PDA

View Full Version : What's so bad about GIMP?



PatrickMay16
May 25th, 2007, 02:57 PM
Hello everyone,

On this and other forums, I often see people expressing dislike of the GIMP. People often say that it's horrible, or nasty, has a bad interface, amongst other things.
Myself, I use it for some things and I find it OK. But before I used GIMP, I never really used any other things except MS paint and an old version of Corel Photo-paint, so I have little experience of other image editors.

What do you dislike about the GIMP? Explain it in detail, and show some examples of it. I want to see if people dislike it because it really is poor, or because everyone's used to photoshop and don't like GIMP simply because it is different.

codesplice
May 25th, 2007, 03:03 PM
I've used both GIMP and Photoshop CS extensively, and I must say that each of them have features that I appreciate.

GIMP seems to be more powerful, though not as easy to use. The right-click context menu-driven interface is superb, giving quick access to every function in the program. A big complaint that I've heard from some friends who use GIMP for basic photo-editing is the lack of an automated red-eye fix tool. You can still use GIMP to fix red-eyes, it just takes several steps and a handful of minutes - and the results come out looking better and more natural than any automated tool that I've seen.

Photoshop is the industry standard for image editing, and there is a reason for that. The interface is natural and easy to use; the program is powerful enough to accomplish most everything that a user could want to do; and it has plenty of automated tasks for touching up photos in a hurry.

My general analysis is that Photoshop is easier to use, while GIMP is a more powerful editor.

PatrickMay16
May 25th, 2007, 03:21 PM
Thanks for the reply, codesplice.
I assume you work as a graphics designer? Just curious.

starcraft.man
May 25th, 2007, 03:24 PM
Ummm, in most cases I've seen its really just people are used to PS layout and get culture shocked that people would use a different layout and not just copy Adobe's... some people get the same shock when first opening up Ubuntu and seeing its default gnome layout. GIMPshop was created for those people, but I don't think I like it that much personally... I'm sticking it out with regular GIMP.

The only real complaint about GIMP I think, is they are still lacking (though not for long) CMYK editing support which many professionals enjoy using. Its not a major feature though for the average user.

I think the only thing that GIMP needs is better support from sites. Look at pixel2life (http://www.pixel2life.com/) for instance. Its a good index of public tutorials... Adobe Photoshop has 323 pages, GIMP has 6. I've also looked around, and while there are some sites they really don't offer complete instruction from basic to advanced (I looked at groking the gimp which isn't bad, it is a bit dated though and thus not always accurate/complete).

People just need to approach Ubuntu/GIMP with an open mind, if their not interested in learning something new and spending time on it, they should stick to whatever OS they have and PS.

Oh and yes, I'ved used both too, only a year and a half of really active use of PS, and a few months with GIMP.

brim4brim
May 25th, 2007, 03:36 PM
I think gimp.org needs something like gnome-look.org's wallpaper section for tutorials and to display the results so people can browse by thumbnails etc.. for nice effects and scripts or whatever.

I don't really use the gimp much but that's my 2 cents and excuse anything I've said which might sound stubid.

JAPrufrock
May 25th, 2007, 03:42 PM
I've used Photoshop for several years, and Gimp for several months. Although I'm not a professional designer/photo editor, I've done quite a bit of design over the years. So far, I haven't found much that Photoshop could do that Gimp couldn't do. The major problem with Gimp seems to be that it isn't intuitive. For someone new to Gimp it can be incredibly frustrating.

OoooMatron
May 25th, 2007, 04:03 PM
the biggest problems for me with the gimp is the lack of background removal tools that remove accurately above the edges of objects. The one in the latest versions of Paint Shop Pro is nearly flawless. THe gimp takes a lot more effort to cut out shapes.

I also dislike the fact you can't resize brushes easily in the gimp and that you have to make new brush sizes. Again, in PSP you just use the mouse wheel to enlarge or make the brush smaller.

Finally, resizing and rotating layers leaves the original layer in full view and it's difficult to gauge. there is a trick to make it work differently, but its cumbersome and i seldom remember the technique.

There are other annoying things about it but on the whole I really like the program and it is very powerful.

Jonne
May 25th, 2007, 04:08 PM
I prefer the Gimp over Photoshop, despite the fact that it lacks features (mainly CMYK support, and decent typesetting tools).

The Gimp starts up way faster, and I actually prefer the GUI.

The Gimp still has room for improvement, but it's quite decent. Most of the flak it gets is just because it's not Photoshop, which is a shame.

Stuff I'd like to see in the gimp are the following:
-cmyk support
-better pdf import (some files just fail, while Krita handles them fine, although that's more of a ghostscript thing)
-better psd support (i sometimes get psd's that i need to fire up photoshop for)
-adjustment layers and generally being able to do more non-destructive operations (in the Gimp I end up undoing and retrying things until i get them right, in Photoshop you can just alter the layer params)
-being able to lay out text in a sane way

But the Gimp already is pretty decent (especially if you're just doing web gfx), and is certainly not the piece of crap some make it out to be.

Adamant1988
May 25th, 2007, 04:14 PM
Hello everyone,

On this and other forums, I often see people expressing dislike of the GIMP. People often say that it's horrible, or nasty, has a bad interface, amongst other things.
Myself, I use it for some things and I find it OK. But before I used GIMP, I never really used any other things except MS paint and an old version of Corel Photo-paint, so I have little experience of other image editors.

What do you dislike about the GIMP? Explain it in detail, and show some examples of it. I want to see if people dislike it because it really is poor, or because everyone's used to photoshop and don't like GIMP simply because it is different.

Part of the reason I do not like The GIMP is because of it's design... Why on earth does my taskbar need to be dominated by windows when I run a single application? The instant you start doing something in the GIMP you have 3 windows open... need to take bits and bobs from other artwork? Even more. It's a serious PITA to do that.

I also dislike GIMP because it lacks a lot of functionality and polish that I can find in other suites. I have had the gimp crash on me consistently while trying to create a 1 px stroke around a selection. The GIMP lacks feature layers (Color Balance layers, etc.) which make it a lot easier to try different effects and what not on a photo. Also, it's 8-bit whereas most other editors are 16-bit which makes a difference in quality.

codesplice
May 25th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Thanks for the reply, codesplice.
I assume you work as a graphics designer? Just curious.

Negative. Just a photography enthusiast :)

fuscia
May 25th, 2007, 04:33 PM
i prefer gimp photoshop. i like the interface better.

Sunflower1970
May 25th, 2007, 04:38 PM
I'm very used to Photoshop, but am trying to wean myself off of it and use Gimp. I have the program on a USB flash drive at work so I can use it to help customers when they have trouble with their photos for ads at work. Before all I had was MSPaint. (company doesn't want to buy licenses for everyone to have Photoshop.)

I'm still not sure where all the tools are, and some of the names of them are different than in photoshop and that's highly frustrating when I need to do something quick...I'll figure it out, I know, but it's going to take some time...(I keep telling myself it took me years to really get comfortable with PS...it won't be overnight with the Gimp.)

granite230
May 25th, 2007, 04:48 PM
I'm about to work my way through this (http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-GIMP-Novice-Professional/dp/1590595874/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-5313267-5766867?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180107775&sr=8-1) book. I have quite some experience using Photoshop and I really like it. Unfortunately there's no Linux version of Photoshop and I don't like to use Wine, Gimpshop or Pixel for that.

For that reason I'll try to teach myself how to use the Gimp. I'm happy when I can do some basic and fast image editing/creation so I don't need to reboot into Windows to use Photoshop for that.
When things get really complex I'll use Photoshop for now... I hope that will change soon.

ahawks
May 25th, 2007, 04:59 PM
I'm not a graphics professional or anything. Just an amateur photographer.

I prefer Photoshop CS2 and 3 because they provide the abilities to add filters, curve/hue/brightness/contrast/etc adjustments as a *layer*. Meaning, the original pixels are not modified and you can turn the adjustment on or off as a layer, or go back and adjust it. Or change the order of layers to change the order of effects.

Last I checked, GIMP didn't have this feature, and it's a dealbreaker for me, since my primary use of Photoshop is photo editing - curve adjustments, blur effects, and general touchups.

forrestcupp
May 25th, 2007, 05:40 PM
i prefer gimp photoshop. i like the interface better.

Confusing. Do you mean you prefer gimp to photoshop, you prefer gimpshop, or you prefer photoshop?

Anyway, it lacks cmyk functionality which is a must have for some.

But for me, it's the 3 windows that can't be grouped together taking up a lot of taskbar real estate. It's a pain to have to position all 3 windows every time I start it up. The menu placement, etc. doesn't bother me; it's pretty easy to find stuff. But the 3 windows is just horrible.

Other than that, it's a great piece of software.

mech7
May 25th, 2007, 06:19 PM
Gimp sucks with the brush department just look at what CS 2 / CS 3 has to offer, gimp doesnt even have a slider for blur or brush.. they rely on numeric input 0_o

Also it's workflow is not as fast as photoshop you can do allot of things only they take twice as much time to do it.

DucentiVigintiDuo
May 25th, 2007, 06:24 PM
I've used Photoshop for several years, and Gimp for several months. Although I'm not a professional designer/photo editor, I've done quite a bit of design over the years. So far, I haven't found much that Photoshop could do that Gimp couldn't do. The major problem with Gimp seems to be that it isn't intuitive. For someone new to Gimp it can be incredibly frustrating.

