisted that you should use Windows and/or Photoshop. I have Windows, yes, I also have Ubuntu and have been using that for over a year. No need to release you're anger on me just because you've had a bad day.

DoctorMO
March 29th, 2007, 03:44 PM
There are a lot of Windows users on this forum,

*shrug* I don't care if there are, I don't have to talk about them as if I care about their software requirements; if they use gimp all the time then you can viably suggest improvements (OP said he tried to all the time at least).

to be fair how much work have you done on the gimp project or how much money have you donated?

AlexC_
March 29th, 2007, 03:58 PM
to be fair how much work have you done on the gimp project

Is it my job, a user of the software, to also learn C/C++ and develop it? No.

ZylGadis
March 29th, 2007, 04:07 PM
You can either contribute something or shut up. It is that simple.

Contributions do not have to be code, or money. Code helps the most, of course. But contributions can also be constructive criticisms, suggestions, and/or ideas. So far the only thing you have done (and I read this entire thread) is whine "the GIMP is bad for some kind of work, it lacks this and that."

Sit down and write an elaborate essay on why you perceive the GIMP would benefit from your ideas. That is, only after you have described your ideas in detail - and I do mean concrete detail. If your essay is any good, someone will take a look at it. It might change something.

And "Put resizable brushes!" is not a constructive suggestion, I'm sorry. It's a user's whining disguised as a suggestion.

Until you write that essay - read my first sentence.

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 04:12 PM
You can either contribute something or shut up. It is that simple.

Contributions do not have to be code, or money. Code helps the most, of course. But contributions can also be constructive criticisms, suggestions, and/or ideas. So far the only thing you have done (and I read this entire thread) is whine "the GIMP is bad for some kind of work, it lacks this and that."

Sit down and write an elaborate essay on why you perceive the GIMP would benefit from your ideas. That is, only after you have described your ideas in detail - and I do mean concrete detail. If your essay is any good, someone will take a look at it. It might change something.

And "Put resizable brushes!" is not a constructive suggestion, I'm sorry. It's a user's whining disguised as a suggestion.

Until you write that essay - read my first sentence.
I wouldn't have put it as harshly as that.

I just don't think that we should be bound by the dead hand of Windows users. So they use Windows. What's that to me? Strictly speaking, they're off-topic here.

If the tool is inadequate and the devs/maintainers can't or won't make it adequate, there's really nothing left to do but use the tool that works. The GIMP works for me. It does not work for people with specialized production needs who depend on Photoshop and its feature-set. Those people should use Photoshop.

Where the GIMP wins, I think, is the same place OpenOffice wins: the vast bulk of users who

* Don't use the advanced, production-oriented features in the non-free software;

* Are insufficiently-trained in the non-free software;

* Would otherwise be compelled to use an even MORE crippled, non-free alternative.

GIMP doesn't have to be all things to all users. If it's enough things to enough users--that's enough.

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 04:13 PM
People who need Photoshop for professional reasons and complain about GIMP's development pace should seriously considering donating as little as $10 to the GIMP project.

Think about it--you easily spend hundreds of dollars on Photoshop. Can you spare just a little for GIMP (which is otherwise free)?


Donating money to the GIMP is easy! The GNOME Foundation has graciously agreed to act as fiscal agents for us. Contributions to the GIMP project can be made by donating to the GNOME Foundation and specifying The GIMP project as the recipient. The GNOME Foundation is a tax-exempt, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization and all donations are tax-deductible in the USA. More info here:
http://www.gimp.org/donating/

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 04:16 PM
People who need Photoshop for professional reasons and complain about GIMP's development pace should seriously considering donating as little as $10 to the GIMP project.

Think about it--you easily spend hundreds of dollars on Photoshop. Can you spare just a little for GIMP (which is otherwise free)?

More info here:
http://www.gimp.org/donating/
good show, aysiu. I just wired 'em a tenner.

AlexC_
March 29th, 2007, 04:47 PM
You can either contribute something or shut up. It is that simple.

Contributions do not have to be code, or money. Code helps the most, of course. But contributions can also be constructive criticisms, suggestions, and/or ideas. So far the only thing you have done (and I read this entire thread) is whine "the GIMP is bad for some kind of work, it lacks this and that."

Sit down and write an elaborate essay on why you perceive the GIMP would benefit from your ideas. That is, only after you have described your ideas in detail - and I do mean concrete detail. If your essay is any good, someone will take a look at it. It might change something.

And "Put resizable brushes!" is not a constructive suggestion, I'm sorry. It's a user's whining disguised as a suggestion.

Until you write that essay - read my first sentence.

If you don't have anything good to say, then you can shut up.

I don't know why this has turned into a flame fest, but jesus crist clam the hell down. So, by going by you're reasonings, if I wanted to suggest something to a project I would have to sit down and write an essay for them to read with a nice up of coffee? Nah! I got a better idea, I'll write a book, get it published and mail the Gimp devs a copy of it! Hell, I'm sure they will love that. I'll dedicate an entire chapter to "Resizeable brushes"! Thanks for the idea and inspiration!

Why do I need to write an essay on Resizable Brushes? Erm, it's a Brush and it ... erm, I guess it Resizes? Yeah I think that's just about right. You can do all of this on the fly?! Wow, really?! That's another essay on it's own I guess?

Like I said before, is it my job as a user of the software to develop it? No.

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 04:53 PM
If you don't have anything good to say, then you can shut up.

I don't know why this has turned into a flame fest, but jesus crist clam the hell down. So, by going by you're reasonings, if I wanted to suggest something to a project I would have to sit down and write an essay for them to read with a nice up of coffee? Nah! I got a better idea, I'll write a book, get it published and mail the Gimp devs a copy of it! Hell, I'm sure they will love that. I'll dedicate an entire chapter to "Resizeable brushes"! Thanks for the idea and inspiration!

Why do I need to write an essay on Resizable Brushes? Erm, it's a Brush and it ... erm, I guess it Resizes? Yeah I think that's just about right. You can do all of this on the fly?! Wow, really?! That's another essay on it's own I guess?

Like I said before, is it my job as a user of the software to develop it? No.
The point was crudely-put, but valid.

There are established means by which one can affect the development of a project:

1) Using the bugtracker. This reports bugs and/or requests features.

2) Paying a developer. Nothing convinces like money. Devs need cash to feed their other bad habits--like, you know, eating.

3) Contributing code yourself. The barrier to entry here is pretty high--you need to know what you're doing.

Other than that, griping about a lack of features is exactly that--griping. I'm prepared to take gripes for what they are. I gripe a lot, too. But I don't expect my gripes to be acknowledged if I don't do it in a constructive fashion.

If, after all or any of the above, the project doesn't go as you want it to go, you can

A) Fork 'em, and make your own project. Again, a high barrier of entry!

or

B) Use the tool that works. This is highly recommended if you have a solution in hand already.

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 05:01 PM
The point about contributing was valid, but the essay part didn't make any sense...

By the way, if you're tempted to use the phrase shut up in your post, you may want to take a few deep breaths and a walk around the block before you post a reply. Just a thought.

AlexC_
March 29th, 2007, 05:03 PM
The features that I mentioned in the first post have been bug reports on The Gimp bug tracker frrom as early as 2002, 5 years later and still no sign of them.

The majority of features that I, personally, would like in The Gimp have been feature request on the bug tracker for a long long time, yet still no implementation of them.

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 05:05 PM
The features that I mentioned in the first post have been bug reports on The Gimp bug tracker frrom as early as 2002, 5 years later and still no sign of them.

The majority of features that I, personally, would like in The Gimp have been feature request on the bug tracker for a long long time, yet still no implementation of them.
In that case, you're left with no recourse but the tool that works. Use photoshop, get your work done, and gripe about it over a few beers after work.

saulgoode
March 29th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Like I said before, is it my job as a user of the software to develop it? No.

I would submit that it is your job, as a user, to actually learn how to use it (http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-concepts-brushes.html). Especially before requesting that the developers implement a feature that already exists.

Obor
March 29th, 2007, 05:12 PM
IMO, Gimp is great for its target user base. I think what we need is a linux version of Photoshop CS3 (and other Adobe products) for those that bought/will buy license but prefer to use something other than windows or mac as their OS.

I guess, until the number of Linux users will reach a point where its impossible to ignore, we won't be seeing companies like Adobe, Autodesk etc. paying much attention to us. Its a bit of catch 22 as its hardly possible for some people to switch when they are stuck with windows-only programs that don't have viable alternatives.

AlexC_
March 29th, 2007, 05:14 PM
That only applies for certain brushes, not all, it still means I have to create a 'special' version of the brush which will allow me to resize it. Keep in mind that is only re-sizing brushes, The Gimp is lacking many more features than just that.

DirtDawg
March 29th, 2007, 05:16 PM
Well considering that Photoshop is big budget software targeted at professionals, and GIMP is maintained through volunteers, aren't you being a bit unfair?

I don't think it is unfair as I use Linux and open source software precisely because the quality of the software is consistantly superior to their proprietary counterparts. The Gimp is easily the most quality open source image manipulation tool out there, but it doesn't hack it for some pro work.

For example, I wrote earlier about Gimp's inability to make anti-aliased edges around transparent Gifs(check out chapter 9.6 (http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html) for details). Imagine creating a website with a red background and 50 Gif graphics created in Gimp, each with a red matte. After finishing said website, the client decides they would like the website's background to be blue. Now, since Gimp can't handle the semi-transparency, the website's author will need to go back and re-work every single graphic for the site to have a blue matte. If the author does not, each graphic will have a bright red halo surrounding it.

In professional work, this kind of time-wasting can sink a project and the designer controlling it. At the very least, it's a headache and work the client can't be charged for (if the designer has any scruples). When we are talking about Gimp's failings, it is not out of anger or maliciousness, it is sometimes just the way it is. Please, everybody, don't take such things personally. I can assure you, We All Love The Gimp! Well, most of us anyways.



Only thing i miss from gimp and that it annoys me little bit, it is the possibility of batch processing. When you have to do the same opperation to hundreds of pictures ...believe me its a pain in the *** :D
I use a library called imagemagick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php) that's available in the repos and some simple Python. Below is the crudest script in the universe I used when I had to resize every single image on a webpage. It's sloppy, but you can change the foldername to whatever directory you want to affect, and the "convert" and "-scale 93%" to whatever command and parameter you would like, then run 'python scriptname.py'. Of course, if you have scripting experience, do yourself a favor and write something better :KS



#!/usr/bin/python
################################################## ########
######## DirtDawg's Image-Resizing Extravaganza! #########
### This script requires that Imagemagick be installed ###
################################################## ########

import os

### Enter traget folder path below ###
foldername= "./final/biolab/"

imageque= os.listdir(foldername)

for image in imageque:
### Change 'convert' and '-scale %' to suit needs ###
command= "convert " +foldername+image+ " -scale 93% "+foldername+image
os.system(command)

DirtDawg
March 29th, 2007, 05:19 PM
It's like a hammer, it's kind of timeless in its functionality right now ;-)

Ha! I still use good ol' reliable 7 as well.

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 05:36 PM
I don't think it is unfair as I use Linux and open source software precisely because the quality of the software is consistantly superior to their proprietary counterparts. The Gimp is easily the most quality open source image manipulation tool out there, but it doesn't hack it for some pro work.

I get the sense that the GIMP user community is made up more of hobbyists, while the PS community needs something to pay the bills. That is, GIMP users earn their living doing things other than image manipulation.

That user profile might explain the way things have developed over time.

cunawarit
March 29th, 2007, 05:41 PM
My point is simple, this thread is about GIMP.

Particularly GIMP’s failing compared to PhotoShop.

PhotoShop is available for Windows, Mac OS X, but not Linux.

GIMP is available for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.

Therefore it follows some GIMP are using Mac OS X, and Windows, as well as Linux.

GIMP’s use of multiple windows is often criticized.

An X specific solution to the problem was suggested.

My point is that the solution will not help out those without X, and therefore the original criticism of GIMP is still valid as GIMP didn't provide a solution.

Anyway, personally, I LOVE GIMP. As I said before, I turned down the offer to have PhotoShop at work because I have no intention of learning how to use a program that I won't ever have at home because it is too expensive... Given that I often use GIMP on Windows too, my above point is valid as I am a Windows user.

PS: FWIW, I don't mind the multiple windows one bit.

javierfh
March 29th, 2007, 05:43 PM
Thanks a lot, i have already tried and was in synaptics so i gave it a try and it works. I suppose that the cost that you refer means, more unstable that if it would be an application for gnome right?
And then another thing that i dont understand is ....can you open multiple documents at the time? seems that when you go to open you can only select one at the time. And if you drag and drop pictures to krita it has crashed so far. Im asking that because i read that it allows batch processing..so i was wondering if should also let you open multiple pictures at the time?





You can install Krita by itself and it'll run fine in Gnome, except for the usual cost of running kde libs in Gnome.



Thanks a lot for your email..i will give a try to that one and to be honest i dont mind if it the script looks crude :) as long as it does the trick...i had also same problem when converting pictures to put in my site.


I use a library called imagemagick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php) that's available in the repos and some simple Python. Below is the crudest script in the universe I used when I had to resize every single image on a webpage. It's sloppy, but you can change the foldername to whatever directory you want to affect, and the "convert" and "-scale 93%" to whatever command and parameter you would like, then run 'python scriptname.py'. Of course, if you have scripting experience, do yourself a favor and write something better :KS



#!/usr/bin/python
################################################## ########
######## DirtDawg's Image-Resizing Extravaganza! #########
### This script requires that Imagemagick be installed ###
################################################## ########

import os

### Enter traget folder path below ###
foldername= "./final/biolab/"

imageque= os.listdir(foldername)

for image in imageque:
### Change 'convert' and '-scale %' to suit needs ###
command= "convert " +foldername+image+ " -scale 93% "+foldername+image
os.system(command)

Shay Stephens
March 29th, 2007, 05:54 PM
I suppose it depends on what the professional/serious work actually is. For someone who actually took the time to learn GIMP inside and out Id imagine that they could do plenty of what the photoshop guys could do. Just look at the quotes from aysiu.
As a photographer, I use gimp as part of my work flow. I edit raw files in Bibble Pro, then output them as full size jpgs. I then run a batch job in gimp that creates websized versions in color, B&W, and sepia, as well as a thumbnail. That batch output gets loaded up to the web gallery.

When it comes to doing DVD case art, book layout, etc, I still have to rely on Photoshop 7. But what can be done quickly and efficiently in gimp now I do. As gimp matures, more aspects of my workflow will move to it. Once they add GEGL, I think that may be the big turning point for me.

AlexC_
March 29th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Reading one of the feature requests, it looks like they are going to start implementing GEGL for the next release, 2.6 would it be?

DirtDawg
March 29th, 2007, 06:14 PM
When it comes to doing DVD case art, book layout, etc, I still have to rely on Photoshop 7. But what can be done quickly and efficiently in gimp now I do. As gimp matures, more aspects of my workflow will move to it. Once they add GEGL, I think that may be the big turning point for me.

Same here. I use Gimp whenever it's reasonable to do so because, well, I like Gimp better.


I get the sense that the GIMP user community is made up more of hobbyists, while the PS community needs something to pay the bills. That is, GIMP users earn their living doing things other than image manipulation.

That user profile might explain the way things have developed over time.

I agree.

Shay Stephens
March 29th, 2007, 06:18 PM
Reading one of the feature requests, it looks like they are going to start implementing GEGL for the next release, 2.6 would it be?

I have been using the 2.3 development version which will be the 2.4 release at some point. It has a healing brush and other nice tools. So the next development version will be 2.5 as they work to stabilize it to 2.6. I hope they do add GEGL after 2.4, that would get me very excited indeed :-)

And I think naturally, as more users start using gimp that have more robust needs, that gimp will mature in those directions. Everything is starting to change for the better now.

qamelian
March 29th, 2007, 06:29 PM
Then you, like many others, have mis-read what I have said. The Gimp is perfectly fine for anyone who just wants to resize a few pics, doodle on an image or play around. It's great for the average Joe, I never once said The Gimp is bad for everyone , I said The Gimp is bad for professional/serious work. Please read what I've said!

Average Joe = Great
Professional/Serious work = Impossible

And I say you're wrong. I have and still do use Gimp for serious, professional graphics work because I find it faster and easier to use than Photoshop. I find the Photoshop interface to be cluttered and restrictive compared to Gimp. I also find it much easier to extend the capabilities of Gimp to suite my needs compared to Photoshop. Although many people consider Photoshop to be superior to Gimp, in my opinion, every version of Photoshop since 5 has been nothing but an increasingly bloated series of clumsy hacks.

Nonno Bassotto
March 29th, 2007, 08:51 PM
I'd like to make a point clear here. I agree that Gimp is behind Photoshop with respect to functionality, and maybe it is not suitable for professional use. Still this does not mean by any means that it can only be used for red-eye reduction or playing with your holiday photos.

These tutorials, for instance, show how to obtain in a few steps quite nice objects form scratch.

http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/ronq3/
http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/ronq2/
http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/ronq1/

You can find a lot of these tutorials and nice artwork made with GIMP on the web.

So "not suitable for professional use" does not mean "just can apply a few stupid filters for my dark photos".

darkhatter
March 29th, 2007, 10:50 PM
I'd like to make a point clear here. I agree that Gimp is behind Photoshop with respect to functionality, and maybe it is not suitable for professional use. Still this does not mean by any means that it can only be used for red-eye reduction or playing with your holiday photos.

These tutorials, for instance, show how to obtain in a few steps quite nice objects form scratch.

http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/ronq3/
http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/ronq2/
http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/ronq1/

You can find a lot of these tutorials and nice artwork made with GIMP on the web.

So "not suitable for professional use" does not mean "just can apply a few stupid filters for my dark photos".

:confused: I know you didn't read first post



It's perfect for the average user who just wants to resize some images, scribble some text on some picture, or generally just play around applying random filters ...


I agree with the first pretty much everyone in here, I've used gimp for a "professional" project. It wasn't hard to do, but doing it in Photoshop would have been easier.

This is a little off topic but has anyone tried Photoshop CS 3 in wine?

sloggerkhan
March 30th, 2007, 05:29 AM
Whoever posted about the preferences for the kind of floating menus the gimp uses, THANK YOU. That single preference has single handedly improved the GIMP 50 fold for me.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

Nonno Bassotto
March 30th, 2007, 06:32 PM
:confused: I know you didn't read first post


I read it. It says it is ok for very basic tasks like resizing photos, applying some filter of writing on a photo. I showed you how you can easily (i.e. in few steps) accomplish something more complex than that.

daz4126
March 30th, 2007, 07:11 PM
I've been lurking in this thread for a while now - it's been interesting - and thought I'd add my thoughts.

I just don't think you can whinge about free software. To suggest a fork just to get things you want is ridiculous. Forks happen because developers have disagreements about where the project is heading, not because some users want more features. I think you just have to accept that the developers are trying their best to make the product as best they can, but they must have a tiny budget when compared to that of photoshop. File your requests and then hope that they get made. In the meantime, donate some money and help the project along. I would think that requests have a motivating factor in keeping projects alive and kicking.

There is an excellent article about the gimp in the latest issue of Linux Format UK magazine. There is an interview with Sven Neuman (gimp's lead maintainer) and he says:


We not only need testers, we need more people working on the user manual, and our website could also do with an overhaul!
...[The gimp most needs] developers! There are so many things to do and only about a handful of active developers who all are only doing this in their free time.'

The article goes on to say that the gimp is perhaps the biggest open source project that has no coorperate sponsor whatsoever. This compares to all the other major projects (open office, python, the linux kernel itself) all making major improvements due to the input of big companies. Maybe if this happened then the gimp would really start making progress.

The article also said that v2.4 was iminent and v2.6 would follow soon after.

I think that the gimp is more than just a photo editiing program, but it is perhaps unfair to compare it to a program that costs over £500 - for each release!

DAZ

SZF2001
March 30th, 2007, 07:21 PM
Wait... I got an idea...

How about we help out with the team or something? Or revamp our own version of GIMP and name it PIMP or something (the main P being Photoshopsomething)...

I'm not complaining, I am happy with GIMP, therefore I feel no need to climb aboard this said team. But go on guys, I think you're all up for it.

daz4126
March 30th, 2007, 07:26 PM
ha - pimp might just be an even more embarassing name than gimp!

Quillz
March 30th, 2007, 07:26 PM
A bit off topic, but what alternatives are there to the GIMP? 2.2 is alright, at least on Linux, but I'm always interested in alternatives.

mips
March 30th, 2007, 07:41 PM
GimpShop ? Same as Gimp but different interface, Krita, CinePaint

Shay Stephens
March 30th, 2007, 08:00 PM
A bit off topic, but what alternatives are there to the GIMP? 2.2 is alright, at least on Linux, but I'm always interested in alternatives.

Gimp 2.4 is going to be quite good. Krita is an alternative to gimp. I think the next releases of gimp (after 2.4) and krita may be more of what we are hoping for. But give krita a go, it can do a number of things gimp can't (e.g. 16bit images, correction layers, etc) but it tends to be slow for me, and lacks some features gimp has.

Quillz
March 30th, 2007, 08:01 PM
Gimp 2.4 is going to be quite good. Krita is an alternative to gimp. I think the next releases of gimp (after 2.4) and krita may be more of what we are hoping for. But give krita a go, it can do a number of things gimp can't (e.g. 16bit images, correction layers, etc) but it tends to be slow for me, and lacks some features gimp has.
Is there a general estimate as to when GIMP 2.4 will be available? Also, I've never heard of Krita before now. Is it in the repos?

Shay Stephens
March 30th, 2007, 08:07 PM
Is there a general estimate as to when GIMP 2.4 will be available? Also, I've never heard of Krita before now. Is it in the repos?

Not sure when 2.4 will be out, but you can run 2.3.15, it has the new stuff that will be in 2.4. An easy install deb can be had here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=311020
and it is running stable for me.

Krita is in the repositories.

AlexC_
March 30th, 2007, 09:37 PM
I think that the gimp is more than just a photo editiing program, but it is perhaps unfair to compare it to a program that costs over £500 - for each release!
Compare Blender to 3DS Max, Maya, Lightwave, XSI, Modo - most of those programs cost over £1000 for a single license. I'd say Blender is pretty damm awesome and it keeps getting better every day, if I had the time to learn Blender instead of 3DS Max + Maya I'm sure I could switch over, it's toolset is great and offers a lot of features.