I totally agree with this statement. I'm used to Photoshop though and I've only used Gimp for like 1 or 2 projects so I could be biased. I'd like to try and learn how to use it though, because it seems powerful, and I don't want to bother with Wine or have to install Mac OS X on my Macbook again...or even worse...have to use Windows! *shivers*

Anyone else in the same position I am? Do you know if the learning curve is steep? How about how much time it takes you to get used to it? Weeks, months, years? I'd like to know what others think/know about this.

racoq
May 25th, 2007, 06:29 PM
GIMP seems to be more powerful.....

ha ha ha. Funny

mips
May 25th, 2007, 06:33 PM
Confusing. Do you mean you prefer gimp to photoshop, you prefer gimpshop, or you prefer photoshop?


I think he is referring to GIMPShop. Which is GIMP with menus layed out in Photoshop style and using a single window if I'm not mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop
http://www.gimpshop.com/
http://plasticbugs.com/
http://gimpshopdotnet.blogspot.com/

There is also a CMYK plugin for GIMP.

Anthem
May 25th, 2007, 06:55 PM
My general analysis is that Photoshop is easier to use, while GIMP is a more powerful editor.
I'd be interested in the logic that shows GIMP as more powerful than Photoshop. What can GIMP do that Photoshop can't?

Nobody's mentioned this yet, but the name holds it back as well.

starcraft.man
May 25th, 2007, 07:09 PM
There is also a CMYK plugin for GIMP.

Really? I thought it was still in development? Do you have link to it please?

mips
May 25th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Really? I thought it was still in development? Do you have link to it please?

http://plasticbugs.com/?p=361
http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml
http://cue.yellowmagic.info/softwares/separate.html

forrestcupp
May 25th, 2007, 07:56 PM
I think he is referring to GIMPShop. Which is GIMP with menus layed out in Photoshop style and using a single window if I'm not mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop
http://www.gimpshop.com/
http://plasticbugs.com/
http://gimpshopdotnet.blogspot.com/

There is also a CMYK plugin for GIMP.

That last I checked (about one minute ago), the single window feature in gimpshop is only for the Windows version. The Linux version still has 3 separate windows. The only change is menu placement and terminology.

That is interesting that there is a CMYK plugin for GIMP. I guess that will no longer be an argument against it. I wonder if it works well.

starcraft.man
May 25th, 2007, 08:04 PM
http://plasticbugs.com/?p=361
http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml
http://cue.yellowmagic.info/softwares/separate.html

YAY. Will put that in soon, I guess I have to compile. I can't say it lacks CMYK anymore... though I suppose it will be much more prevalent if it gets integrated in the next version.

Is seperate+ the newer version? The second link seems to take you to a site that says he doesn't really have time any more to make it.

Steveway
May 25th, 2007, 08:05 PM
For those who don't like the interface of gimp, try out the 2.3 developer release.
It works flawlessly and made the interface more intuitiv.

zugu
May 25th, 2007, 08:06 PM
The major issues I have with GIMP are:

- the interface; everyone is doing tabs - they chose to stick with windows; I like to work with maximized windows and it bothers me to click on the taskbar in order to find the tools window; not to mention the headaches that appear when working with multiple documents at the same time;
- the deep learning curve; it's a showstopper to me, as I already have an old copy of Photoshop that does almost everything I need; why should I torment myself learning GIMP?
- the usability; GIMP is one of the most counter intuitive applications I have used; everything seems to be misplaced on purpose; it just *doesn't* feel right!
- the name, it sucks
- the developers, who are stubborn and won't accept debates concerning the interface

The people who recommend Gimpshop are offtopic, we're discussing GIMP in this thread.

reacocard
May 25th, 2007, 08:19 PM
For those who don't like the interface of gimp, try out the 2.3 developer release.
It works flawlessly and made the interface more intuitiv.

In what ways is it more intuitive? I just tried it (gutsy packages), and it seems just like the old version, but with prettier icons.

If anyone else wants to try, here are the packages you'll have to upgrade:

gimp
gimp-data
gimp-print
gimp-python
libart-2.0-2
libgimp2.0

FuturePilot
May 25th, 2007, 08:28 PM
Hello everyone,

On this and other forums, I often see people expressing dislike of the GIMP. People often say that it's horrible, or nasty, has a bad interface, amongst other things.
Myself, I use it for some things and I find it OK. But before I used GIMP, I never really used any other things except MS paint and an old version of Corel Photo-paint, so I have little experience of other image editors.

What do you dislike about the GIMP? Explain it in detail, and show some examples of it. I want to see if people dislike it because it really is poor, or because everyone's used to photoshop and don't like GIMP simply because it is different.
I've often wondered the same thing. I find Gimp to be very easy to use. I really don't see what is so bad about the interface. I guess people don't like that the whole program isn't contained in a full screen window or something.

But then I've never used Photoshop before. Perhaps it's that people who only use PS don't like to change to something different.

Gimp is a great program. It does what I need it to.

Jonne
May 25th, 2007, 08:32 PM
the interface; everyone is doing tabs - they chose to stick with windows; I like to work with maximized windows and it bothers me to click on the taskbar in order to find the tools window; not to mention the headaches that appear when working with multiple documents at the same time;
-you want a gfx app with tabs? How would that even work? I like the interface of the gimp, especially on GNOME (which has better window managers than Windows). Just put the gimp on one workspace, and it's the same as working in Photoshop. Actually, if you ever saw Photoshop on OS X, you'll realise that it's pretty similar in its use of windows (except that not every window has a 'file' menu, as it's located on top globally).

the deep learning curve; it's a showstopper to me, as I already have an old copy of Photoshop that does almost everything I need; why should I torment myself learning GIMP?
Photoshop has a learning curve too, but I really wouldn't know which one's steeper. Were you able to use photoshop immediately without outside help? I think it's the same for both apps, but there are a few more tutorials for Photoshop than for the Gimp on the web, which probably makes PS a little easier...

the usability; GIMP is one of the most counter intuitive applications I have used; everything seems to be misplaced on purpose; it just *doesn't* feel right!
It's because you're used to Photoshop. I have the opposite feeling because I've been using the Gimp more than Photoshop lately.

the name, it sucks
it's just a name, grow up ;).

the developers, who are stubborn and won't accept debates concerning the interface
any links about that?

PatrickMay16
May 25th, 2007, 08:41 PM
it's just a name, grow up ;).

No no no. Zugu has a very good point. A name like 'Gimp' really does cause problems. The first thing people think when you say 'gimp' is a guy dressed in bondage gear... people can't take it seriously.
Just the other week my sister came to me asking for help; her machine recently had windows reinstalled due to hard disk failure, and so all the programs and stuff needed reinstalling. She wanted some software to edit photos with, so told her about the GIMP, since that's free and easy to get hold of. She just laughed when she saw the name. Now imagine this in a business setting.

FuturePilot
May 25th, 2007, 08:45 PM
- the deep learning curve; it's a showstopper to me, as I already have an old copy of Photoshop that does almost everything I need; why should I torment myself learning GIMP?

- the developers, who are stubborn and won't accept debates concerning the interface


1. Like someone else said, that's because you're use to Photoshop. I've never used Photoshop before and I had to use it for a class once. I was so lost.

2. If it weren't for the developers, Gnome wouldn't exist.

brian j
May 25th, 2007, 08:57 PM
HI Guy's.
I've just got to say something!
I'm using Gimp 2:3:16 for Professional work and I am totally in favour of it's layout, in fact I would put it on par with
photoshop. And yes I have been using Photoshop for over 10 years as a Professional Photographer, but I still prefer Gimp any day.

CarpKing
May 25th, 2007, 08:59 PM
In what ways is it more intuitive? I just tried it (gutsy packages), and it seems just like the old version, but with prettier icons.

They've redone the menus. There is now a "Colors" menu, containing the various operations pertaining to colors that used to be scattered throughout submenus elsewhere. All the stuff from "Script-Fu" and "Python-Fu" has been moved into the appropriate categories of the "Filters" menu. They've also added new tools, like foreground extraction, healing, perspective clone, and alignment, and the tooltip descriptions of the tools have been improved.

starcraft.man
May 25th, 2007, 08:59 PM
No no no. Zugu has a very good point. A name like 'Gimp' really does cause problems. The first thing people think when you say 'gimp' is a guy dressed in bondage gear... people can't take it seriously.

Ummm, I have no idea how you got that, I have never associated S&M with the word GIMP, maybe it is just you with the head in the gutter?

In my experience though, people who base their choice of software on its name alone, are ignorant or simply mis/uninformed. I would guess those people would equally believe Ubuntu to be a complex impossible to use Linux, thus those people should just stay with "simple" windows/PS.

If after all that, the word GIMP is too much, call it the GNU Image Manipulation Program, name problem solved. It isn't much longer than Adobe Photoshop/Creative Suite 3. I think I actually prefer the long name... no more calling it GIMP for me :).

Jonne
May 25th, 2007, 09:02 PM
No no no. Zugu has a very good point. A name like 'Gimp' really does cause problems. The first thing people think when you say 'gimp' is a guy dressed in bondage gear... people can't take it seriously.
I don't really have that connotation in my mind, but I'm not a native English speaker. Anyway, it's relatively easy for someone to fork it just for the name if it's such an issue.

Or you could trick AOL into sueing the gimp project over some trademark ;)

kevinlyfellow
May 25th, 2007, 10:26 PM
The major issues I have with GIMP are:

- the interface; everyone is doing tabs - they chose to stick with windows; I like to work with maximized windows and it bothers me to click on the taskbar in order to find the tools window; not to mention the headaches that appear when working with multiple documents at the same time;
- the deep learning curve; it's a showstopper to me, as I already have an old copy of Photoshop that does almost everything I need; why should I torment myself learning GIMP?
- the usability; GIMP is one of the most counter intuitive applications I have used; everything seems to be misplaced on purpose; it just *doesn't* feel right!
- the name, it sucks
- the developers, who are stubborn and won't accept debates concerning the interface

The people who recommend Gimpshop are offtopic, we're discussing GIMP in this thread.

I don't think that recommendations of Gimpshop are off topic. It's the same program as the Gimp with a different interface slapped on it. By moving over to Gimpshop, you kinda make a point to the Gimp devs; we don't like your interface!

kevinlyfellow
May 25th, 2007, 10:30 PM
I don't really have that connotation in my mind, but I'm not a native English speaker. Anyway, it's relatively easy for someone to fork it just for the name if it's such an issue.

Or you could trick AOL into sueing the gimp project over some trademark ;)

Haha... Maybe AOL is already suing and the gimp devs can't talk about it ;-)

I'm a native English speaker and I don't get that connotation either. Where I grew up, we never referred to people as 'gimps'. I may have heard a few people say things like "a gimp leg" or something like that, but never in a derogatory way. I was surprised when people started voicing objections to the name for that reason.

GeneralZod
May 25th, 2007, 10:39 PM
Haha... Maybe AOL is already suing and the gimp devs can't talk about it ;-)

I'm a native English speaker and I don't get that connotation either. Where I grew up, we never referred to people as 'gimps'. I may have heard a few people say things like "a gimp leg" or something like that, but never in a derogatory way. I was surprised when people started voicing objections to the name for that reason.

I blame Pulp Fiction :)

Jonne
May 25th, 2007, 10:51 PM
OMG, Quentin Tarantino got paid by Bill Gates to slow adaptation of Linux!

Or not...

argie
May 25th, 2007, 11:11 PM
Part of the reason I do not like The GIMP is because of it's design... Why on earth does my taskbar need to be dominated by windows when I run a single application? The instant you start doing something in the GIMP you have 3 windows open... need to take bits and bobs from other artwork? Even more. It's a serious PITA to do that.


Once more I must summon the xnest djinn to serve me. Make my app stay in one little group, xnest djinn. If the xnest djinn's power frightens you, you could ask for the devilspie djinn and hide the other windows from the taskbar. The devilspie djinn is powerful too.

23meg
May 25th, 2007, 11:46 PM
Even the workspace switcher djinn alone helps a lot.

Polygon
May 26th, 2007, 01:16 AM
if you dont like the name, start referring it as the GNU Image Manipulation program. Its what it stands for anyway.

And i like how the interface is kinda seprated, but if there was a way to have all of the windows under one tab in the taskbar, that would make things a lot better. I often have to go searching through tabs to find the correct window, or to bring them all up. One click to bring them all up would be very nice.

zugu
May 26th, 2007, 07:50 AM
-you want a gfx app with tabs? How would that even work? I like the interface of the gimp, especially on GNOME (which has better window managers than Windows). Just put the gimp on one workspace, and it's the same as working in Photoshop. Actually, if you ever saw Photoshop on OS X, you'll realise that it's pretty similar in its use of windows (except that not every window has a 'file' menu, as it's located on top globally).

Photoshop has a learning curve too, but I really wouldn't know which one's steeper. Were you able to use photoshop immediately without outside help? I think it's the same for both apps, but there are a few more tutorials for Photoshop than for the Gimp on the web, which probably makes PS a little easier...

It's because you're used to Photoshop. I have the opposite feeling because I've been using the Gimp more than Photoshop lately.

it's just a name, grow up ;).

any links about that?

Do you know the way Dreamweaver is using tabs? That could be a very nice addition to both GIMP and Photoshop. At least Photoshop is keeping all the documents in one window. I can't say anything about OS X because I have never used it. The Mac price barrier is too high for me.

The steep learning curve is a reality for me. If it's not for you, so be it. And what's so bad about someone being used to Photoshop? It's like being used to a standard :D

I can't comment on the name, because I just dislike it and I can't give you a rational reason for disliking it.
The GIMP developers are known for their strong stance on the user interface. Any patches that try to change it are usually not accepted in the main tree.

If you like GIMP and it does what you need it to do, I'm happy for you. But you have to understand not everyone likes it. Sometimes is a matter of usability, sometimes it's a matter of taste, or both. It's just the way it is.

rajeev1204
May 26th, 2007, 09:07 AM
Iam still wondering why gimp is installed by default .

Maybe thats how it became famous ? Its a tool for graphics artists right ? So it can be just downloaded from the repos .

Correct me if iam wrong , but isnt gimp a photoshop oss equivalent ?Or is it something like paint in windows which i used just for silly reasons to play around with .


Some things just dont make sense . Maybe gimp is some sort of pet project of OSS community and they want to promote it as much as they can .




And that s what is bad about GIMP !

steven8
May 26th, 2007, 09:09 AM
Iam still wondering why gimp is installed by default .

Maybe thats how it became famous ? Its a tool for graphics artists right ? So it can be just downloaded from the repos .

Correct me if iam wrong , but isnt gimp a photoshop oss equivalent ?Or is it something like paint in windows which i used just for silly reasons to play around with .


Some things just dont make sense . Maybe gimp is some sort of pet project of OSS community and they want to promote it as much as they can .




And that s what is bad about GIMP !

Well. . .that made no sense at all. . .

mrgnash
May 26th, 2007, 09:09 AM
Iam still wondering why gimp is installed by default .

Maybe thats how it became famous ? Its a tool for graphics artists right ? So it can be just downloaded from the repos .

Correct me if iam wrong , but isnt gimp a photoshop oss equivalent ?Or is it something like paint in windows which i used just for silly reasons to play around with .


Some things just dont make sense . Maybe gimp is some sort of pet project of OSS community and they want to promote it as much as they can .




And that s what is bad about GIMP !

Why is Paint installed by default in Windows? Same reason: even basic users sometimes need to resize, crop, and otherwise alter images. GIMP can do all that and more, so why NOT include it? Sheesh.

rajeev1204
May 26th, 2007, 09:17 AM
Why is Paint installed by default in Windows? Same reason: even basic users sometimes need to resize, crop, and otherwise alter images. GIMP can do all that and more, so why NOT include it? Sheesh.

Thats what iam asking . Are paint and gimp similar ? Or is gimp a strong professional package that rivals photoshop ?


Why not have blender 3D by default ? Iam a CAD engineer and i use such stuff . But its not there by default is it . I have to download it .

steven8
May 26th, 2007, 09:20 AM
Thats what iam asking . Are paint and gimp similar ? Or is gimp a strong professional package that rivals photoshop ?


Why not have blender 3D by default ? Iam a CAD engineer and i use such stuff . But its not there by default is it . I have to download it .

And it's there to download. So download it. I was an engineering technician, but I never expected a CAD program installed by default in an os. I got past it and moved on. I don't think it does anyone any good to be bitter about GIMP being a default app.

rajeev1204
May 26th, 2007, 09:23 AM
And it's there to download. So download it. I was an engineering technician, but I never expected a CAD program installed by default in an os. I got past it and moved on. I don't think it does anyone any good to be bitter about GIMP being a default app.


Hehe u got me wrong there . Was i sounding bitter .?oops. Sorry that was not the intention .

I was just wondering about this thats all .


It was supposed to be read in a lighter vein .;) . I like reading the different points of view thats all u know .

steven8
May 26th, 2007, 09:27 AM
Hehe u got me wrong there . Was i sounding bitter .?oops. Sorry that was not the intention .

I was just wondering about this thats all .


It was supposed to be read in a lighter vein .;) . I like reading the different points of view thats all u know .

Sorry, my friend. I'm being a little jumpy tonight. Peace!! I love Blender. Sweet program.

hessiess
May 26th, 2007, 09:35 AM
photoshop is pupiatry and expensive, so its rubbish
i found gimp verry easy to get ust to, you just haft to reed the manual

mrgnash
May 26th, 2007, 10:21 AM
Thats what iam asking . Are paint and gimp similar ? Or is gimp a strong professional package that rivals photoshop ?


Why not have blender 3D by default ? Iam a CAD engineer and i use such stuff . But its not there by default is it . I have to download it .

That GIMP can perform all the tasks that Paint can is the extent of their 'similarity'; if Photoshop were a free, native Windows application, that might be installed instead of Paint -- but it isn't. Windows supplies a basic tool that is just enough to get by in the performance of basic tasks; Ubuntu supplies a program which can perform these basic tasks, *and* rival Photoshop in some areas. Blender, on the other hand, is not included because most users would have no need of it.

koshatnik
May 26th, 2007, 12:24 PM
My general analysis is that Photoshop is easier to use, while GIMP is a more powerful editor.

Err no. Not by a long long long long long long way. GIMP is great at what it does, but it is what it is, a community led project, and it does what it does very very well.

Photoshop is the industry standard in photo and image manipulation because its damn good at what it does. Its the Pro's choice for a reason. GIMP has no where near the level of power of PS.

GIMP is not meant to be a PS replacement, which is why people keep saying things like "well compared to PS, GIMP is lacking..." of course its lacking. Its a volunteer project. GIMP plugs a PS gap on Linux platforms. Its not as competitiion for it, or a replacement.

ade234uk
May 26th, 2007, 12:50 PM
I have tried may times to get on with The Gimp, but I keep going back to photoshop time and time again. If you have not used Photoshop before then you dont know any different.