Blender is a perfect example of open-source vs closed-source in terms of quality and features.

aysiu
March 30th, 2007, 09:44 PM
Well, it's interesting to compare the two Wikipedia pages on Blender and GIMP, respectively:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP

Blender's page talks about artists and movies that have used Blender, and it goes into a whole history of it and details how many people use it worldwide. GIMP has none of those details. In fact, as my link earlier shows, movie studios do not even consider GIMP a viable tool. Blender is an industry standard, though. Might there be some pressure (or even funding?) to improve a product if it's an industry standard?

AlexC_
March 30th, 2007, 09:47 PM
mmm, I wouldn't say Blender is an industry standard - many of the big studios use 3DS Max (mostly game studios, but also VFX studios use it as well), and Maya (again VFX/Film), XSI/lightwave or some in-house tool they have developed.

loell
March 30th, 2007, 11:50 PM
in Blender3d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender3d) history , its development begun from a company who invest so much in the particular softwarer , take note (developers + resources) , even open sourcing it involves a lot of money

so , bleneder3d turned out to be what is now, partly because in large degree, it was developed with resources.



comparing gimp development and bldenderr3d development, would seem , imo, comparing apples and oranges.

vnt87
March 31st, 2007, 08:14 AM
mmm, I wouldn't say Blender is an industry standard - many of the big studios use 3DS Max (mostly game studios, but also VFX studios use it as well), and Maya (again VFX/Film), XSI/lightwave or some in-house tool they have developed.

I've read somewhere that the reason why studios people prefer Blender (or OpenSource in general) is that with the source in their hands, they can break it down and make it do exactly what they want it to do. Unlike proprietary companies that forbid reverse engineering of their programs.

drfalkor
March 31st, 2007, 02:05 PM
And the worst part of it all.. the gimp developers refuse to implent usefull stuff.. :) Ive decided that I should drop the gimp :)

EDIT: Realise the truth, gimp is crap.. but not for those who need it for simple stuff.. but for pro artist, it sucks grandma ***. ( + It would be worser if you had to pay for that crap)

EDIT2: Sorry guys, but I've had enough... after years of asking from the developers, and always ends up with a no !

Adamant1988
March 31st, 2007, 02:16 PM
Hey,

With the upcoming release of PhotoshopCS3 it seems The Gimp is falling even further behind after reading some of the features that Photoshop CS3 will offer such as;


Nodestructive layer based effects
Advanced photomerge
Advanced and improved Clone brush that allows for the basic brush rotation/scatter etc
+ a load of other great features and UI improvements.

Yet, what will the upcoming release of The Gimp offer us?


Still destructive layer effects (filters)
Extremely hard to use and basic brush engine that does not even allow for such basic operations, that I personally feel are necessary for anyone doing serious work, brush rotation/scatter/malipulation.
An interface they couldn't make any harder to work in if they tried
A heal brush! ... Yeah, nice. Photoshop has had that for years.

I use Photoshop nearly every day when on Windows, but when I am on Linux I try my hardest to use The Gimp, it just simply does not compare to the industry standard, Photoshop. It's perfect for the average user who just wants to resize some images, scribble some text on some picture, or generally just play around applying random filters ... but for anything serious, to be honest, it's the worst tool to use.

It's interface, I know this has been discussed many many times ... but come on, it sucks, it really does suck. Having all those windows open filling up the Window List thing (forgot what it's called) is just a pain. Hell, I even had Gnome the other day grouping all of the windows that The Gimp had open. How does that help the person using the program? That meant to get to any window I wanted to use, that may have been hidden behind another random Gimp window, I had to click on the group at the bottom and select it - then get the tool/button I wanted. Try doing something serious in a messy interface like that, drives you mad and slows you down a lot.

Brush tools, seriously The Gimp lacks some very very basic brush tools such as simple brush rotation, on-the-fly brush resizing and brush scattering. Until The Gimp devs decide to pick up their pace and get the brush engine sorted out, I doubt it will ever get used for anything serious. I don't know a single (serious) Photoshop user that does not use at some point brush rotation, scatter and on-the-fly resize.

Layer Groups, very very simple feature that again Photoshop has had for years, yet the Gimp still does not implement. It's a great feature and one that I use often in Photoshop. It means I can hide an entire group, even change the entire opacity of a group.

I would say the missing feature of Fill opacity rather than full opacity ... but then again The Gimp does not have layer effects that are not destructive (Drop Shadow, Stroke, Glow etc), again this is a feature a lot of users use, and is missing in The Gimp, well they exist but in a destructive form, I can not go back afterwards and edit the Stroke width or color for example.

When PhotoshopCS3 is released, The Gimp will not be able to compare to it, features that have been in Photoshop for years are only just starting to make it's way in to the latest, slowly developed release.

What I feel needs to be done is to fork The Gimp, and get a seriously devoted team together and rip The Gimp apart to do a lot of re-building and implementing of basic features that will allow us Linux and Unix users to use an open-source program that is on the same level as Photoshop.

I would say that I understand your pain but perhaps you should get out there and try new things. Krita is a wonderful photo editor that I enjoy using. It has most of the tools I want and a very photoshop-esque interface.

rai4shu2
March 31st, 2007, 04:33 PM
With all due respect, this complaint is just beyond comprehensible. Photoshop is a top-notch program that has been worked on by THE people who innovated CG and special effects for over the past 15 years. The GIMP is an excellent program, but not quite the tower of sophistication and technical excellence that is Photoshop.

You don't just waltz into a Toyota shop and whine about how their cars aren't quite Rolls Royces. That just seems lame to me.

Henry Rayker
March 31st, 2007, 04:45 PM
to be honest, I think the GIMP's interface is very pleasant to work in...I'm probably in the minority...either that or the complaints about them are a result of the inconsistencies between the GIMP and Photoshop....

vnt87
March 31st, 2007, 05:19 PM
to be honest, I think the GIMP's interface is very pleasant to work in...I'm probably in the minority...either that or the complaints about them are a result of the inconsistencies between the GIMP and Photoshop....

I've worked with the GIMP for quite a while, even though I used Photoshop for several years before I even know GIMP. As much as I love the program, I have to say that the interface is really annoying, having all those windows floating around.
GIMPShop was a great effort to improve the multi-windowing issue, but it stops getting any update after version 2.2.8.
Personally, I think the editor with the best interface right now that is available on Linux is Pixel32. I really like the concept of having multiple workspaces (just like Ubuntu Desktop). Even Photoshop doesn't have it.

CarpKing
March 31st, 2007, 10:33 PM
I for one have no particular problem with GIMP's interface. It took a little getting used to, but many of the things that confused me are fixed in the development version (should become stable pretty soon. Rest assured that the developers are working toward making it more user-friendly. I do admit that my setup is not the default, but that's one of the great things about the GIMP: you can rearrange parts of the interface to your liking. As for missing features, some at least (such as CMYK, higher than 8-bit) will come with the integration of GEGL.

loell
March 31st, 2007, 10:59 PM
EDIT: Realise the truth, gimp is crap.. but not for those who need it for simple stuff.. but for pro artist, it sucks grandma ***. ( + It would be worser if you had to pay for that crap)

EDIT2: Sorry guys, but I've had enough... after years of asking from the developers, and always ends up with a no !

what gave you the idea that you will have to pay in the future?

and

for years that you have ask, did you even bother to look at the code and volunteer to change it?

oh, perhaps you are not a programmer? so am i , but how did you know its crap if you did not look

the underlying source code?

Artificial Intelligence
March 31st, 2007, 11:03 PM
to be honest, I think the GIMP's interface is very pleasant to work in...I'm probably in the minority...either that or the complaints about them are a result of the inconsistencies between the GIMP and Photoshop....

Same here. I have ditched Photoshop (via Crossover) and uses Gimp and pixel to get the job done.
First when I started with gimp I found the interface annoying, but after awhile I learned to take advantage of the flexible interface.

rsambuca
April 1st, 2007, 06:07 AM
I'd like to make a point clear here. I agree that Gimp is behind Photoshop with respect to functionality, and maybe it is not suitable for professional use. Still this does not mean by any means that it can only be used for red-eye reduction or playing with your holiday photos.

These tutorials, for instance, show how to obtain in a few steps quite nice objects form scratch.

http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/ronq3/
http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/ronq2/
http://gug.sunsite.dk/tutorials/ronq1/

You can find a lot of these tutorials and nice artwork made with GIMP on the web.

So "not suitable for professional use" does not mean "just can apply a few stupid filters for my dark photos".

Off Topic, but thanks for those links. Check out my new avatar - My first "reflective Globe" made from scratch with the gimp!

aysiu
April 1st, 2007, 06:13 AM
Wow! That's pretty cool! You can do that in GIMP?

I wish I could think in layers.

I tried a GIMP tutorial in Linux Format once. It was spelled out really well, but my mind couldn't wrap around the idea of managing layers. I think in 2D. People say I'm a "good artist," but it basically just means I see things in darks and lights/shapes and shadows. I'm always awed by the transparency/glassy look made with computer-based tools. I can do it with a pencil and paper...

rsambuca
April 1st, 2007, 06:18 AM
Yeah, I had absolutely no idea until I checked out those links. I might have to explore more stuff like this. I enjoyed making it. Once you have made one, and figure out the techniques, you can actually make these globes in less than 10 minutes.

frup
April 1st, 2007, 06:34 AM
I used to staunchly defend GIMP vs Photoshop but now I can't do that. GIMP is great for web design and simple small files... I love the way it encourages you to think more like an artist and "paint" the drawing as opposed to just using features and filters... My big problem I can't handle with it is how it deal with large presentations... I spent 3 hours on it try to make an A1 presentation for uni... i got barely anything done, each modification took 2 minutes to process etc... on a similar spec'd machine running photoshop at uni i was able to start the whole presentation again (the psd i made in GIMP just didn't come out right in photoshop right) and it took me half an hour to complete and it was of a far better standard. This disappointed me. What MS paint is like to GIMP, GIMP is to photoshop. That makes me sad.

Blender is awesome
Inkscape is great (I don't really have much use for that though)

but the features of AutoCAD and Photoshop are the two pieces of software that lack on linux for me. Every other program so far meets my requirements 100%.

vnt87
April 1st, 2007, 12:19 PM
Wow! That's pretty cool! You can do that in GIMP?

Of course, once you get used to it, you can do most of the thing that you can do in Photoshop, or more.
Although I no longer do graphics, I had quite some fun with it when I did.
This is something I made 100% in GIMP using some concepts from Photoshop. I made it last year for a contest on GimpDome

centered effect
April 1st, 2007, 02:46 PM
can't remove posts now?

rsambuca
April 1st, 2007, 03:39 PM
My big problem I can't handle with it is how it deal with large presentations... I spent 3 hours on it try to make an A1 presentation for uni... i got barely anything done, each modification took 2 minutes to process etc... on a similar spec'd machine running photoshop at uni i was able to start the whole presentation again (the psd i made in GIMP just didn't come out right in photoshop right) and it took me half an hour to complete and it was of a far better standard. This disappointed me. What MS paint is like to GIMP, GIMP is to photoshop. That makes me sad.Out of curiosity, what type of modifications were you doing that took 2 minutes to process? Were these large files? Complex renderings? I am surpised that PS can be that much quicker.

MetalMusicAddict
April 1st, 2007, 04:02 PM
Mods. Feel free to move this to a separate thread if need be.

Since the intrested parties are here I figuried I'd bring up the fact that Adobe is working to make their apps web-based.

Would a online Photoshop kill GIMP?