I know people wont agree with me but I think Gimp need to be similar to photoshop. For instance when you want to put some text over a layer in Photoshop,you just click the text icon, type and the text appears on top of the layer. From here you can highlight, change colour, font and apply drop shadows, bevels.

With gimp you need to enter the text in a new window which I hate.

But then like the poster above mentioned, its free so what do we expect.

I know they dont want to be like Photoshop, but if they made it similar and put the menus in the same places as you would find in Photoshop I can guarantee you I would be interested in using it.

forrestcupp
May 26th, 2007, 01:57 PM
HI Guy's.
I've just got to say something!
I'm using Gimp 2:3:16 for Professional work and I am totally in favour of it's layout, in fact I would put it on par with
photoshop. And yes I have been using Photoshop for over 10 years as a Professional Photographer, but I still prefer Gimp any day.

Well, the added features and menu arrangement are progress. But in your screenshot, I see five windows to juggle. What a mess! They haven't fixed that yet.


For instance when you want to put some text over a layer in Photoshop,you just click the text icon, type and the text appears on top of the layer. From here you can highlight, change colour, font and apply drop shadows, bevels.

With gimp you need to enter the text in a new window which I hate.


Yeah, text is one thing in GIMP that I wasn't thinking of that really annoys me. They need to vamp up their text features a lot.

karellen
May 26th, 2007, 02:01 PM
photoshop is pupiatry and expensive, so its rubbish
i found gimp verry easy to get ust to, you just haft to reed the manual

:lolflag:
so because something it's expensive it means is rubbish...I'll write this to merceds & bmw ;)
wow, so much logic. I rest my case

happy-and-lost
May 26th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Personally, I prefer it to Photoshop. It's much easier to use.

The only thing I *really* want is dynamic brush sizes. That's all it's really missing. Well, and CYMK support.

mrgnash
May 26th, 2007, 02:51 PM
The only thing I *really* want is dynamic brush sizes. That's all it's really missing. Well, and CYMK support.

Brush scaling is fully implemented in the current development version (2.3.16).

Enverex
May 26th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Can't stand the split window interface. My favourite editing app would be Paint Shop Pro, it's just less fiddly to use with one window.

starcraft.man
May 26th, 2007, 03:28 PM
Well, the added features and menu arrangement are progress. But in your screenshot, I see five windows to juggle. What a mess! They haven't fixed that yet.

Just a question but why does everyone hate the fact that all the windows are separate (by that not inside an application container). You want it all to be in one window, make a separate virtual workspace and keep all your gimp things there. You have instantly simulated a contained environment. I have used PS, I don't really see the big difference between the windows being free in a virtual workspace and all being contained in the PS container, the fact that Ubuntu supports virtual workspaces so easily really nullifies this complaint in my mind. I have 4 workspaces with beryl and I use at least 3 most of the time, virtual desktops are just such a great feature.

So what makes it so different from having a separate workspace rather then all in a container? (apart from the fact that I suppose if you want to move them all somewhere you have to do it one window at a time, but that again is nullified by having a dedicated GIMP workspace).

brian j
May 26th, 2007, 03:33 PM
Well said!
Bj:D

mips
May 26th, 2007, 03:49 PM
:lolflag:
so because something it's expensive it means is rubbish...I'll write this to merceds & bmw ;)



BMW is actually rubbish ;)

karellen
May 26th, 2007, 03:52 PM
BMW is actually rubbish ;)

no way, I'm a fan of BMW
:D

mrgnash
May 26th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Just a question but why does everyone hate the fact that all the windows are separate (by that not inside an application container). You want it all to be in one window, make a separate virtual workspace and keep all your gimp things there. You have instantly simulated a contained environment. I have used PS, I don't really see the big difference between the windows being free in a virtual workspace and all being contained in the PS container, the fact that Ubuntu supports virtual workspaces so easily really nullifies this complaint in my mind. I have 4 workspaces with beryl and I use at least 3 most of the time, virtual desktops are just such a great feature.

So what makes it so different from having a separate workspace rather then all in a container? (apart from the fact that I suppose if you want to move them all somewhere you have to do it one window at a time, but that again is nullified by having a dedicated GIMP workspace).

I don't get it at all. After using GIMP for awhile, one of the things I found annoying when I went back to Photoshop (briefly) was the useless gray space in the background... I much prefer having empty space, so that I can position Gthumb and/or Nautlius, and drag and drop photos/textures/etc. as I please into GIMP.

argie
May 26th, 2007, 04:20 PM
Okay, now I'm going to be mean to all you single-window fans and show you a screenshot of Photoshop on OS X, which I think most people consider the OS for graphic design.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/3/36/PhotoshopCS_2_OSX.jpg

Could it be that the windows look similarly placed to the GIMP?

Oh, by the way, if you're really interested in a perfect arrangement of your GIMP mini-windows, you should get devilspie. Honestly, you have no idea what you're missing out. You can place the mini-windows perfect down to the last pixel and if you're good with arranging stuff (which I'd assume designers would be, and Photoshop is for designers, no?) you can easily place the windows neatly for yourself and as a bonus have only the image window show up in the taskbar.

starcraft.man
May 26th, 2007, 04:28 PM
Well said!
Bj:D

Thanks, I try to speak clearly and make my points well.

I equally agree with mrgnash and argie, I just don't get the complaint, virtual workspaces rule (and if you don't think so, just consider that OSX is getting a virtual desktop feature in its next release, poor windows left out once again from the good feature) :).

Auria
May 26th, 2007, 04:39 PM
- the developers, who are stubborn and won't accept debates concerning the interface

then you should have tried with Blender devels ;)
The problem is rather people submitting patches that do what they want and not what most users want.

look at this :
http://gui.gimp.org
http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2007/05/lgm-top-gimp-user-requests_25.html

it's not like they don't want to improve the GUI, they just don't have enough devs - i've been following their mailing lists lately, and the problem with GIMp is really the lack of contributors.

All the things people complain about - most of the time, they know about it and acknowledge it, they just dont have time to do it.

Like having everything in a single window - they even have mockups for that
http://www.mmiworks.net/pics/blog/singlewindowslide.jpg

Already, many of the complaints will be fixed in 2.4 - resizable brushes, lack of CYMK support
sure it's not photoshop - its not the same price either

frychiko
May 26th, 2007, 05:39 PM
The only problem I have with the gimp, and this seems to be a fundamental problem with the gui, rather than the gimp:

Toolbars accept keyboard focus

For example:

I nudge my selected image 3 pixels to the left
Move the layer 2 layers up, and rename the layer.
I have to click back on the canvas to perform any keyboard operations (pan the screen, nudge etc)

It's just an extra step that I find annoying. I've gotten used to all other issues except this..

Oh and some keys conflict with the operating system itself, it gets much worse if you have beryl instead:
I think it was ALT + SHIFT or something...
Though I can easily solve this problem.

shen-an-doah
May 26th, 2007, 05:53 PM
I like having GIMP be multiple windows, it means I can switch between pictures using Alt+Tab. If everything's in one window, you have to minimize a picture window to at get anything behind it, which can get annoying.

FuturePilot
May 26th, 2007, 06:17 PM
I don't know if I would like having multiple images in tabs. What if you need to see two images side by side?

granite230
May 26th, 2007, 06:35 PM
Thanks, I try to speak clearly and make my points well.

I equally agree with mrgnash and argie, I just don't get the complaint, virtual workspaces rule (and if you don't think so, just consider that OSX is getting a virtual desktop feature in its next release, poor windows left out once again from the good feature) :).

Correction, this (http://www.rinkels.nl/strange/windows.jpg) is what my XP desktop looks like. No it's no trick, it really works! Of course it's not as fast and can't do as much as Beryl can, but it DOES have the virtual desktop feature ;)

starcraft.man
May 26th, 2007, 07:11 PM
Correction, this (http://www.rinkels.nl/strange/windows.jpg) is what my XP desktop looks like. No it's no trick, it really works! Of course it's not as fast and can't do as much as Beryl can, but it DOES have the virtual desktop feature ;)

That wasn't the point of my post. If you looked at the one before it, I was merely pointing out that everyone who complains about GIMP not having a container to hold all the windows need only devote a workspace to it.

As for your hack of XP (I denote it as a hack, because no version of windows has built in support for that), I don't know how it works (if you don't mind, link please, though I won't do it). While you've managed to do that, MOST Windows users do not have any virtual desktops. Thats why PS requires a container on windows, else the single desktop 90% of users have would get very cluttered. I also wonder how stable XP is when running that hack on top of it... in any case, if I want virtual I will be sticking to the beautiful and well implemented Ubuntu/Beryl, thank you.

Auria
May 26th, 2007, 07:14 PM
Also, to people annoyed that 3 windows appear in the task bar : go to preferences, turn them into toolframes, only image windows will appear in the taskbar then

aysiu
May 26th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Also, to people annoyed that 3 windows appear in the task bar : go to preferences, turn them into toolframes, only image windows will appear in the taskbar then
Can you post a screenshot of that? I can't find that in the GIMP preferences menu.

Jonne
May 26th, 2007, 07:43 PM
As for your hack of XP (I denote it as a hack, because no version of windows has built in support for that),
that's Yod'm3D (http://chsalmon.club.fr/index.php?en/Download), and it's nowhere near as good as Beryl. It's not as smooth, and takes about a second to initialize. I installed it on an xp box because i love the 3d desktop on my Ubuntu, but i uninstalled it because it just sucks.

Anyway, it's offtopic. Virtual desktops are possible in windows (there's a powertoy for xp for it), but it's not as good as anything on Linux.

Simran
May 26th, 2007, 07:53 PM
the name: it just makes me think of a leathery man :(

kanem
May 26th, 2007, 08:15 PM
Can you post a screenshot of that? I can't find that in the GIMP preferences menu.
I've never tried his method, but I just make the different windows into tabs on the main window, Now, there's less cluttering and one taskbar item. Add tabs by pressing the arrow I've circled in red in the after picture.

aysiu
May 26th, 2007, 08:20 PM
kanem, thanks for that, but I don't really understand what you did.

Auria
May 26th, 2007, 08:22 PM
Can you post a screenshot of that? I can't find that in the GIMP preferences menu.

There you go, it's in french though but options should be the same
http://img103.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/05/26/gimp-46lspl2j7.jpg

on the screenshot i'm opening the wrong combo box, it's the one above ;)
no more 3 windows in the taskbar

maagimies
May 26th, 2007, 08:30 PM
I have no problems with the interface, just the crippled functionality.
You have to create a new brush or edit an existing one to change the size, lame.
When you want to transform a layer, scaling, rotating whatever, the original layer is shown below the transformed one, making it very hard to scale things down to a good size. (If my description wasn't good enough I'll submit a picture later)

And finally, sometimes when applying filters that require their own popup dialogs, they open behind all the other windows :o

aysiu
May 26th, 2007, 08:31 PM
I tried that, and it didn't work. The options are very confusing, by the way.

I don't know what a "hint" is. And the options are: Normal Window, Utility Window, and Keep Above.

lluisanunez
May 26th, 2007, 08:32 PM
A big complaint that I've heard from some friends who use GIMP for basic photo-editing is the lack of an automated red-eye fix tool. You can still use GIMP to fix red-eyes, it just takes several steps and a handful of minutes - and the results come out looking better and more natural than any automated tool that I've seen.


There are several plugins for red-eye removal, for example:
http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=4212

A good place to learn about Gimp for photo editing is the Flicker group Gimp Users (http://www.flickr.com/groups/gimpusers/)

Auria
May 26th, 2007, 08:35 PM
I tried that, and it didn't work. The options are very confusing, by the way.

I don't know what a "hint" is. And the options are: Normal Window, Utility Window, and Keep Above.

Hint is rather stupid/technical, granted. It bascially means "what do itell GTK+ about this frame?"
You want to select 'utility tool' for 'hint for toolbox' IIRC. I'm on mac right now so can't test but i remember it working on my ubuntu dual-boot.


You have to create a new brush or edit an existing one to change the size, lame. That's fixed in 2.3, i wish people would stop complaining for thnigs already fixed :-P In 2.3, you have a nice slider you can use to resize brushes

aysiu
May 26th, 2007, 08:37 PM
It's not working for me, though. Am I the only one? Can someone else test this?

kanem
May 26th, 2007, 08:45 PM
kanem, thanks for that, but I don't really understand what you did.
How I did it, or what the purpose was? I did it by clicking that arrow. A list of options comes up, one of which is "Add a Tab" and a list of the things you can add shows up. Anything that is usually a separate window can be added as a tab instead. Now instead of 5 windows (plus the picture) I have 1 window with 4 tabs that can show either (in my screenshot) tool properties, layers, colours or brushes. The brushes one is showing in the shot.

starcraft.man
May 26th, 2007, 08:53 PM
It's not working for me, though. Am I the only one? Can someone else test this?

I just tried it twice and restarted GIMP both times, its not working for me either Aysiu. I will just stick to multiple windows on my special GIMP only workspace, works for me :). It only work with 2.3 maybe?

rsambuca
May 26th, 2007, 08:58 PM
I find that the multiple windows of gimp is very handy when you have more than one monitor. With dual monitors and photoshop, it really doesn't work as nicely as it does with the flexible gimp-style windows.

granite230
May 26th, 2007, 08:59 PM
That wasn't the point of my post. If you looked at the one before it, I was merely pointing out that everyone who complains about GIMP not having a container to hold all the windows need only devote a workspace to it.

Of course, you're absolutely right!

But how are Windows users going to do that? I assume this topic is about the Gimp in general. Not just the Gimp in Linux.

Maybe it's a good idea to let the user choose the interface they prefer when they first start the Gimp. If a Windows user had to choose between Photoshop or the Gimp, I think they would go for Photoshop because of its container. In Linux I don't have any trouble using the Gimp because I have the luxury of devoting a workspace to it (in an easy way). So when we take a look outside Linux, the Gimp might benefit from a container, eliminating this issue once and forever.

The tabs kanem told us about are also pretty cool.

starcraft.man
May 26th, 2007, 09:26 PM
But how are Windows users going to do that? I assume this topic is about the Gimp in general. Not just the Gimp in Linux.

Maybe it's a good idea to let the user choose the interface they prefer when they first start the Gimp. If a Windows user had to choose between Photoshop or the Gimp, I think they would go for Photoshop because of its container. In Linux I don't have any trouble using the Gimp because I have the luxury of devoting a workspace to it (in an easy way). So when we take a look outside Linux, the Gimp might benefit from a container, eliminating this issue once and forever.


Ummm, not to generalize cuz thats bad. But in my experience, 90% of windows users don't know about GIMP project being on Windows (they think its only for Linux, if they know of it at all) and if they are the few that do know about it, they usually are using PS if their professional and think little of GIMP because they are happy with what they have, and also believe it to be missing key features. So I don't see any need for GIMP to code in this option of yours, I'm sure it would take unnecessary effort and frankly, it would likely see little employ. In the end, GIMP is mostly a linux product. If you think its such a great idea, go code it yourself as a hack like GIMPshop. The GIMP devs have tonnes of things to get done before a superficial option like that is put in >.>.

Thats about it for this topic, I don't think its going anywhere.

Most of the problems brought up have either been fixed in 2.3 (like CMYK and Brushes) or the container issue (which is a non issue with virtual desktops). In the end, I still think, the only reason more people don't use it, is the same reason they still use windows. They got used to it (PS/Windows), and they don't care to put the effort to try something new.

Auria
May 26th, 2007, 11:42 PM
It's not working for me, though. Am I the only one? Can someone else test this?

Okay I just booted in Ubuntu

You need to set both "hints" (toolbox and dock) to 'utility window' then restart gimp for full effect
works fine on my Edgy PPC ubuntu with gimp 2.2.13

CarpKing
May 27th, 2007, 05:28 AM
Okay I just booted in Ubuntu

You need to set both "hints" (toolbox and dock) to 'utility window' then restart gimp for full effect
works fine on my Edgy PPC ubuntu with gimp 2.2.13

Does not work at all for me with GIMP 2.2 or 2.3 on Feisty.

Albi
May 27th, 2007, 05:33 AM
Well, I don't find it's missing any features, but the ones it has, it doesn't do as well as Photoshop. Let me give you an example.

Let's say you have a blue wallpaper picture (OSX default one for example). In photoshop you simply go to image-->adjustments-->hue/saturation and make it whatever colour you want.

In gimp, not so much. if you adjust the hue/saturation, it doesn't do it properly and the image looks messed up.

Also, resising in gimp is mediocre. In photoshop, downscaling a picture does nothing to the quality, but in gimp, no matter if you use linear,cubic, or none, it will look pretty bad if you downscale an image.

Just things like these make photoshop better. Also, the sharpen tool in gimp is useless, whereas it's not bad in photoshop.

Auria
May 27th, 2007, 03:07 PM
Well, I don't find it's missing any features, but the ones it has, it doesn't do as well as Photoshop. Let me give you an example.

Let's say you have a blue wallpaper picture (OSX default one for example). In photoshop you simply go to image-->adjustments-->hue/saturation and make it whatever colour you want.

In gimp, not so much. if you adjust the hue/saturation, it doesn't do it properly and the image looks messed up.

Also, resising in gimp is mediocre. In photoshop, downscaling a picture does nothing to the quality, but in gimp, no matter if you use linear,cubic, or none, it will look pretty bad if you downscale an image.

Just things like these make photoshop better. Also, the sharpen tool in gimp is useless, whereas it's not bad in photoshop.

In my experience, hue/stauration is extactly the same in photoshop and gimp - its just that gimp puts colorize as a seperate - its perhaps what you're searching for


Does not work at all for me with GIMP 2.2 or 2.3 on Feisty.
Seems like a problem with Feisty... =(

DJ Wings
May 27th, 2007, 03:25 PM
The GIMP is fine for basic editing, and if you need CMYK support, just use Krita. ;)

plb
May 27th, 2007, 03:39 PM
The GIMP is fine for basic editing, and if you need CMYK support, just use Krita. ;)

Agreed, I'm keeping a watch on Krita. It's constantly improving.

junior aspirin
May 27th, 2007, 04:14 PM
Does not work at all for me with GIMP 2.2 or 2.3 on Feisty.

are you using beryl/compiz? i did notice it didnt work with those. but does with metacity

argie
May 28th, 2007, 10:17 PM
Does not work at all for me with GIMP 2.2 or 2.3 on Feisty.

Works on Gimp 2.2 provided with Dapper. But the Utility window decorations make the program look not nice in Clearlooks :(

Well, I tried using devilspie to get Layers to not show in the taskbar and it worked sometimes and didn't work some other times, because it seemed arbitrary whether the Layers dialog would get named Layers or The Gimp. Also, every sub-window in the Gimp is called The Gimp. Damn!

mips
May 29th, 2007, 05:34 PM
The GIMP is fine for basic editing, and if you need CMYK support, just use Krita. ;)

GIMP does now have CMYK support via plugins.