You can search Google and find many recent articles about this. One thing they do say is that it wont be as feature-rich as the stand-alone version but that can always change with time.

In the end if I had Shuttleworth money I would fund the HELL out of The GIMP. :)

Lucifiel
April 2nd, 2007, 09:47 AM
Man, Photoshop and Gimp may be graphic tools but they're used for different purposes. Like I'd use Photoshop instead of Gimp for highly advanced digital painting and Gimp for working with simple images. After all, it's considered overkill if you buy a multi-million dollar sports car so that you can drive to the downtown supermarket. :p

Currently, I'm using Gimp to work with many various images and I really appreciate that Document History can show me everything I've ever worked on(provided Gimp doesn't crash).

It's a pity that Gimp pales in comparision to Photoshop in terms of text quality and so on. But there's one thing I'm grateful for: that Gimp can read .psd files as the leader in my project uses Photoshop. Krita, btw, can't even load many of my images correctly and has problems reading text layers in .xcf files. As someone who has time constraints and who needs to compile as many files as possible, I find that Gimp is my best freeware choice.

Brunellus
April 2nd, 2007, 03:02 PM
Mods. Feel free to move this to a separate thread if need be.

Since the intrested parties are here I figuried I'd bring up the fact that Adobe is working to make their apps web-based.

Would a online Photoshop kill GIMP?

You can search Google and find many recent articles about this. One thing they do say is that it wont be as feature-rich as the stand-alone version but that can always change with time.

In the end if I had Shuttleworth money I would fund the HELL out of The GIMP. :)
Photoshop online would take the wind out of the GIMP's sails as far as new user growth goes, yes. The brand name recognition alone would be a killer.

I haven't really used photoshop, though. I had never been able to afford it when I was running Windows, and so had to make do with whatever came with my old scanner. Being dissatisfied with that, I went to WinGIMP, and have never looked back.

Indeed, my problem is the opposite of most posters on this thread--I am familiar with the GIMP interface, and would want photoshop to look more like the GIMP in order to increase my own comfort with the program!

I can appreciate the utility of Photoshop in production environments, particularly in the production of images for press work. But I don't do any pre-press work. GIMP works for me, and is worth more than what I paid for it. You can't say that about too many pieces of software.

mech7
April 2nd, 2007, 04:27 PM
Photoshop online would take the wind out of the GIMP's sails as far as new user growth goes, yes. The brand name recognition alone would be a killer.


I doubt because of the name it is a killer.. it's because of workflow / interface / interaction design.. and where adobe has got it right for the most part in it's software especially with the CS3 comming up Gimp just falls behind, it looks like they only have programmers who build features but don't look at all how these should be implemented.

Brunellus
April 2nd, 2007, 04:31 PM
I doubt because of the name it is a killer.. it's because of workflow / interface / interaction design.. and where adobe has got it right for the most part in it's software especially with the CS3 comming up Gimp just falls behind, it looks like they only have programmers who build features but don't look at all how these should be implemented.
I don't doubt Adobe's good work, but in general, GIMP users are people who need a competent image manipulation package, but can't afford Adobe products. In other words--GIMP's userbase is not the same as Photoshop's userbase, even though the two programs have the same general function.

kuja
April 2nd, 2007, 05:30 PM
And the worst part of it all.. the gimp developers refuse to implent usefull stuff.. :) Ive decided that I should drop the gimp :)

EDIT: Realise the truth, gimp is crap.. but not for those who need it for simple stuff.. but for pro artist, it sucks grandma ***. ( + It would be worser if you had to pay for that crap)

EDIT2: Sorry guys, but I've had enough... after years of asking from the developers, and always ends up with a no !
Well, if you can't get what you want/need out of the gimp devs, why not try asking the krita devs? If you're lucky the answer might be yes then :lolflag:

CarpKing
April 2nd, 2007, 10:33 PM
I doubt because of the name it is a killer.. it's because of workflow / interface / interaction design.. and where adobe has got it right for the most part in it's software especially with the CS3 comming up Gimp just falls behind, it looks like they only have programmers who build features but don't look at all how these should be implemented.

Name recognition is a huge factor. Most people don't know of any image editing tools besides MS Paint and Photoshop. Due to rampant piracy, millions of people who could never afford to pay for Photoshop use it and consider no alternatives. This is why Photoshop is not just the industry standard that its price would indicate, but also the standard for the usual early adopters, who might otherwise explore alternatives. An online version of Photoshop, even if it was stripped down to far below the feature level of the GIMP, would be another similar blow.

centered effect
April 2nd, 2007, 11:07 PM
Ok I am going to add my 2 cents here now.

First I will play devil's advocate.

Exactly what features does PS have that Gimp doesn't? Why aren't these same questions asked about Krita, who, after some thinking, would probably be able to implement some needed features more than Gimp would?

On the flip side: Where are all the examples of what Gimp can do? Where is it on Depthcore.com? Or deviantart.com? Csszengarden? Where are all the developmental discussions with the developers? Constructive suggestions and not PS has this and you dont, or something along those lines? Forking Gimp? Why not add to Krita? OR something new? Why PS and not Fireworks or Corel?

For designers, the know how on how to design should be present regardless of tools, the tools help with creations. Gimp slows down this process for me, because of my usage of PS. It is not because I am unwilling to learn and grasp Gimp, it's because I guess I have been using PS for such a long time. Things like Layer Styles helps alot! Any one can get this working in 2.0+ would be a god sent : http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/1872584/. Also smarter guides, resizable brushes, CMYK (i do print work too), slices to PNG (Fireworks I believe has this not PS) I would also love to see inoperability for each of the graphic programs liek Gimp, Inkscape, Scribus, Synfig and Blender, very similar to Adobe/Macromedia has. I would also like to see (since I work in the field) of mimicing the National Brand Equivilant, ie seeing what Adobe/MS/Macromedia is doing and wokring toward what they are doing and more! I also mentioned Synfig, which is a sleeper program that can rival Flash. I would contribute funds towards that project because there is no true FOSS alternative. iI am going to stop for a few and come back to this when my thoughts are more collective.

darkhatter
April 3rd, 2007, 12:28 AM
This isn't a problem with just gimp but a lot of oss, it just feels like its being made for the developer and not the artist. Anyone one else feel this?

23meg
April 3rd, 2007, 12:33 AM
Anyone one else feel this?

I feel the exact opposite; that the way of thinking in most major FOSS projects is very much user-centric, sometimes overly so.

centered effect
April 3rd, 2007, 01:13 AM
This isn't a problem with just gimp but a lot of oss, it just feels like its being made for the developer and not the artist. Anyone one else feel this?


Actually I think he is on point. If you have artistic people who know and understand the industry and the wants and needs of everyone, then this would probably be a non issue.

frup
April 3rd, 2007, 01:22 AM
Out of curiosity, what type of modifications were you doing that took 2 minutes to process? Were these large files? Complex renderings? I am surpised that PS can be that much quicker.


An A1 file... it was roughly 512mb. I was pasting in around 9 photos from my digital camera of an architecture model I had made. For them to load when pasting took around 2 mins and then each time i moved them as I tried to work out the best arangement took approx the same length of time. Thats as far as I got on gimp... On photoshop doing the same process was almost instant, plus I completed the entire layout with all the extra bits I had planned to do in roughly half an hour.

I really like gimp, I don't have problems with its interface or anything and choose to use it over photoshop... except theres no way in hell I am going to spend 10 times as long trying to do a presentation for Uni when I could be working on the rest of the assignment/relaxing... same time difference obviously would be critical in a work environment.

saulgoode
April 3rd, 2007, 07:09 AM
An A1 file... it was roughly 512mb. I was pasting in around 9 photos from my digital camera of an architecture model I had made. For them to load when pasting took around 2 mins and then each time i moved them as I tried to work out the best arangement took approx the same length of time. Thats as far as I got on gimp...

I am wondering if increasing the Tile Cache size would not provide you with increased performance. I would recommend at least having it the size of your image (roughly 512Mb) and, if you have the memory to spare, even more. If you have 1Gb of RAM and you are editing such large images, I would recommend setting the Tile Cache to 700Mb or so -- this can be done in the "File->Preferences->Environment" dialog.


The GIMP ships with rather conservative initial settings (your case of a 512Mb image is a somewhat rare occurrence; though that is changing).

There is more information on fine tuning your Tile Cache on the GIMP.org website (http://www.gimp.org/unix/howtos/tile_cache.html) and Online GIMP User's Manual (http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-using-setup-tile-cache.html). If you are willing to investigate the effect this has on your GIMP's performance, I would be most appreciative if you shared the result.

mech7
April 3rd, 2007, 04:49 PM
This isn't a problem with just gimp but a lot of oss, it just feels like its being made for the developer and not the artist. Anyone one else feel this?

Yup i guess this is because how most of the OSS projects exists.. there are programmers and programmers..

Just look at the page for the gimp.
http://www.gimp.org/develop/



Ways in which you can help:

* program new features,
* debug existing features,
* report bugs--errors in the program,
* add documentation,
* translate the GIMP to your own language,
* translate the documentation,
* write tutorials,
* improve this web site,
* make artwork for the GIMP used in or with the GIMP,
* let people know you used the GIMP for your artwork,
* give away copies of the GIMP, or
* help others to learn to use the GIMP.


Now what it should say is..



* Get a UI designer..
* Get a proper interaction designer...
* program new features,
* debug existing features,
* report bugs--errors in the program,
* add documentation,

Brunellus
April 3rd, 2007, 05:03 PM
Yup i guess this is because how most of the OSS projects exists.. there are programmers and programmers..

Just look at the page for the gimp.
http://www.gimp.org/develop/



Now what it should say is..
OSS projects are more interested in things that run than things that look good. For better or worse UI is "looks good" rather than "runs." Bash, vim, emacs--all UI nightmares. But they run, run well, and run efficiently. It's a different ethos.

centered effect
April 3rd, 2007, 10:26 PM
Yup i guess this is because how most of the OSS projects exists.. there are programmers and programmers..

Just look at the page for the gimp.
http://www.gimp.org/develop/



Now what it should say is..


Wow you don't agree with :
* write tutorials,
* improve this web site,
* make artwork for the GIMP used in or with the GIMP,
* let people know you used the GIMP for your artwork

That would be key for someone like myself who is an end user and not a programmer

mech7
April 3rd, 2007, 11:15 PM
OSS projects are more interested in things that run than things that look good. For better or worse UI is "looks good" rather than "runs." Bash, vim, emacs--all UI nightmares. But they run, run well, and run efficiently. It's a different ethos.

Yup but i think this is part of the problem much of OSS is run by programmers, offcourse things should run and run good.. but at some point it is time to look at how things can be run more efficiently and to make it more user friendly.

Brunellus
April 4th, 2007, 02:26 PM
Yup but i think this is part of the problem much of OSS is run by programmers, offcourse things should run and run good.. but at some point it is time to look at how things can be run more efficiently and to make it more user friendly.
I'll have disagree. "Looks good" has resulted in horrible declines in usefulness. Flash makes websites hard to navigate--good CSS makes them easier to deal with, and yet "Looks good" idiots keep pushing flash on us.

Give me ugly and functional over beautiful and useless.

alextj
April 4th, 2007, 02:36 PM
All the talk about Photoshop running on Wine flawlessly is utter BS, excuse me.

And all the opinions about GIMP being superiour to Photoshop are just a matter of taste.
For some people Gimp is better, for others Photoshop. Personally I found that most people who do graphics for living do prefer Photoshop and therefore they can't move to Linux because Linux simply do not offer such tool yet.

I also prefer Photoshop, even after long and painful experience with Gimp. I find Gimp's interface unusable. The only option is to run Photoshop is with wmware so far.

Sorry for another rant reply!

Oki
April 4th, 2007, 03:08 PM
GIMP is a very good applications, free and open source. BUT, if you compare it to PhotoShop CS - its like two different worlds. And I am not talking about the interface, so no need to tell me about GimpShop. Its what it can do, or not can. Lets face the fact; people that need the futures in PS CS, cant use GNU/Linux. Lets take a professionally photographer, that just spent 6000 dollar on his new lens; do you want him to editing his photos in 8bits mode? Or what shall he do when he want to print the photo. Gimp cant help him, nor Krita cus lacking options - that's for sure! And yes, I know about Wine - but that's not good enough today. Online version of PS; will miss a lot of futures(off course), and will be slow for bigger files.

I am tired of reading that Gimp are just as good as PS...

The problem GNU/Linux has, are with the "ecosystem" that cant compare in some areas with the ecosystem you will find with ms os. Not strange, since 9 of 10 are using that crappy os. And yes, Gimp is not the only thing we could mentioned, there are others as well.
Lets hope this will change, and I do believe that since we get new users all the time.

I am lucky, since I don't longer have programs that I need witch only can run under windows.

Shay Stephens
April 4th, 2007, 03:44 PM
All the talk about Photoshop running on Wine flawlessly is utter BS, excuse me.

Who said that? Can you post a link?

I know personally, the CS versions don't work, but Photoshop 7 does work in wine. I am using it myself everyday. Even put together a how to in my signature ;-)

Brunellus
April 4th, 2007, 03:48 PM
Who said that? Can you post a link?

I know personally, the CS versions don't work, but Photoshop 7 does work in wine. I am using it myself everyday. Even put together a how to in my signature ;-)
the type of user who makes this sort of statement is the type of user who "needs" the latest-and-greatest. PS 7 isn't going to do it for them, because only chumps use old software, right?

Shay Stephens
April 4th, 2007, 03:52 PM
GIMP is a very good applications, free and open source. BUT, if you compare it to PhotoShop CS - its like two different worlds. And I am not talking about the interface, so no need to tell me about GimpShop. Its what it can do, or not can. Lets face the fact; people that need the futures in PS CS, cant use GNU/Linux. Lets take a professionally photographer, that just spent 6000 dollar on his new lens; do you want him to editing his photos in 8bits mode? Or what shall he do when he want to print the photo. Gimp cant help him, nor Krita cus lacking options - that's for sure! And yes, I know about Wine - but that's not good enough today. Online version of PS; will miss a lot of futures(off course), and will be slow for bigger files.

I am tired of reading that Gimp are just as good as PS...

The problem GNU/Linux has, are with the "ecosystem" that cant compare in some areas with the ecosystem you will find with ms os. Not strange, since 9 of 10 are using that crappy os. And yes, Gimp is not the only thing we could mentioned, there are others as well.
Lets hope this will change, and I do believe that since we get new users all the time.

I am lucky, since I don't longer have programs that I need witch only can run under windows.

You don't sound like a professional photographer to me, so let me fill you in on a few things. When I edit photos, I do them in a RAW editor which works in the higher bit modes. When the photo is ready, I output that to 8 bit mode when I make a jpg (all jpgs are 8 bit by nature). Any editing that needs to be done from there is resizing for the web, adding borders, maybe making B&W web previews, etc. All the heavy lifting has been done already in the RAW editor (in my case, Bibble Pro) and the resizing work I do batch fashion via Gimp with Python-Fu scripting.

All the prints I make are done with my full size jpgs that I send to the pro lab.

The only need I have for Photoshop 7 is page layout for books, DVD box art and the like. Gimp and the others have terrible text layout capabilities.

Oki
April 4th, 2007, 06:10 PM
“You don't sound like a professional photographer to me”; I am not, did I say so? I only made an example!

“so let me fill you in on a few things.” … “I output that to 8 bit mode when I make a jpg (all jpgs are 8 bit by nature).” So you do believe that most professionally photographers are using crappy jpg as an output file(!!) – and not TIFF? Think again.

There is plenty RAW converts for GNU/Linux, with lot of options – but they can’t compare to PS CS, not at all. The point; for all those that need the option you can find in PS CS; they cant use GNU/Linux. And why are you using Bibble that cost, when you could use Lightzone for free – witch can do 100% the same as Bibble..?

My post was not about image editing, it was just an example to show that the ecosystem around GNU/Linux don’t are as good as that around ms os. I could used ms office instead, or something different. I suggest you read my post once more…

alextj
April 4th, 2007, 06:58 PM
the type of user who makes this sort of statement is the type of user who "needs" the latest-and-greatest. PS 7 isn't going to do it for them, because only chumps use old software, right?
Well, I don't know about chumps of anything, but one definitely is not going to buy another, an older version of Photoshop just because his/hers current, newer version doesn't work.



Even put together a how to in my signature
Thanks, I'll try your method. :)

Shay Stephens
April 4th, 2007, 08:45 PM
“You don't sound like a professional photographer to me”; I am not, did I say so? I only made an example!
You are speaking for professional photographers without being one yourself. Your example is flawed and I am trying to point that out.


“so let me fill you in on a few things.” … “I output that to 8 bit mode when I make a jpg (all jpgs are 8 bit by nature).” So you do believe that most professionally photographers are using crappy jpg as an output file(!!) – and not TIFF? Think again.
You do know that the image quality difference between a first generation jpg and a tiff file is close to zero right? And delivering tiff files to a wedding or portrait client is not as useful to them as a jpg. Many print shops accept jpg submission but tiff uploads place an unnecessary upload slowdown if they are even allowed. Even when it comes to archiving, I would much prefer to save the raw file and a rendered full size jpg rather than a tiff. Tiff just doesn't offer enough benefits for me to use regularly.


There is plenty RAW converts for GNU/Linux, with lot of options – but they can’t compare to PS CS, not at all. The point; for all those that need the option you can find in PS CS; they cant use GNU/Linux. And why are you using Bibble that cost, when you could use Lightzone for free – witch can do 100% the same as Bibble..?
I don't mind paying for software, what I care about are functionality and freedom. I just recently heard about lightzone, and I have been testing it. However, it lacks functionality for me, which they say will be addressed in the next update or two. I do like the interface and the workflow of the program. If you have used lightzone, you will remember that it doesn't do any browser ranking, batch renaming, etc. So the workflow still needs to be able to allow me to sort the list of photos, hide the ones I don't want to work on, rename the ones I do, and batch process the edited raw files. Lightzone currently is designed to work on individual files. The rumor is they are going to be adding a batch workflow. Bibble allows me to do this right now. Bibble gives me the same functionality I used with Adobe Bridge and then some. But I do look forward to the LightZone updates.


I could used ms office instead, or something different. I suggest you read my post once more…
I was not aware of Microsoft Office's ability to edit photos, I can't believe it would be one of it's strong points, but I am sure it would good enough for some people.

Shay Stephens
April 4th, 2007, 08:49 PM
Well, I don't know about chumps of anything, but one definitely is not going to buy another, an older version of Photoshop just because his/hers current, newer version doesn't work.
I don't know about that, I purchased FlashMX just about a month ago because it works in wine. The newer versions of flash don't. So some people will buy an older version if that is the only one that works.

I started buying Photoshop with version 7, bought the upgrade to CS, and CS2. I have had to call to get permission to keep using CS2, and that unreliability I just can't accept. I am no longer supporting activation schemes that have the potential of shutting off my main work tool for frivolous reasons. So I changed to using Bibble and Photoshop 7 as my replacement to Bridge and CS2. Now I can get my work done without fear that my software will decide to stop running.


Thanks, I'll try your method. :)
Only works with Photoshop 7

Oki
April 4th, 2007, 09:42 PM
.................................................

stchman
April 4th, 2007, 09:53 PM
Hey,

With the upcoming release of PhotoshopCS3 it seems The Gimp is falling even further behind after reading some of the features that Photoshop CS3 will offer such as;


Nodestructive layer based effects
Advanced photomerge
Advanced and improved Clone brush that allows for the basic brush rotation/scatter etc
+ a load of other great features and UI improvements.

Yet, what will the upcoming release of The Gimp offer us?


Still destructive layer effects (filters)
Extremely hard to use and basic brush engine that does not even allow for such basic operations, that I personally feel are necessary for anyone doing serious work, brush rotation/scatter/malipulation.
An interface they couldn't make any harder to work in if they tried
A heal brush! ... Yeah, nice. Photoshop has had that for years.

I use Photoshop nearly every day when on Windows, but when I am on Linux I try my hardest to use The Gimp, it just simply does not compare to the industry standard, Photoshop. It's perfect for the average user who just wants to resize some images, scribble some text on some picture, or generally just play around applying random filters ... but for anything serious, to be honest, it's the worst tool to use.

It's interface, I know this has been discussed many many times ... but come on, it sucks, it really does suck. Having all those windows open filling up the Window List thing (forgot what it's called) is just a pain. Hell, I even had Gnome the other day grouping all of the windows that The Gimp had open. How does that help the person using the program? That meant to get to any window I wanted to use, that may have been hidden behind another random Gimp window, I had to click on the group at the bottom and select it - then get the tool/button I wanted. Try doing something serious in a messy interface like that, drives you mad and slows you down a lot.

Brush tools, seriously The Gimp lacks some very very basic brush tools such as simple brush rotation, on-the-fly brush resizing and brush scattering. Until The Gimp devs decide to pick up their pace and get the brush engine sorted out, I doubt it will ever get used for anything serious. I don't know a single (serious) Photoshop user that does not use at some point brush rotation, scatter and on-the-fly resize.

Layer Groups, very very simple feature that again Photoshop has had for years, yet the Gimp still does not implement. It's a great feature and one that I use often in Photoshop. It means I can hide an entire group, even change the entire opacity of a group.

I would say the missing feature of Fill opacity rather than full opacity ... but then again The Gimp does not have layer effects that are not destructive (Drop Shadow, Stroke, Glow etc), again this is a feature a lot of users use, and is missing in The Gimp, well they exist but in a destructive form, I can not go back afterwards and edit the Stroke width or color for example.

When PhotoshopCS3 is released, The Gimp will not be able to compare to it, features that have been in Photoshop for years are only just starting to make it's way in to the latest, slowly developed release.

What I feel needs to be done is to fork The Gimp, and get a seriously devoted team together and rip The Gimp apart to do a lot of re-building and implementing of basic features that will allow us Linux and Unix users to use an open-source program that is on the same level as Photoshop.

Lets see:

Photoshop CS3 - $649
Photoshop CS3 - $999
The GIMP - $0

I wonder which one would be a better value? I dont see Photoshop being THAT much better than The GIMP. The GIMP is even available for Windows.

Lets say you want to edit some digital pics. You don't have $650 to plunk down for photoshop. What would you do?

Oki
April 4th, 2007, 10:14 PM
Firstly I don't like that you take only some part out of a sentence that gives no meaning, and quote them. I have never said that ms office has the ability to edit photos...

"You do know that the image quality difference between a first generation jpg and a tiff file
is close to zero right?"
So you do believe the possibility to convert the RAW fil into 16 bits in PS is just for fun... You do believe that editing a photo in 16 bits mode don't have any advances vs. 8 bits mode... Well, then you are wrong. If you are going to editing the photos and make larger prints you will see the different! Perhaps its good enough for you, but be sure there is other photographer that has other needs witch makes Gimp useless...

MS has made a new format that is "twice the quality of JPEG"(http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/hdphotodpk.mspx), but it isn't better then TIFF is it? And how could the different be only "close to zero" as you said?

"The third and, arguably, the biggest advantage of RAW is that it gives you 12 bits of brightness data to work with, both in the RAW software itself and when you save the file to a 16-bit TIFF or PSD. Those 12 bits translate to 4,096 discrete levels of brightness -- 16 times the 256 levels available in a JPEG's limited eight-bit space. This is critical if you need to alter brightness in any significant way."
Quote from; http://www.popphoto.com/howto/2196/jpeg-vs-raw-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-explained-raw-pros-and-cons-page2.html

More;
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/raw_vs_jpg.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats
"But JPEG files do suffer generational degradation when repeatedly edited and saved. Photographic images are best stored in a lossless non-JPEG format if they will be re-edited in future, or if the presence of small "artifacts" (blemishes), due to the nature of the JPEG compression algorithm, is unacceptable."


Personally I don't care about the quality of jpg, my post was only stating that the ecosystem around GNU/Linux has missing holes, like with Gimp, Exchange and so on, witch forces them to use ms os - but I guess that was to hard to understand...


stchman: The 0 vs. $649 isn't interesting for many - the point is they need the futures PS can give them, so Gimp is not an option at all. For me, witch gets all I need with Gimp - it clearly gives "a better value".

aysiu
April 4th, 2007, 10:35 PM
For the record, MS Office does have the ability to edit photos.

Shay Stephens
April 4th, 2007, 11:31 PM
"You do know that the image quality difference between a first generation jpg and a tiff file
is close to zero right?"
So you do believe the possibility to convert the RAW fil into 16 bits in PS is just for fun... You do believe that editing a photo in 16 bits mode don't have any advances vs. 8 bits mode... Well, then you are wrong. If you are going to editing the photos and make larger prints you will see the different! Perhaps its good enough for you, but be sure there is other photographer that has other needs witch makes Gimp useless...
Take a first generation jpg rendered from a RAW file and compare it to a tiff file rendered from the same RAW file. Please point out to me where the noticeable difference in image quality is. If you have to magnify the image 400% or more to spot a difference, then I would submit to you there is no noticeable difference between the two.

I edit my images in raw, and they typically contain about 12bits of image information at the moment. Editing the raw allows me to manipulate the exposure much better than any other method. So I don't do my main editing in jpg or any other format, I stick to editing the RAW file. But when that editing is done, then I output that to jpg to send off to the printer, book maker, client, or what have you. The jpg needs no further editing unless it is to crop it or in some other way use it for a product and typically that does not alter the "exposure" of the image, thus no pressing need to edit in 16bit mode.

However, if you want to create high quality gradients or similar graphics, then 16bit editing can be very important. For that you can use a 16 bit tool like CinePaint for example, instead of CS2. If one were to do a lot of that kind of work, then it would probably be best to do it in CS2. But for the onesy-twosies, staying in linux is worth switching tools a little.

You seem to be confusing raw editing and jpg editing. But even there, if you were to edit a jpg, and then save it at Photoshop level 10 jpg quality, then open that and repeat it ten times, you still wouldn't see much difference between it and the original. It is only when you save a jpg with very low quality settings that you start to loose quality that can be perceived by the eye. Now not all photographers can use only jpg as an output format. Some will need tiff or psd or similar, especially if that image still has to have editing done to it further down the production line. And for that, the other formats are a great solution. But when it comes to the image as a final product for a consumer to use or for many print houses to use, jpg is a great format to deliver in.



"But JPEG files do suffer generational degradation when repeatedly edited and saved. Photographic images are best stored in a lossless non-JPEG format if they will be re-edited in future, or if the presence of small "artifacts" (blemishes), due to the nature of the JPEG compression algorithm, is unacceptable."
I emphasized the above quote. And repeating for those needing, I store my raw files and the rendered full size jpgs. That way if there are any advances in raw editors (as has already happened) then my raw files can benefit from them. Most notably, the noise reduction and highlight recovery have seen the most improvements over the past couple of years. If the raw files are rendered to tiff and discarded, then I would miss out on those potential improvements because the image settings have been locked down in the tiff format.


Personally I don't care about the quality of jpg.
Even if you don't use jpg for archiving or anything like that, knowing about what jpg can and can't do will make a difference in the work you produce. Some cameras only output in jpg format, and being able to deal with that without undue degradation can really make the difference.

rai4shu2
April 5th, 2007, 01:30 AM
Personally I don't care about the quality of jpg, my post was only stating that the ecosystem around GNU/Linux has missing holes, like with Gimp, Exchange and so on, witch forces them to use ms os - but I guess that was to hard to understand...

So, post a bounty on those features in the Gimp or some other photo editor. Problem solved.

handy
April 5th, 2007, 04:07 AM
All windows software through wine, is buggy. This goes for MS Office, Flash, Dreamweaver, and all Adobe products. Not to mention the window drawing is sluggish and can cause the app to crash as well. You're better off running it on a vmware instal of xp or just dual booting.

DVDshrink has worked perfectly via Wine for me since Breezy!

handy
April 5th, 2007, 06:23 AM
I've read every printed character of this very interesting & informative thread & have to say thank you AlexC_ for initiating it, :KS & biting your tongue so many times I'm sure!

Shay Stephens, thank you, for your professional input, I learned a great deal re. software to use under Ubuntu, especially for RAW photo editing, as I'm looking at getting a Nikon D200, & after being free of windows for approx' 15 months, I don't intend to use windows again.

This thread is just what the good doctor ordered! :guitar:

Just a side note:-

I wonder how Haiku will eventually turn out re. RAW editing & such? Handling digital media is purportedly a major reason for it's being...

[Edit:] LightZone 2.1 (Free for Linux), released 22nd of January 2007; now has Templates, Batch processing & more, see link. (http://www.lightcrafts.com/linux/download.php)

kevinlyfellow
April 5th, 2007, 07:44 AM
Apart from the Linux-kernel and some Command-Line apps, the best projects tend to be proprietary(Office, Exchange, AutoCAD, Photoshop,Games,...)

I whole heartedly disagree. Here are examples of such:
firefox
apache
GNOME/KDE/XFCE (especially with beryl)
gaim
kstars
gnuplot
OpenOffice (for their far superior equation editor)
celestia
bash
Python
Ogg Vorbis
Tomboy
Synaptic
ext3 filesystem

PartisanEntity
April 5th, 2007, 09:37 AM
I have been forced to go back to dual booting with XP just in order to use Photoshop because Gimp annoys the hell out of me. The text handling in Gimp is enough to drive me up the wall at how limiting and primitive it is.

Flame away :)

Oki
April 5th, 2007, 02:53 PM
After converting a RAW file into Gimp, you are forced to work in 8bits mode before you save the image. This has its disadvantages vs. 16; just google and you will find a lot of explanations - and even pictures showing the different(http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/16_vs_8.htm).

I can quote from some photographers explaining the benefits;

Take the same image in 8 bit an 16 bit. Play a bit with levels and color balance in PS and then compare the histograms. The 8 bit one will look like a comb (meaning lost data), the 16 bit image will be much more intact. IOW the 8 bit image will lose proportionally much more of those 255 colors then you would in the 16 bit image.
This is important for a lot of reasons. One is when you change color spaces for example. For some images it may be beneficial to change to Lab to sharpen (in order to avoid coloring artifacts from grain/noise) or to change contrast (without affecting saturation). If you change from 8 bit RGB to Lab and back you lose about 25 - 30%! In 16 bit you lose virtually nothing.


Lets say you have a low contrast sky.
Lets make it simple by working with a monochrome image and lets say there were ten levels between the brightest and darkest levels. Lets say the brightness varied between 250 and 240.
You increase the contrast by using a curve targetted to exaggerate the differences in the sky. The curve leaves the brightest parts at 250 but darkens the sky dramatically to 150.
You have now the original tones spread further apart. You still have 10 tones but each one is now (250-150)/10=10 levels apart.
The difference between each tone will easily be visible and the contours between adjacent tones will be obvious. The effect is referred to as posterization or sometimes banding.
Work in 16bit and you will prevent this.

Editing is destructive to image information. By editing in 16 bit and then downsampling to 8 bit for printing you retain a lot of information that would otherwise be destroyed.
Have you ever edited an image and found banding in the shadows or sky that wasn't there when you began? This is a classic example of destructive editing.
16 bit printers are now hitting the market so you keep the files in 16 bit which will give you more colors and better fidelity.


16-bit files is that there is simply much more information and thus you should get better tonal gradations and other benefits


16 bit is a must for high quality BW scans. Firstly, BW negs have a realtively high density range, secondly, alot of exigeant people look at the details on the print inthe highlights and the shadows. This can be greatly improved with 16 bit depth


the higher bit depth of 16 bit (or even 12 bit) files will allow for smoother tonal gradations when making certain kinds of global changes. For instance, I've experienced slight posterization at times when applying a gaussian blur to an 8 bit file, but haven't had that problem since I started applying it only to files in 16 bit mode.

I guess you get the point... If not, read more here;
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/histograms/histograms3.htm
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/more-8bit-versus-16bit.html

So, if Shay here don't believe or understand this, doesn't make it less true. And pl notice; I am not saying that every photo needs to be fixed in 16 bits mode; that depends on what you are going to use it for(large prints vs. web as an example), what you need to do with file when editing(read; what and how much), the picture itself, your personal standards and so on. The difference can also be discussed, meaning witch degree. As I said in my first post; photographers that spend a lot of money on quality lens/equipment will want the software that gives them the best IQ. But the point I am trying to make is simple; the lack in Gimp makes it into a non option for a lot(but not all!!) of photographer's out there -period!

So there is a reason why PS can work in 16bits mode(even all the filters in PS can now work in 16 bits mode!), as Krita, CinePaint and others. Even Gimp are planning to add this future in later upgrades(GEGL), they have not made it possible just for fun...

So why not just use Krita or CinePaint? they don't have all the needed options as PS CS can give, witch are needed for many.

This was one important problem with Gimp, and there are others;
* Gimp has no support for color management, witch makes it useless for printing. Many photographers do the print job them self(wice if you want to earn more money on your job), and cant use Gimp.
* Will it matter if it gets support for color management? No, cus there is no monitor profiling hardware for GNU/Linux... You will still need windows for that.
*The lack of actions will make the workflow worse.
* And then we have text layout and the bad interface.

So I say again; Gimp is not an option for many photographers out there - and they are forced to use windows - witch btw; I am sorry for.

After the work is done you have to save the file into some format.
There are less option here then with PS. Shay is telling us that his clients are more then happy with jpg. I don't know if they also get the RAW files(I believe not), and then I feel sorry for them. Perhaps not the first owners; but pictures are meant to be something to store, so the next generation can use. Jpg is not a losless format(look at my posted links from wikipedia above) - meaning the IQ will be worse when the time goes by. If they got the RAW files or perhaps TIFF, they could make a print in 50 years that would be even better then today!
"Each time you save a jpg it loses something. It loses more the higher compression ration you choose, but even if you save multiple times at high quality the image degrades somewhat each time."

Or lets quote Shay himself:

Gimp is not currently a substitute for PS. People who don't do a lot of graphics editing should really leave off suggesting it I have been using it and currently am porting my actions into python-fu. It has a lot of functionality, however, as mentioned, it's ability to work with layers is very limited, and it's text layout is horrible just to mention two deficiencies.


Now that being said, gimp does about 80% of what PS can do, and if you don't need that last 20%, then gimp is a great tool. I am using it for a number of things now. I plan on eventually switching to it 100% because I am not going to use any more Photoshop versions that impose activation schemes like windows.


Gimpshop is gimp with rearranged menus. It does not solve the lack of functionality gimp has in layers, text layout, etc. compared to photoshop. If gimp does not work for someone on a functionality aspect, gimpshop is not going to either.

So yes, Gimp is falling even more behind compared to latest PS CS. Personally I can do what I want/need with other photo-applications under GNU/Linux - but there is lots of people that don't.

Shay Stephens
April 5th, 2007, 05:17 PM
After converting a RAW file into Gimp, you are forced to work in 8bits
After you convert a a raw image and output to jpg, you have a near perfect image. There is no need to bring it into gimp and change levels and other things. If that is the case, then the photographer has not done a good enough job in the raw editor.

If instead the photographer is going to convert the photo into an art piece by running heavy actions on it then I can see the need for working in 16bit mode from a tiff, psd, png, etc. But then it is not so much a photograph anymore and more a painting if you will. If you are just producing straight photography, and the images go right to print, there is little advantage in using 16bit mode or formats other than jpg.


This was one important problem with Gimp, and there are others;
* Gimp has no support for color management, witch makes it useless for printing. Many photographers do the print job them self(wice if you want to earn more money on your job), and cant use Gimp.
Well, not entirely true. Bibble and other raw editors do have color management. So if the image is output to jpg in sRGB mode, and then opened in gimp for printing, there is no need for gimp to do anything with a monitor profile. Printing will be as nice as if there were color management.


* Will it matter if it gets support for color management? No, cus there is no monitor profiling hardware for GNU/Linux... You will still need windows for that.
Not entirely true either, you can use the DTP94 and argyle to profile your monitor in linux:
http://www.argyllcms.com/
And I hear they will be adding support for the Gretag Macbeth eye-one devices soon.


*The lack of actions will make the workflow worse.
* And then we have text layout and the bad interface.
The lack of recordable actions is a real shame, and that is where Photoshop stomps it pretty hard. If there are actions you use often and they don't change, you can convert them to a python-fu script. I did that for a few of my mainstay actions in photohop. So now I can batch my web gallery in gimp. But it takes time and effort to learn python-fu and make the conversion. Recording actions is a much easier way to go.

I do hear that when they institute GEGL in gimp after the 2.4 release, we may see the ability to do actions. So that would be sweet. But we do have to wait.


So I say again; Gimp is not an option for many photographers out there - and they are forced to use windows - witch btw; I am sorry for.
I spent a year moving myself to linux. During that time, I learned a number of things, and changed my workflow to accomodate. I am now happy to report that I don't need windows or the CS versions of photoshop any longer. It takes time and effort, but a motivated photographer can make the change given enough time and determination.


After the work is done you have to save the file into some format.
There are less option here then with PS. Shay is telling us that his clients are more then happy with jpg. I don't know if they also get the RAW files(I believe not), and then I feel sorry for them.
You don't have to feel sorry for them at all :)
http://www.shaystephens.com/galleries/goodrich/goodrich295.jpg

http://www.shaystephens.com/galleries/baray/baray045.jpg

http://www.shaystephens.com/galleries/tully/tully354.jpg


Personally I can do what I want/need with other photo-applications under GNU/Linux - but there is lots of people that don't.
Not to sound rude, but shouldn't they be speaking for themselves? If you are fine with the tools you are using, then why argue for those who may not be. Their arguments would probably carry more weight coming from them as it is from personal experience and not just conceptual arguments based on articles read off the net :)

Oki
April 5th, 2007, 05:59 PM
After you convert a a raw image and output to jpg, you have a near perfect image.
Perhaps you don't need to do more, after finishing the options that the RAW converter gives you. But you cant generalize from only your needs! Others do a lot more then just those options, so remember there is others then just you(!).


There is no need to bring it into gimp and change levels and other things.
Should the photographer decide that, or should you do it for him?!? Take a look at dpreviw for an example; thousands of people out there do many of the options you will find in PS, not all only do wedding pictures!

And I am not talking about "running heavy actions"; I am starting to believe you know nothing beside wedding photo! What about adjusting highlight and darkness with PS wonderful 16bits filter, what about B&W, what about fine tuning the exposure(after running other filters you cant find in the RAW converter), consensus is that unsharp mask is the last thing you do; yet again in PS, and we could mentioned a lot more!


You don't have to feel sorry for them at all
And then you show me pictures... when I talked about the non losless format of jpg...


Not to sound rude, but shouldn't they be speaking for themselves? If you are fine with the tools you are using, then why argue for those who may not be.
My simple f point is that Gimp is not an option for a lot of people, and they need PS CS, is that so hard to understand??? The reason why is because Gimp is lacking a some futures.

I am done; there is no logic in your arguments, you have clearly decided once for all and its only waist of time to answer any more. You do need to re think, cus your are wrong.

Shay Stephens
April 5th, 2007, 06:36 PM
I am done; there is no logic in your arguments, you have clearly decided once for all and its only waist of time to answer any more. You do need to re think, cus your are wrong.

Well thank you for the discussion :-) I enjoyed being able to present some differing points of view.

iammeagain
April 7th, 2007, 10:26 PM
The Gimp is awesome especially for free. I think it all just comes down to preference and what your used to. I can do basic things on both of them but neither one seems easier to figure out.
If you used photoshop forever i would expect you to be lost in Gimp because it doesnt try to totally copy photoshop. Plus can't you use photoshop tools in Gimp somehow, i believe i have heard something about that.
They were made differently. They both have pros and cons.

drfalkor
April 7th, 2007, 11:56 PM
what gave you the idea that you will have to pay in the future?

and

for years that you have ask, did you even bother to look at the code and volunteer to change it?

oh, perhaps you are not a programmer? so am i , but how did you know its crap if you did not look

the underlying source code?

As an graphic artist, the source code is non of my bisniss.. I looked at the program over and over again, but.. no.. I still cant get it.. But, I only said my opinion, and I'll stick to it.. you could try to say something against me, but.. its just a program that I dont like.. thats it

bieber
April 8th, 2007, 02:12 AM
As a photographer and designer, I've learned to cope with Gimp, as I want to use only free software. Its interface really isn't as bad as people say, it's just a matter of getting used to it when you learned graphics editing on Photoshop. The two things that I personally REALLY wish Gimp had was layer effects and Photoshop's typesetting capabilities. With those, I'd be pretty happy. CMYK and 16 bit color support would also be helpful, as would all of Photoshop's other awesome features, but those are the two that would REALLY make me happy. I'm getting along alright, but I really wish I could get along as easily as I would with Photoshop...

FyreBrand
April 8th, 2007, 02:51 AM
Well thank you for the discussion :-) I enjoyed being able to present some differing points of view.I've been reading through this thread as it's progressed. I want to say thank you for participating and providing another perspective. It's nice to have another perspective for thought.

I visited your site. It's beautiful and a pleasure to surf without gimmicky flash and effects. It's an exceptionally classy site.

Your photography is beautiful. Thanks for sharing.

migla
April 8th, 2007, 03:40 AM
You can either contribute something or shut up. It is that simple.

Yes, (s)he could contribute some ideas of what a professional could use feature-wise for gimp. Surely, a discussion of what professionals needs and what photoshop has over gimp is a worthy discussion. A thread here is a good place to start.

Personally, I think it's an impressive project, usable for a bit more than the "average" user, I'd say.

I wish I had some money or skills I could contribute. I'd really love to see a free photoshopkiller.

Shay Stephens
April 8th, 2007, 03:58 AM
I've been reading through this thread as it's progressed. I want to say thank you for participating and providing another perspective. It's nice to have another perspective for thought.

I visited your site. It's beautiful and a pleasure to surf without gimmicky flash and effects. It's an exceptionally classy site.

Your photography is beautiful. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you very much! I really appreciate that :-)

Iowa Dave
April 8th, 2007, 04:26 AM
There is no question that Adobe's premium photo software meets a higher set of needs than GIMP does. Adobe's claim to make superior software is justified. So what? To earn a buck they still have to make Photoshop valuable enough that people will buy the software and pay the cost of an operating system to run it on. I did, and do, because I need those capabilities fairly often.

GIMP represents an entirely different value proposition. GIMP doesn't have to be declared "bad" in order to recognize what's "good" about Photoshop. I use them both. Taking time to understand the capabilities of both packages helps me know which one to reach for on a particular job.

I prefer to use Ubuntu for most daily desktop work. In that context, I will gladly fire up GIMP whenever it suits the purpose. It is handy, and meets a lot of needs for such things as e-mail, simple documents and web images.

One thing that really levels the playing field between the two software packages is the ability to process "raw" camera images in Linux. Install "ufraw" on your system. Run it from a terminal window. It will open up a graphical application allowing you to import raw image files with much the same kind of control that Adobe Photo Raw affords.

The right place to fix problems with color, exposure, gamma, shadows, highlights and sharpness is during the raw file conversion. This is true regardless of whether you intend to process the resulting file in Photoshop or GIMP. If you bring images into GIMP with all of those problems already resolved, there is less need for some of the "adjustment" layers in Photoshop.

Being able to correct problems in raw camera images, at least, goes a long way to closing the performance gap between GIMP and Photoshop.

GIMP also ought to be compared to the lower-priced Photoshop Elements product. Now, there the score is much more nearly even. First, the price of Elements is fairly low. It may still come free with many consumer imaging products such as scanners and cameras, eliminating the cost comparison. The difference is more about features than price.

Elements does have some of Photoshop's layer manipulation advantages. But it lacks important tools such as Curves and Channels that GIMP does have. Given a raw camera file correctly imported, I choose between GIMP and Elements based on whether I need the layer wizardry or Curves.

Neither program is complete, but having them both available gets me a lot closer to the full capabilities of Photoshop. At today's hardware prices, you can take the $800 back from Photoshop, buy two computers, put Linux/GIMP on one, Windows/Elements on the other, and have change left over for an all-night supply of salty snacks! :popcorn:

Look at it this way: no one would argue that Photoshop Elements ought to perform equally to Photoshop CS3. I see GIMP as a worthy alternative to Elements. In that light, I would never expect it to outshine Photoshop CS3.

Shay Stephens
April 8th, 2007, 04:36 AM
Look at it this way: no one would argue that Photoshop Elements ought to perform equally to Photoshop CS3. I see GIMP as a worthy alternative to Elements. In that light, I would never expect it to outshine Photoshop CS3.

That is a great comparison!

BLTicklemonster
April 8th, 2007, 04:52 AM
Hey,

(insert the usual well informed dribble)
Gimp's a free program that does incredible stuff. Way more than a lot of other free programs do. But it's the carbon emissions that cause it to stagnate in development, already, but none of us are going to give up our SUVs, so just please, for the love of all that's barbecue, accept that Gimp is what Gimp is.

slimdog360
April 8th, 2007, 08:25 AM
I think gimp is just one tool in a mass of tools available for linux. Look at things like
hugin (http://hugin.sourceforge.net/)
enblend (http://enblend.sourceforge.net/)
lightzone (http://www.lightcrafts.com/products/lightzone/)
(free linux of lightzone download here (http://lightcrafts.com/linux/))
this site here (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6635) shows how to do better colour mangement in linux
the list goes on. All of which one can utilise to have more fun in their photography, rather then constantly complaining.

rai4shu2
April 8th, 2007, 11:11 AM
Well, the one thing I think that hasn't been addressed is the text layout. What specifically can the Gimp devs do to improve that?

BLTicklemonster
April 8th, 2007, 02:25 PM
You can dock dialogues onto the main gimp window so that you only have it and the canvas. Two windows up as opposed to photoshop's several at the least. I love photoshop, but if I resize an image, I have to go moving all kinds of stuff around. And if I minimize ps for any reason, the danged little pests go back to where they were and I have to move them again. With Gimp, I have two windows to deal with, and they maintain their size at all times. And as far as gimpshop is concerned, I see no reason to use that. Just use a different desktop to work with gimp, and move between the two.

And gimp's not falling behind, it's moving forward, just not as fast as the FINANCED graphics packages. Get that right.

And for crying out loud, if you want to run a business, spend some money, or quit whining, or learn to write code and contribute to the cause and show us all how really smart you are.

maniacmusician
April 8th, 2007, 02:40 PM
I think gimp is just one tool in a mass of tools available for linux. Look at things like
hugin (http://hugin.sourceforge.net/)
enblend (http://enblend.sourceforge.net/)
lightzone (http://www.lightcrafts.com/products/lightzone/)
(free linux of lightzone download here (http://lightcrafts.com/linux/))
this site here (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6635) shows how to do better colour mangement in linux
the list goes on. All of which one can utilise to have more fun in their photography, rather then constantly complaining.
Lightzone is not open source, though. Most people probably won't care (hey, I have it myself), but I just wanted to put that out there.

slimdog360
April 8th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Lightzone is not open source, though. Most people probably won't care (hey, I have it myself), but I just wanted to put that out there.
yeah, so long as its free I don't really care. That doesn't mean Im not an open source supporter though. If I was to make anything it would be open.

RobotJox
April 8th, 2007, 03:03 PM
I'm sure we will get a "photoshop killer" at some point, because the need is there, which this thread is a symptom of. And with a lot of big boys supporting Linux I'm sure it's not that far in the horizon as some may think.

As many others I've read this thread, and I've been trying to "decode" it - that is sorting out all the whining and complaints about Gimp's much maligned floating windows - and I must say there has been a few useful pieces of info. I'm curious about Cinepaint - anyone here actually using it?

I've not seen much hard evidence of Gimps shortcomings, apart from usability features, which I have learned to see through, and I use Gimp (with Inkscape) for all my graphics work these days. I'm a webdesigner/developer with almost no knowledge of pre-press/print-work, and my impression so far is, that this is where Gimp falls short (correct?). For my needs I have not met any real obstacles that Google and forums haven't been able to solve.

I'll also take a second to recommend the great Beginning Gimp (http://gimpbook.com/) book - well worth the small investment.

I had a crazy thought - someone suggested putting out a bounty on missing features. If you're like me, your wallet doesn't allow for hundreds of dollars to be spent on a bounty, and I presume that a few dollars wouldn't catch the eye of a master-developer. What if some of us put our money together and assembled a list of the most wanted features and then put together a pool of pledged money to make some bounties. There are websites like fundable.com that can perhaps serve purposes like this. Just a few random thoughts - feel free to comment or drop me a message if you think this idea could be worth something?!

I'm thinking about putting up a community-website for designers and developers only using Linux, because I haven't been able to find much out there - or maybe I've looked the wrong places.

thanks

Shay Stephens
April 8th, 2007, 06:07 PM
You can dock dialogues onto the main gimp window so that you only have it and the canvas.

That is what I do and it works great.

BLTicklemonster
April 8th, 2007, 06:14 PM
Exactly!

I just got through scanning some pictures for family, and used xp with adobe (try getting a lexmark scanner to work in linux) and those buggers just kept messing with me.


BUT, ps>gimp for sure, but I don't care, because I don't intend to make a living messing with pictures or graphics.

centered effect
April 9th, 2007, 01:34 AM
I'm sure we will get a "photoshop killer" at some point, because the need is there, which this thread is a symptom of. And with a lot of big boys supporting Linux I'm sure it's not that far in the horizon as some may think.

As many others I've read this thread, and I've been trying to "decode" it - that is sorting out all the whining and complaints about Gimp's much maligned floating windows - and I must say there has been a few useful pieces of info. I'm curious about Cinepaint - anyone here actually using it?

I've not seen much hard evidence of Gimps shortcomings, apart from usability features, which I have learned to see through, and I use Gimp (with Inkscape) for all my graphics work these days. I'm a webdesigner/developer with almost no knowledge of pre-press/print-work, and my impression so far is, that this is where Gimp falls short (correct?). For my needs I have not met any real obstacles that Google and forums haven't been able to solve.

I'll also take a second to recommend the great Beginning Gimp (http://gimpbook.com/) book - well worth the small investment.

I had a crazy thought - someone suggested putting out a bounty on missing features. If you're like me, your wallet doesn't allow for hundreds of dollars to be spent on a bounty, and I presume that a few dollars wouldn't catch the eye of a master-developer. What if some of us put our money together and assembled a list of the most wanted features and then put together a pool of pledged money to make some bounties. There are websites like fundable.com that can perhaps serve purposes like this. Just a few random thoughts - feel free to comment or drop me a message if you think this idea could be worth something?!

I'm thinking about putting up a community-website for designers and developers only using Linux, because I haven't been able to find much out there - or maybe I've looked the wrong places.

thanks

I would second having a more updated community driven design site dedicated for Linux artists.

Also for layout work, why not try Scibus? I used that on some print work when Quark was giving me headaches. I liked it alot! Though the new version seems slightly buggy (I used mine in Hoary before)

ceil420
April 15th, 2007, 05:42 AM
I'm trying to grin and bear with GIMPshop, but there are a few things that it's real hard for me to put up with. The main thing that comes to mind is the lack of Scatter. I actually use this feature a lot in Photoshop, and thought it to be nothing major. Then I found out the GIMP doesn't have even this 'non-major' feature :x But it's weird, cos at least two of the default brushes ("animated confetti" and "vine") seem to have Scatter :o Maybe I just need to look for a tutorial or something for how to make such a brush. Knowing how to Scatter custom brushes would help me deal with the GIMP a lil bit more.

Another thing is no on the fly resizing, again, something I assumed to be a basic feature of 'modern' image manipulation programs. I got a plugin for that, but it'd be nice if it were "in the box".

Another gripe, which you may think is nit-picking, but it's a big deal to me, is that I currently have four items on my panel for one image loaded in GIMP. I'm a neat person by nature, and I just can't stand how GIMP clutters up my panel ;x Drives me nuts.

And I don't know if I got a bad install or what, but I can't add to a selection without holding shift. Even with the "add to selection" option selected in the tool options, when I click and drag to add, it just moves the current selection. Which is greatly annoying. (Also annoying, though I'm pretty sure it's a feature, is how selections 'float' as a 'new layer', and you have to 'anchor' them -_-)

Think I'm gonna send GIMP writers an e-mail outlining this stuff later. I admit it, I downloaded Photoshop 7-CS2 in my days as a Windows user; but I'd like my linuxian life to be as legal as possible, so I'm trying to work with the GIMP. But man, these missing features makes it a pain sometimes :x I gotta have Scatter, at least ><

centered effect
April 17th, 2007, 05:21 AM
Two interesting things.

1. If you can get a copy of Linux Format, pick it up, they have a feature on Gimp. Also many of thier back order issues have GImp and Inkscape tutorials, many which i find valuable to have. Sucks though, all the UK magazine are 15-17$ a pop here in the States, and that is including all the graphic design magazines too.

http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=NewArchives&issue=91


2. Whether you accept it or not MS is fighting Adobe on the graphic/web front. I am curious to see the tools that will be in play from MS. What does that mean for Linux users? Well ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_adobe_competition;_ylt=AkvqzM9NzBy2yFzC_ bzMMX0jtBAF

FuturePilot
April 17th, 2007, 05:26 AM
Two interesting things.

1. If you can get a copy of Linux Format, pick it up, they have a feature on Gimp. Also many of thier back order issues have GImp and Inkscape tutorials, many which i find valuable to have. Sucks though, all the UK magazine are 15-17$ a pop here in the States, and that is including all the graphic design magazines too.

http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=NewArchives&issue=91


2. Whether you accept it or not MS is fighting Adobe on the graphic/web front. I am curious to see the tools that will be in play from MS. What does that mean for Linux users? Well ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_adobe_competition;_ylt=AkvqzM9NzBy2yFzC_ bzMMX0jtBAF
Not only is it a featured article on the Gimp, it's about the newest version 2.4 and all the new goodies.:D

deanlinkous
April 17th, 2007, 05:56 AM
gimp love here!

airtonix
May 14th, 2007, 11:24 AM
so would it be possible to use the gnome-swallow-applet to dock all the non-canvas-windows into gnome-panel-drawers?

carusoswi
May 20th, 2007, 12:06 PM
Photoshop runs under wine perfectly well I find.

And GIMP is aimed squarely at the average Joe. Use the right tools for the job.

Which Photoshop runs under wine perfectly well? No Photoshop newer than PS7 has worked for me. Am I missing something?

Caruso

mech7
May 20th, 2007, 12:34 PM
Which Photoshop runs under wine perfectly well? No Photoshop newer than PS7 has worked for me. Am I missing something?

Caruso

Even 7 does not run correctly under wine just look at the pallettes.. With crossover it does run ok, also the portable photoshop cs2 runs good under it. But man CS 3 is faster and has some new tools that are very interesting. :(

slimdog360
May 20th, 2007, 12:55 PM
I managed to get cs2 working under wine a while back. I had installed it in windos then opened it in linux. It worked, sort of, but crashed a few times. This was a while ago though and I suppose I would have opened it from an NTFS partition. Maybe someone with windows and CS@ could try something like this; install cs2 under windows, copy the cs2 folder onto disk, put it in their linux distro and open it under wine, crossover or whatever and muck around with the settings.

mech7
May 20th, 2007, 01:17 PM
I managed to get cs2 working under wine a while back. I had installed it in windos then opened it in linux. It worked, sort of, but crashed a few times. This was a while ago though and I suppose I would have opened it from an NTFS partition. Maybe someone with windows and CS@ could try something like this; install cs2 under windows, copy the cs2 folder onto disk, put it in their linux distro and open it under wine, crossover or whatever and muck around with the settings.

Won't work you need to copy over other files and registry entries because of copy protection

BLTicklemonster
May 20th, 2007, 04:48 PM
Another gripe, which you may think is nit-picking, but it's a big deal to me, is that I currently have four items on my panel for one image loaded in GIMP. I'm a neat person by nature, and I just can't stand how GIMP clutters up my panel ;x Drives me nuts.


I think I understand what you're saying, perhaps this will be of some help:

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4279/cleangimpguihf1.png

Photoshop may have 4 dialogues in one windowed area, but it still has all those things in my way, too. I keep my gimp like this so I only have one thing to mess with at a time. Well, actually, I don't have fonts there, just layers, but you know what I mean.

I hope this helps!