BLTicklemonster
May 29th, 2007, 09:15 PM
I've used photoshop for several years, even took classes on it, still have it on my windows partition, but I love gimp. It works just fine for what I want to do, so I see no real need to use PS except for the rare occasion where there's some neat trick I want to do with 3d rendering of fonts or something.

Even here at work, I have gimp installed and love it.

starcraft.man
May 29th, 2007, 09:23 PM
I've used photoshop for several years, even took classes on it, still have it on my windows partition, but I love gimp. It works just fine for what I want to do, so I see no real need to use PS except for the rare occasion where there's some neat trick I want to do with 3d rendering of fonts or something.

Even here at work, I have gimp installed and love it.

Ditto, I use it too now, even after knowing PS for a long time.

Just curious, but where did ya get classes from? At a Uni? And, just out of curiosity, did your teacher ever show or know about the existence of the GNU Image Manipulation Program (yes, I'm using that word now rather than the abbreviation, I keep getting these people telling me GIMP is what you call a guy in bondage/S&M, which I don't want it associated with)?

silkstone
May 29th, 2007, 09:28 PM
I don't have a problem with The GIMP's name or its interface, although I'd prefer something that didn't scatter toolboxes over the screen. ;) I would also like to be able to configure the toolbars so the tools I use most often are not buried in the menu system.

I do have a problem with a couple of things. Firstly The GIMP does not appear to decode some JPEG images properly and creates jagged edges. I use Bibble to convert from RAW to low-compression JPEG, and I have no problems viewing or editing these with any other software apart from The GIMP.

Secondly the Hue/Saturation/Luminance controls are crude. You can only select R,G,B,C,M,Y and have no control over the precise range or feathering of these colours. That makes selective colour adjustments very difficult and leads to blocking between different hues. Compare that with, for example, Paint Shop Pro which allows very precise control and feathering-off to avoid blocking.

There are no controls for highlight recovery or shadow boost, apart from curves adjustment, and (as far as I can see) no filters for noise reduction that work as well as those in PS or PSP.

At the moment I'm using an old version of Paint Shop Pro (7.04) under CrossOver and that mostly works fine, but I would like a native Linux application that is on a par with the latest Windows image editors.

P_Badger
May 29th, 2007, 09:46 PM
(yes, I'm using that word now rather than the abbreviation, I keep getting these people telling me GIMP is what you call a guy in bondage/S&M, which I don't want it associated with)?

Hey! Nothing wrong with a little bondage.

starcraft.man
May 29th, 2007, 09:53 PM
Hey! Nothing wrong with a little bondage.

ROFL!!!! To each his own (long as everyone is agreeing) :p

I just get tired of people actually saying that is a valid complaint (as irrational as it is, see prior people). So, I will call GNU Image Manipulation Program (especially when telling less knowledgeable people about it) instead of using the abbreviation. I don't mind (I type fast), besides I don't think I really liked calling it GIMP (d'oh, okay thats the last time I say the abbreviation >.>) anyway. :)

shen-an-doah
May 29th, 2007, 11:55 PM
Hey! Nothing wrong with a little bondage.

<Stevie_Kilroy> a little s&m never hurt anyone
<Bungalow Bill> dude
<Bungalow Bill> Yes it did.

http://www.bash.org/?747042

wildcardny
May 30th, 2007, 01:36 AM
GIMP is limp. I'm by no means a PS pro, or image/graphic wiz, but what takes me 5min in PS take 1/2hr in gimp. Hell, I'd be happy just getting the damn tools tabs to remember to remain on top and visible from session to session. What are the alternatives to this pos ware? And as for gimpshop, just wtf does it accomplish other than a new splashscreen upon startup?

KIAaze
May 30th, 2007, 01:41 AM
Is it possible to get GIMP to use a 1-window interface with tabs? (if yes, it should either be on by default, or obvious to select)

That would be great!

Other than that, the Gimp is ok.

Glade and Qt-designer seem to have the same scattered windows design. It's really horrible.

edit:
GimpShop seems to solve the scattered windows problems. :)
No tabs, but well, maybe positioning windows in one large window is even better.
(And maybe that's why it was scattered by design in the first place since on GNU/Linux there are multiple desktops, I don't know. But I still prefer 1 window.)

BLTicklemonster
May 30th, 2007, 01:51 AM
Ditto, I use it too now, even after knowing PS for a long time.

Just curious, but where did ya get classes from? At a Uni? And, just out of curiosity, did your teacher ever show or know about the existence of the GNU Image Manipulation Program (yes, I'm using that word now rather than the abbreviation, I keep getting these people telling me GIMP is what you call a guy in bondage/S&M, which I don't want it associated with)?

At the local technical college. Nothing major, and mostly stuff I already knew, but some really good new stuff along the way. The teacher knew about GIMP, but wasn't really familiar with it.

And here's something that may be of some help to some of you

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=449525

KIAaze
May 30th, 2007, 01:58 AM
And here's something that may be of some help to some of you

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=449525

Thanks! :)
That's a pretty nice trick indeed.
And you can even make tabs! :D

BLTicklemonster
May 30th, 2007, 02:16 AM
Thanks! :)
That's a pretty nice trick indeed.
And you can even make tabs! :D

Indeed, no need for gimpshop anymore :)

Oh, and you're welcome!

jgcamp99
May 30th, 2007, 03:19 AM
Like anything, Gimp isn't Photoshop. That said, Apple fans I can remember will tell you Photoshop on Windows isn't Photoshop on a Mac. I like Gimp, with as much photo editing as I do, I prefer it to any MS bundled application and the price of Photoshop doesn't justify it's purchase.

The other day I introduced Blender to a guy that renders animations. Anyway, he uses a Windows based system, but was impressed by Blender. Unfortunately for Blender, the company bought the other application (forget it's name at the moment), so even the MS Windows Blender version gets no conversion. That's really too bad, Blender from my limited capabilty seems to be quite capable.

hessiess
May 30th, 2007, 07:13 PM
Blender from my limited capabilty seems to be quite capable. it is verry capoble, exept the bult in render is verry dificult to get good results with, and yafray dosant have motion blur

tomdkat
June 1st, 2007, 01:42 AM
Photoshop is the industry standard for image editing, and there is a reason for that. The interface is natural and easy to useWith this, I must disagree. I haven't used PhotoShop much at all and I was asked to help a friend of mine to help her use PhotoShop to touch-up and crop some photos of her. At that time, you could argue we were both 150% novices/beginners/newbies/clueless at PhotoShop use and a little bit better when it came to photo manipulation, given my prior Gimp experience.

Upon first glance, PhotoShop looked complicated and overwhelming. Looking at all those boxes with symbols (the toolbox) and the layers window on the left resulted in "WTF?" looks on both our faces. I was able to find the tools we needed to crop the photos and stuff but only because I had done that kind of work before in Gimp and had an idea of what to look for.

I don't consider the PhotoShop interface to be "natural" or "easy" at all, until you learn it. Once you learn it, it becomes very easy, just as the Gimp interface is to me now.

Outside of some technical limitations, like lack of adequate CYMK support, I consider the biggest obstacle people have with Gimp is it simply doesn't look or behave like PhotoShop.

I think PhotoShop is the industry standard because of its power and functionality.

Peace...

gruvsyco
June 1st, 2007, 02:53 AM
Okay I just booted in Ubuntu

You need to set both "hints" (toolbox and dock) to 'utility window' then restart gimp for full effect
works fine on my Edgy PPC ubuntu with gimp 2.2.13

I tried it in GIMP 2.3.x and it works only after I actually open a "working file". Until that, I have multiple windows. Very cool though, I can definitely live with that. Now if they would remove some of the lame redundancy... file, edit, select, etc... appear in 3 separate places on the UI one of which is right click, which IMO should be a context sensitive menu.

spock84
June 1st, 2007, 05:11 AM
I'm not sure what's been said so far in the thread, but my main gripe with GIMP is the lack of adjustment layers. It makes for some very static and inefficient editing, having to make a copy of the merged layers for a new layer and then adjust curves etc. directly on the image data in that layer. As each such adjustment is made some (or a lot of) image data is lost, so you'd have to do the whole thing over again, making a new layer with a merged copy and so forth. It's totally ridiculous.

Then there's the GUI which is horrible, but I guess that's been thoroughly covered in this thread before I made my entrance. Though I suppose one could GIMP-shop it, but that doesn't make it Photoshop, by far.

I also think the selection and crop tools are much more intuitive and easy to use in Photoshop.

Photoshop also has a better unsharp mask filter in my opinion. I just can't get the same results with gimp, particularly when set to a low radius, which I tend to do when I sharpen photos that are to be displayed on screen (i.e. low res). The one in GIMP is too "rough", for the lack of a better word.

Then there are tools like the healing brush and liquify, which doesn't have any counterparts in GIMP as far as I know.

I'm sure I could do a long list of areas where Photoshop is better than GIMP if I really put some effort into it.

BLTicklemonster
June 1st, 2007, 05:53 AM
I'm sure I could do a long list of areas where Photoshop is better than GIMP if I really put some effort into it.

Everyone here can.

But every point costs you money.

Remember, Gimp's not even supposed to BE photoshop.

..oh, and it's like free, so I'm not complaining :)

rsambuca
June 1st, 2007, 06:26 AM
I still think that the people who complain the most about the gimp's GUI (or perceived lack-thereof) are longtime users of photoshop. I also think that most of the users of photoshop have forgotten how intimidating photoshop's GUI was when they first started using it.

By nature photo-manipulation software is very complex due to the number of options and settings available, whether you are using gimp or photoshop. Yes, photoshop has areas where it is far superior to the gimp, but 99% of users will never use those features anyways.

spock84
June 1st, 2007, 07:46 AM
Whether GIMP was intended to be an alternative to Photoshop or not is irrelveant. At present it's the only viable alternative to Photoshop on Linux, and it's not a very good one at that. That is why I compare it to Photoshop, because I want an open source Linux application that can do the same basic, elementary image editing things that Photoshop can, and honestly I don't think it's all that far from being a decent replacement.

AlexC_
June 1st, 2007, 09:42 AM
I still think that the people who complain the most about the gimp's GUI (or perceived lack-thereof) are longtime users of photoshop. I also think that most of the users of photoshop have forgotten how intimidating photoshop's GUI was when they first started using it.

By nature photo-manipulation software is very complex due to the number of options and settings available, whether you are using gimp or photoshop. Yes, photoshop has areas where it is far superior to the gimp, but 99% of users will never use those features anyways.

While that may be the case, there is more to problems with the UI than just the user is not used to it. There are many many issues with it that cause the users work flow to slow down greatly.

As the main window/canvas does not keep focus, it makes it very hard to work with. For example if you need to nudge a layer up/down you have to select the move tool, click the correct layer in the layers window - this causes the focus to be on the layers window/dialog, and so one extra step is required to actual perform the nudge, and that is clicking back on the main window/canvas - then you can press up/down to perform the nudge.

With Photoshop you select the move tool, select the layer, and press up/down - no need to click back onto the main window to gain focus. These are the sort of little things that get very, very annoying when trying to work with it and it does slow you down.

Another thing is the previews you get with Filters, you get the smallest preview there could possibly be when doing say Blur for example. What this really should be changed to is making the actual canvas the preview area, so you can see in 'real-time' the effects the filter will have.

The Gimp 2.3 which will become 2.4 is shaping up very nice and I'd recommend it to anyone who feels the feature set of 2.2 is limited - I don't find I'm missing any 'tools' in 2.3 like I was 2.2 - but there are still some things missing.

These are mostly the ability to have non-destructive layer-based effects (think Stroke, Gradient Overlay, Drop Shadow) that you can change on-the-fly and go back to change at _any time_ as they are non-destructive. With the Gimp, once you've done something that's it, it's done - there is no going back and changing the color of a drop-shadow if you decide you don't like it.

Layer Folders/Groups are also a very simple feature but again help usability and speed up work flow as I can keep everything grouped together, I can then change the opacity of the entire group, hide the entire group, move the entire group ... it's really a great feature that is missing.

There is only one last thing that is missing so far in 2.3, and that is the ability to have automatic rotating brushes, instead of having the brush the same way around every time you use it - with Photoshop you can set it to rotate every so often and have it change size automatically as well while you are using it. Again, a very nice feature that is missing in the Gimp, though I'm glad to see all the brushes in the latest 2.3 are re-sizeable on-the-fly.

Spr0k3t
June 1st, 2007, 09:50 AM
There are two things I don't like about The GIMP.

1. Lack of standard structured drawing building blocks

This is a pet peeve of mine and I know there are ways around this. Seriously, why are there no standard building blocks such as line, square, circle, and structure? I've been using Inkscape to do a lot of the structured drawings and importing them as needed but if the fundamentals are there with bezier curve tools, why not add that small functionality.

2. Human Interface

This is not as bad as my problems with the first section. There's something about it that does not flow real well. There are parts I enjoy using far more than with Photoshop, but some of the process flow for standard tasks just need tweaking. It's hard to explain really. However, from what I've seen of the SVN this may change.

rsambuca
June 1st, 2007, 07:12 PM
While that may be the case, there is more to problems with the UI than just the user is not used to it. There are many many issues with it that cause the users work flow to slow down greatly.

As the main window/canvas does not keep focus, it makes it very hard to work with. For example if you need to nudge a layer up/down you have to select the move tool, click the correct layer in the layers window - this causes the focus to be on the layers window/dialog, and so one extra step is required to actual perform the nudge, and that is clicking back on the main window/canvas - then you can press up/down to perform the nudge.

With Photoshop you select the move tool, select the layer, and press up/down - no need to click back onto the main window to gain focus. These are the sort of little things that get very, very annoying when trying to work with it and it does slow you down.

Another thing is the previews you get with Filters, you get the smallest preview there could possibly be when doing say Blur for example. What this really should be changed to is making the actual canvas the preview area, so you can see in 'real-time' the effects the filter will have.

The Gimp 2.3 which will become 2.4 is shaping up very nice and I'd recommend it to anyone who feels the feature set of 2.2 is limited - I don't find I'm missing any 'tools' in 2.3 like I was 2.2 - but there are still some things missing.

These are mostly the ability to have non-destructive layer-based effects (think Stroke, Gradient Overlay, Drop Shadow) that you can change on-the-fly and go back to change at _any time_ as they are non-destructive. With the Gimp, once you've done something that's it, it's done - there is no going back and changing the color of a drop-shadow if you decide you don't like it.

Layer Folders/Groups are also a very simple feature but again help usability and speed up work flow as I can keep everything grouped together, I can then change the opacity of the entire group, hide the entire group, move the entire group ... it's really a great feature that is missing.

There is only one last thing that is missing so far in 2.3, and that is the ability to have automatic rotating brushes, instead of having the brush the same way around every time you use it - with Photoshop you can set it to rotate every so often and have it change size automatically as well while you are using it. Again, a very nice feature that is missing in the Gimp, though I'm glad to see all the brushes in the latest 2.3 are re-sizeable on-the-fly.

Yeah, I agree with most of your points here (especially the nondestructive layer effects and altering brush sizes), but one little tip for you on moving layers up or down in the gimp. You don't actually have to select the move tool first (why were you doing this?). All you have to do is put your mouse cursor over the layer you want to move, then click-and-hold the layer and move it up or down as you wish. That is two less clicks than your photoshop method!

AlexC_
June 1st, 2007, 07:29 PM
Yeah, I agree with most of your points here (especially the nondestructive layer effects and altering brush sizes), but one little tip for you on moving layers up or down in the gimp. You don't actually have to select the move tool first (why were you doing this?). All you have to do is put your mouse cursor over the layer you want to move, then click-and-hold the layer and move it up or down as you wish. That is two less clicks than your photoshop method!

Really? When I do that, with say the gradient tool - it does as I would expect and does a pretty gradient. You have to be on the move tool to move a layer, maybe you are on about the "Pick a layer or guide" and "move selected layer" options? As with the former, you don't have to select the layer in the layer window, but the latter you have to (which I prefer, because sometimes with the other option you end up moving the wrong layer!)

RudolfMDLT
June 1st, 2007, 07:43 PM
the biggest problems for me with the gimp is the lack of background removal tools that remove accurately above the edges of objects. The one in the latest versions of Paint Shop Pro is nearly flawless. THe gimp takes a lot more effort to cut out shapes.

I also dislike the fact you can't resize brushes easily in the gimp and that you have to make new brush sizes. Again, in PSP you just use the mouse wheel to enlarge or make the brush smaller.

Finally, resizing and rotating layers leaves the original layer in full view and it's difficult to gauge. there is a trick to make it work differently, but its cumbersome and i seldom remember the technique.

There are other annoying things about it but on the whole I really like the program and it is very powerful.

Jumping in the middle here, but OoooMatron said exactly what I wanted to say! Cutting out objects is a real pain! I used to Use MS Photo Draw(it pretty ancient) but it was very EASY and quick to get stuff done.

Though, the gimp is still an awesome little app and I'm glad it's on Ubuntu!

rsambuca
June 1st, 2007, 07:50 PM
Really? When I do that, with say the gradient tool - it does as I would expect and does a pretty gradient. You have to be on the move tool to move a layer, maybe you are on about the "Pick a layer or guide" and "move selected layer" options? As with the former, you don't have to select the layer in the layer window, but the latter you have to (which I prefer, because sometimes with the other option you end up moving the wrong layer!)

Yeah, I was talking about clicking on the layer in the "layers" window. then just move it up or down (see attached)

brian j
June 1st, 2007, 07:53 PM
Are you using Gimp 2:3:16/7 ??
Cheers.

rsambuca
June 1st, 2007, 07:55 PM
Are you using Gimp 2:3:16/7 ??
Cheers.

You talkin' to ME??? (just watched Taxi Driver again!)

If you are asking me, I am using 2.2.13, the default Feisty version.

AlexC_
June 1st, 2007, 07:58 PM
Yeah, I was talking about clicking on the layer in the "layers" window. then just move it up or down (see attached)

Ahhh, you think I mean to nudge the layer up in the layer window? I mean to actually 'nudge' the layer, as in - move it within the canvas, not it's position in the layer window.

brian j
June 1st, 2007, 07:58 PM
Yep!
;)

You talkin' to ME??? (just watched Taxi Driver again!)

If you are asking me, I am using 2.2.13, the default Feisty version.

rsambuca
June 1st, 2007, 08:09 PM
Ahhh, you think I mean to nudge the layer up in the layer window? I mean to actually 'nudge' the layer, as in - move it within the canvas, not it's position in the layer window.

Ahh... I get it now. Yeah, no way around that as far as I can tell, unless you want to be a keyboard guy and alt-tab, or set up hot-keys.

starcraft.man
June 1st, 2007, 08:20 PM
Ahh... I get it now. Yeah, no way around that as far as I can tell, unless you want to be a keyboard guy and alt-tab, or set up hot-keys.

Whats wrong with being a keyboard guy? :p

*pushes Shift + F9 and desktop starts to rain (beryl)* YAY for water effects :D

Oh and uh on a more related note... Go GNU Image Manipulation Program (still not saying the short name :) )!

rsambuca
June 1st, 2007, 08:31 PM
Whats wrong with being a keyboard guy? :p

*pushes Shift + F9 and desktop starts to rain (beryl)* YAY for water effects :D

Oh and uh on a more related note... Go GNU Image Manipulation Program (still not saying the short name :) )!

I have nothing against keyboard guys - I am turning into one myself! It is pretty tough when using gimp, though;)

kiddo
June 2nd, 2007, 02:58 PM
Guys, could I get your opinions on an article I wrote months ago (but I never got around to publishing it... I would have to digg-proof my home server maybe) ?

http://open-source.ecchi.ca/?voir=articles/gimp_ui (also, there are a few additional things I would like to add to this article, if you have suggestions I would also include them)

And I made a screencast (ogg theora video 13 Mib) that could complement my article well, by explaining how to personalize the gimp's user interface: http://jeff.ecchi.ca/reorganizing-the-gimp.ogg

Please give me your comments. I might be motivated to publish this once and for all :)

kevCast
June 2nd, 2007, 03:05 PM
I am more familiar with the Photoshop interface, so I just run PS in Wine.

frychiko
June 2nd, 2007, 03:16 PM
Yeah, I agree with most of your points here (especially the nondestructive layer effects and altering brush sizes), but one little tip for you on moving layers up or down in the gimp. You don't actually have to select the move tool first (why were you doing this?). All you have to do is put your mouse cursor over the layer you want to move, then click-and-hold the layer and move it up or down as you wish. That is two less clicks than your photoshop method!

He had the move tool selected prior to moving a canvas because he was nudging a layer.
After moving the layer in the layer dialog, you must click again on the main canvas to nudge the layer. This is an extra step.

saulgoode
June 2nd, 2007, 04:33 PM
He had the move tool selected prior to moving a canvas because he was nudging a layer.
After moving the layer in the layer dialog, you must click again on the main canvas to nudge the layer. This is an extra step.

People still use "click-to-focus"? :shock:

wildcardny
June 4th, 2007, 04:55 AM
I am more familiar with the Photoshop interface, so I just run PS in Wine.

What version are you running in wine? Any performance hit, or rather misses?

LightB
June 4th, 2007, 05:10 AM
I rather like the Gimp. Sure, Photoshop has a more professional feel, it's a commercial product after all, but imo most people who use it do not need such fancy stuff to do the simple stuff they do. For my needs I can use Gimp just fine, I can even use a graphic tablet to draw, and photo manipulation is not a problem for me now that I know how to use it. It's rather nice, esp. Gimp 2.3, can't wait for 2.4 the stable version.

saulgoode
June 4th, 2007, 04:03 PM
Guys, could I get your opinions on an article I wrote months ago (but I never got around to publishing it... I would have to digg-proof my home server maybe) ?

http://open-source.ecchi.ca/?voir=articles/20070216-gimp_ui (also, there are a few additional things I would like to add to this article, if you have suggestions I would also include them)

And I made a screencast (ogg theora video 13 Mib) that could complement my article well, by explaining how to personalize the gimp's user interface: http://jeff.ecchi.ca/reorganizing-the-gimp.ogg

Please give me your comments. I might be motivated to publish this once and for all :)

Your article was quite well-written but I do have a couple of comments.

In the section on gimpshop, you mention that it has "picked" the interest of many -- the appropriate word/spelling would be "piqued" (the word is derived from its original French counterpart :)).

Regarding "those tiny previews": the previews exist not because of any limitation of screen size, but because plug-ins have a limited interface to the GIMP's core data.

The communication between a plug-in and the GIMP's core is limited in order to maintain a stable framework within which plug-ins can work -- this is analogous to a stable API in library sources. Plug-ins should be transferable between different versions of the GIMP without recompiling either the plug-in or the GIMP. (This is true as long as the major version number has not been changed; GIMP plug-ins for version 1.x.x are not guaranteed to work with versions 2.x.x, and vice-versa)

Plug-ins also should not be capable of causing the GIMP to crash; the plug-in might very well crash, but the GIMP should remain functioning -- this is analogous to plug-ins not having SUDO privileges and therefore only can corrupt themselves. This makes it much simpler to debug problems and maintain development (not to mention placing responsibility for plug-in problems with the plug-in's author, where it belongs).

The need for restrictions to plug-ins' interfacing with the GIMP means that any data the plug-in accesses and/or modifies need to be passed through interprocess messaging. It can be very slow to transfer the amount of data inherent to graphic images in this manner, hence the employment of "preview windows".

I am not suggesting that there is no room for improvement (and there has been significant progress in unifying the presentation and expanding the capability of GIMP previews), but there are reasons behind the limitations.

Again, your article was most excellent and I thank you for sharing.

ibexslam
June 4th, 2007, 10:30 PM
if you dont like the name, start referring it as the GNU Image Manipulation program. Its what it stands for anyway.

But I don't want to manipulate an image of a gnu! Seriously, though, a name that calls to mind a person hobbling on a crutch is less than ideal. Photoshop isn't such a great name, either (shop? what does it sell?). But at least it tells you it's something to do with photos.

Linux nomenclature is quirky, and that's a little offputting to those not (or not yet) in the know (like me).

KIAaze
June 5th, 2007, 10:14 PM
There are worse names:
I discovered the "w" program just yesterday. :)
man w:
w - Show who is logged on and what they are doing.

How the hell can you guess what that program does by its name???

And to me the Gimp does not remind me of what you are suggesting. I didn't even know it was even used for that and had to use google to understand what you were talking about exactly. ^^

But maybe you are right, some names are weird like "finger" for instance. ^^
And then there's the story of the Kernel **** count (http://durak.org/sean/pubs/kfc/)...

lapsey
June 5th, 2007, 11:00 PM
No matter how bad the layout is, or how strange the way layers work in GIMP, shortcuts and hotkeys are the key to efficient work.

Where GIMP has them they are sparsely, patchily, or badly implemented. Use the Ctrl modifier properly and assign a unique char to each tool, PLEASE!

A few other gripes:

- Why are layer (canvas) sizes defined individually? This makes no sense! Where's the harm in assuming transparency for the rest when enlarging the overall canvas??

- Why are saved JPEG's so noisy even when only barely compressed?

- Why are menus so irrationally laid out?


Usability, please!!

ThinkBuntu
June 5th, 2007, 11:16 PM
For the record, I love Gimpressionist. It was until I discovered this that I thought Photoshop was better for artistic rendering, when in fact, GIMP offers far more options. I especially like Gimpressionist for turning ordinary photographs into backgrounds that look as though they were painted in 19th century Paris!

BLTicklemonster
June 6th, 2007, 12:08 AM
I'm still waiting for a magic eye for gimp.

Oh, and I found a site on cmyk http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml (or did I get it here?)

kiddo
June 10th, 2007, 05:16 PM
Thanks for your comments :)

In the section on gimpshop, you mention that it has "picked" the interest of many -- the appropriate word/spelling would be "piqued" (the word is derived from its original French counterpart :)).
No kidding? I'm a native French speaker and I did not know that! "Picked" seemed like a sensible word for that, I thought :) thanks for adding up to my English knowledge


Regarding "those tiny previews": the previews exist not because of any limitation of screen size, but because plug-ins have a limited interface to the GIMP's core data.

The communication between a plug-in and the GIMP's core is limited in order to maintain a stable framework within which plug-ins can work -- this is analogous to a stable API in library sources. Plug-ins should be transferable between different versions of the GIMP without recompiling either the plug-in or the GIMP. (This is true as long as the major version number has not been changed; GIMP plug-ins for version 1.x.x are not guaranteed to work with versions 2.x.x, and vice-versa)

Plug-ins also should not be capable of causing the GIMP to crash; the plug-in might very well crash, but the GIMP should remain functioning -- this is analogous to plug-ins not having SUDO privileges and therefore only can corrupt themselves. This makes it much simpler to debug problems and maintain development (not to mention placing responsibility for plug-in problems with the plug-in's author, where it belongs).

The need for restrictions to plug-ins' interfacing with the GIMP means that any data the plug-in accesses and/or modifies need to be passed through interprocess messaging. It can be very slow to transfer the amount of data inherent to graphic images in this manner, hence the employment of "preview windows".

Big question is, do you think the famous GeGL might/will magically solve all these issues?

crobar
July 1st, 2011, 04:39 PM
Why is Paint installed by default in Windows? Same reason: even basic users sometimes need to resize, crop, and otherwise alter images. GIMP can do all that and more, so why NOT include it? Sheesh.

Yeah, well try drawing a rectangle in gimp when you first start using it and you'll soon see the difference. Paint is a drawing program, gimp is an image manipulation program, and is a nightmare to just pick up and use. The tutorial for using gimp seems to be ten years of photoshop experience.

Henry Flower
July 1st, 2011, 05:21 PM
Crobar, this thread is four years old. They're effectively discussing a different program.:rolleyes: