08.23
So in an effort to not suck, Gimp has gone single window!
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/23/1355225/The-GIMP-Now-Has-a-Working-Single-Window-Mode
Cue the hundreds of posts about how this is a terrible thing. But here’s what confuses me, look at the image on the right compared to my newly Photoshopped screenshot. Notice anything? It almost seems like (on OSX at least) Photoshop isn’t even single window.
The reason nobody uses Gimp and the reason it sucks is simply because it has no compelling features that make it worth using. It’s that simple. But no, instead we just get pages and pages and pages and pages of people who know nothing about graphics, design or even Photoshop talking authoritatively as if their opinions somehow matter.
Gimp has exactly the same problem Linux has, only significantly worse. The only people that use it are the tiny fraction of the available markeshare who ignore and belittle majority who largely just want to get stuff done. It fails to provide anything compelling that could make it useful except for a the very occasional rare use case but most of all the ‘promotion’ for it largely involves the argument ‘We are going to talk crap about our competition for a few hundred posts so you’ll think we suck less by comparison’.
Honestly, I’ve never seen anyone try to promote it on it’s own merits without trying to tear down Photoshop or Windows instead. Tell me why it’s compelling. Tell me how it can make my life easier. Chances are if nobody uses it it’s not a conspiracy, it’s simply because it’s not very good.
I’m a Linux hater and I use the GIMP. What other alternatives are there? Single window mode is a welcome change. The stupid “We’ll make a bunch of separate windows and leave it up to your window manager to combine them” interface meant everything was always overlapping each other. Window managers that work like that never materialized, so yeah. Should have an interface more like Inkscape.
Artweaver and Paint.Net are IMHO better choices than GIMP. Try it!
Jair Jurrjens, you are an overrated pitcher, not even fit to throw for the Mariners. Tosser!
I use the GIMP because pirating photoshop takes longer. I don’t do much graphical work so paying for it would be criminal. But when I do graphics work I appreciate the power it has. It’s lightyears away from x264 in terms of an open source success story, but I think it’s an OK program that works well enough for my purposes. I understand that it’s worse than Photoshop but it isn’t in ways I care about right now. Personally floating windows of all kinds tick me off so I will prefer single window mode.
“because pirating photoshop takes longer”
What the fuck are you on about?
“I don’t do much graphical work so paying for it would be criminal. “
Kurkos is that y… never mind.
Yeah I’ve been known to make jokes on the internet.
“But when I do graphics work I appreciate the power it has.”
So, what “power” would that be, or was the whole post a joke (which wouldn’t surprise me)?
GIMP sucks, but it’s free. It’s more powerful than paint and covers image editing need for lots of people.
I’m not a graphics designer. But I do have to make figures and images for presentations and publications, and for that role, the combination of Inkscape and Gimp have met my needs just fine for professional-quality graphics.
I’ll worry about Photoshop when I run into a case that the gimp/inkscape duo can’t handle. Hasn’t happened yet. I’ve also yet to meet a Photoshop user that actually paid for a personal copy of it.
Different operating systems have different conventions, and it’s usually a good idea to tailor any software offering to fit the conventions of the platform on which it ends up running.
The multiple windows thing you describe is part of the OS X convention — that’s how you’d expect Photoshop to look on that operating system, assuming Adobe have any sense at all.
On Windows, the convention is different — all of those secondary windows would be expected to tidy themselves away inside the application’s “main” window — and, as far as I’m aware, in Photoshop for Windows, that’s precisely what they do.
The GIMP, didn’t bother to follow these conventions, and as a result, it always looked completely and utterly horrible on Windows. Since Linux users are the main target audience for the GIMP, and Linux desktop environments tend to ape Windows more than OS X, I don’t really agree that this change is entirely without merit.
I can’t say that it will make me try the GIMP again any time soon, however. My graphics editing needs aren’t that extensive, and Paint.NET seems to have most of them covered.
ape Windows? Rape?
You my friend had never had the awsome experience of converting 1+ TB of Data to ext4 and nearly loosing a RAID 1 mirror to shitty linux programming.
Linux rape OS X? Delusional Much? LMAO.
@ ElectricPrism
If it isn’t just something you read about, but you actually experienced it the way you describe, you know that such a procedure is a big no no. Never rely on a single file system and RAID if you care about your data. There’s simply no file system 100% secure, and that has very little to do with any particular OS. ZFS and its equivalent in progress Btrfs have capabilities to improve security, but it doesn’t save users/administrators from the consequences of poor routines. Who’s to LMAO?
No, ‘ape’. Check your dictionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ape#Verb
Way to miss the point. Even if he didn’t “lose” the data it’s still an assfuck situation that totally negates Linux’s “value”. Recovering from just one of these types of incidents costs more than SBS’ sticker price.
Explain please what the point is in relation to GIMP? Furthermore Ext4 is only one of the options you have using Linux. You could just as well choose a by the kernel supported file system from IBM or Oracle. Secondly no file system in this category, be it some version of Ext, NTFS or HFS, is significantly “safer” than the other. We’ve had NTFS RAID arrays at the company going bananas, so what does that prove? The same point: don’t rely on a single, doesn’t matter if it’s a RAID set up, file system. Whatever you choose you need to be prepared for hardware failure as well.
If you just look for reasons to spit out anger you always find them. It does however give zero result. One incident costs as much as you’ve prepared for. Zero preparation means huge costs.
The point was that somebody decided that when I said ‘ape’, meaning “to imitate”, someone mistook it for a typo and thought I meant ‘rape’. And then decided to challenge that with an anecdote.
For the record, I have not had the ‘pleasure’ of having Linux blow up in my face in the way he describes or in any other way. However, I haven’t tried anything more recent than Fedora 13, and I recall Fedora 10 being slower than molasses for some reason.
Overall, my personal reaction was something along the lines of “meh, there might be a few good ideas, but I prefer Windows”. At the time, I actually thought that this was simply because I wasn’t hardcore enough to have the experience that the “true Linux fans” claimed to be having. It took me a while to realise that Linux actually doesn’t get any better than the experience I had with it.
The point is that working “safely” with Linux takes more (time consuming) research or trial-and-error than the alternatives, which obviates its supposed value. While any system can blow up, the rate is simply higher with Linux. As for what it has to do with GIMP, it doesn’t, but you’re hardly in a position to argue relevance as I’m replying directly to your comment.
I work in a school where our students often create HUGE Photoshop files contains sometimes 100s of layers. Gimp will open and edit these files without issue and does it faster than the Photoshop itself. I like Gimp because it is a free alternative. Kudos to the developers.
Dealing with any file that has hundreds of layers is an utter nightmare without layer groups, something that Gimp still lacks. Also got any evidence in the way of benchmarks or is this just hand waving ‘power of the community’ crap?
I just tested that on my Mac. Yes, Gimp will load large multi-layer PSD slightly faster than Photoshop… But!
1. The Layer effects and blendings are discarded.
2. It’s downsampled to 8-bit RGB.
3. The adjustment layers have all been discarded
4. My ‘vector shapes’ are gone.
5. My Layer groupings are gone.
6. My named (non-text) layers are unnamed.
7. It’s not in CMYK anymore.
In its defense:
1. It was negligibly faster to open the file than Photoshop, possibly because it discarded half the image data.
2. It preserved my DPI settings, which I didn’t expect it to.
3. My guides have been retained, which I didn’t expect either.
It’s not even purely an issue of raw functionality at this point – the layer effects, shapes and stuff like that can be done by hand in a number of cases, the adjustment layers can be done destructively instead. It’s an issue of workflow at this point, doing all that manually would ramp up my working time by a factor of ten at least, It’d be out of work faster than the design suite amortizes (rimshot!).
Then there’s the issues of raw functionality and nonsensicalness. It discards colour depth information and colourspace information, there’s no way around that. I’d need to re-import the image into Photoshop (or PhotoPaint) to do the colour conversion, matching and correction, and other pre-press preparations. Which begs for the question, what’s the bloody point of using Gimp instead of Photoshop, if I’m going to have to resort to Photoshop to finish the job anyway?
Multiply that for job using large format, Pantones or Hexachrome, and even that is just the tip of the iceberg.
But hey, who needs any of that right, it open files marginally faster by discarding most of the useful image information and it’s freeeee! i mean, SRSLY who cares that the design suite amortizes in short enough order, what’s amortize even mean, right?
Disclaimer: Unlike Jason @ 2011.08.23 23:31, I _am_ a professional graphic designer. My needs and workflow differ from yours and I understand that it makes little sense to target me or my industry unless you’re going commercial with the product.
Also, and most importantly, HAI GUISE! <3
Kudos to the developers for finally listening to a community suggestion for probably 5+ years.
Next up – GIMP realizes their name is retarded
“gimped, past participle; gimped, past tense; gimping, present participle; gimps, 3rd person singular present
Limp; hobble
– she gimped around thereafter on an artificial leg”
I juggle photoshop files 200-1200mb on average, if photoshop took 10-15 seconds to load a file I wouldn’t care much for the difference in load time, what I care about is usability designed for ME and spending the least amount of time in graphics editing.
I searched my 2TB drive and it says I have 1,200 + PSDs, I have no reason to use GIMP, but this change will likely get people to try their program again which if it’s not crippled as their name suggests, maybe they’ll win a few more users.
Paint.net is more reliable, stable and featurefull than the GIMP, and it’s a one man developing team working in his spare time. The GIMP doesn’t compare to It, let alone Photoshop.
While I’ll agree that if a user study was done on Paint.net, it would likely prove to have less of a learning curve for both those new to image manipulation and professionals who are used to adobe products.
I would definitely be interested in hearing some ways that Paint.net “doesn’t compare to” Phootshop, but instead contrasts to Photoshop.
I think an Image Manipulation Tool designed for Tablets could capture a lot of marketshare similar to how Linux should be focusing on capturing the Tablet & Mobile markets instead of the Desktop market right now.
GIMP is okay, but it’s biggest issue is start up time, which takes forever and freezes. Sure, when it freezes it always comes out of it, but that doesn’t give users a sense of reliaibility if it freezes.
I agree that its start up time is terrible in Windows, compared to a fairly fast start up time on Linux. I assume the GIMP team needs the majority of its supporters, who uses the Windows platform, so I would improve the overall impression a lot to at least get equal start up time on those OS.
On the other hand GIMP has two or one developers, so you could expect some other bigger open-source player to add resources, but as far as I can understand that hasn’t happened.
Start-up time is the least of the Gimp’s problems. And as for “expect,” under what premises would you “expect” this? It may be that it only has 2 1/2 developers (the number varies, but not dramatically) for a reason. Two possible reasons occur to me:
(1) It’s a sucky code-base and it hurts to work on it.
(2) There is no obvious ROI (I don’t just use the term in a monetary sense) in doing so.
Under (2), I’d be interested in an argument that even a small investment (say a team of three or four) would be worth any “bigger open-source player’s” time. I’d actually sort of welcome it (I tried Gimp and hated it, but that’s no reason not to try a new, improved Gimp). But who would this mythical benefactor be?
It doesn’t rub Shuttleworth’s tingly bits the right way. It offers zero benefit to RHEL’s business model. And as for, say, IBM … well, there’s a reason why they’ve thrown so much money down the toilet on OOo; they have no comparable office product on rather a lot of their systems.
I don’t see a professional graphics suite filling quite the same niche. Which is a shame, really, because IBM could bring some seriously rocking mathematical patents to the table.
So, GiMP sucks and it freezes and it has a slow start up time.
What’s not to like?
Maybe Adobe could buy it for 2 and a half cents? They wouldn’t do anything with it — just kill it. After all, there isn’t much the GIMP has over Photoshop other than free. Hey, maybe if they bought it they could release a super old version of Photoshop for free. Probably would be comparable
Wahh, you’ve just insulted a random super old version of Photoshop!
Why? What has Photoshop ever done to you, to call it “comparable” with the GiMP?!
Also, when was Photoshop ever used to insult disabled people?!
Or, for that matter, ruin the lives of artists?
Just stop insulting Photoshop with the GiMP already, I mean seriously, you guys go too far…
@ Dr Loser
I agree with most of what you wrote. I don’t know about GIMP’s code base, but I’m more inclined to believe your second reason to be true.
By “could expect” I didn’t refer to a personal view that some open-source player should, as a duty, do it. Canonical even excluded GIMP from being a default application some time ago, and did instead choose a more simple editor for basic tasks. No, I agree that there’s no clear party that would benefit from costly investments.
My view on this is that the market for professional photo editing in reality is tiny. Photoshop, as a general label for Adobe’s professional photo editing offerings, is quite often used as home run argument in discussions like these. I suspect however that very few of those arguing in favour of Photoshop are able to fully use it. It’s not Photoshop Elements they compare GIMP with. I still haven’t met any user of Adobe Photoshop professional offerings below advanced semiprofessional photographers. That market doesn’t look as particularly lucrative, and that probably also explains the premium price Adobe can demand for these products.
I don’t believe it’s sane to expect open-source alternatives on the same level when there’s no real user base to talk about. Sure if GIMP would compare to Adobe professional Photoshop all kids on the block would choose, despite not having a clue about how to use it. Everyone wants to be a pro.
Still I’m quite amazed at what you can do accomplish with GIMP these days.
WARNING LONGWINDED KHARKHALASHISM FOLLOWS:
I still haven’t met any user of Adobe Photoshop professional offerings below advanced semiprofessional photographers.
And that should not surprise you. Professional tools for professionals and prosumers, too. Photoshop, mind you, is by no means just for photographers, (who tend to lean more towards Lightroom or Aperture these days). It’s the swiss army knife of the media professional’s toolbelt, and a stable in the print industry. Visual artists, graphic designers, even video editors (frame-by-frame editing and rotoscoping in PS Extended ftw), limmited support for vectors and 3D, etc.
There’s an apparently little known secret about Photoshop and Adobe in general, at least unknown by those who insist that it can only be bought retail so everyone with a personal copy is pirating it: student discounts (which you can apply upgrades to, ungrades, of course, don’t cost anywhere near the full retail price), also, not everyone upgrades as soon as a new version is made available.
That market doesn’t look as particularly lucrative, and that probably also explains the premium price Adobe can demand for these products.
Photography? Not Lucrative? that’s completely asinine. Do you have ANY idea how high the barrier to entry is for Photography, or how much photographers spend on equipment? A decent SLR will set you back a few grand on a deal, especially if you come from a 35mm bckground and want to go with-full frame photography (99% of dSLR sensors don’t capture the full 35mm frame) in which case, you have all of two, maybe three models to choose from, all of which are on the extreme high end.You lenses will often set you back more than the SLR itself (most serious photographers will acquire at least a telescopic lens, and people who do macrophotography will pay a small fortune for a macro lens), and it’s by no means a one-off expense – Unless you’re a PENTAX guy of course, they’ve retained the Pentaprism system and so have kept 30 years of lense and lensemount compatibility, unless of course, your old lenses are 35mm lenses, you’ll need a shim or adapter for that, since PENTAX doesn’t have a full frame dSLR model.Conversely, Nikkon and Canon (I’m not sure about Minolta) change their lenses and mounts around about as often as the Linux kernel team switches the API around. It’s so bad that there’s not only one, but two derivative side markets that have emerged as a result: seond hand cameras and lenses/servicing old cameras and the development and sale of compatibility shims and adapters.
Sure there are savings from no longer needing to stock chemical baths, film, photo paper, servicing and maintaining enlargers, maintaining a darkroom, but that’s offset by the cost of the everchanging lensemount game and the cost of photo printers (and of course, the ink!).
then there are the “dinosaurs” still using either the full 35mm setup, or a hybrid approach, because despite how close digital photography is getting, and that nobody disputes that it is an eventuality, digital photo has not yet matched the photo quality of old fashioned film, so while you’re no longer buying an enlarger, or photographic paper, maintaining a darkroom but rather using a negative scanner, you’re still stocking a chemical bath for developing the film itself.
Then there’s the tripods and artificial lighting (Flash is a dirty word in photography), camera bags, lens bags, camera servicing/cleaning, etc.
It’s a very, very lucrative market, and the cost of entry is quite high – the price tag on Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture is barely even a drop in the bucket at this point. Photoshop amortizes long, long before a dSLR and its lenses do (again, unless you’re a PENTAX guy, in which case your lenses amortized 15 years ago), Hell, if your shooting pro, or even just weddings, Photoshop pays itself after just a few shoots. They charge a premium compared to lower tier tools, but are price competively in the target market, that’s the price people are willing to pay – of course most would jump ship for an equivalent product at a lower price point, if only it existed.
And as I said before, don;t let the name fool you, Photoshop is not just for photographers, DTP is a rather large market that has grown exponentially since it started in the 80s, and continues to do so, graphic design is huge, the print industry is enormous, there are more and more freelancers joining the game as well. It’s a high paying industry, skilld demans a premium, and as such, there’s little onjection to paying a premium for premium tools. And it’s not even as though Adobe is the only player in the game and can thusly afford to charge whatever the hell they want. Corel competes with them on almost every front, Apple competes with them on many fronts and on all tiers (Lightroom -> Aperture, Premiere Pro/Elements/After Effects -> Final Cut Express/Final Cut Pro/Shake + iMovie at the consumer end, Soundbooth/blah/blah -> Logic Exppress/Logic Studio/GarageBand). The market is not only highly competitive, it’s also satured (despite Adobe buying out Macromedia, and Corel responding in kind by buying out Jasc and ULEAD).
Adobe gains a lot of bonus points, however by doing something most OSS projects squarely refuse to do: actually communicating with their user base, seeing what functionality or improvements were wanted, and actually implenting them, Adobe didn’t implement vector support, 3d support, video editing support, 32-bit colour depth (HDR) support or GPU offloading because they thought it’d be cool, those were a result of the client base going ‘hey, Adobe you know what’d be awesome and would make us love you forever and ever?’ and so Photoshop Extended was born (though GPU offloading was implemented in the following release)
TL;DR version: new revelation, pro tools cost more than prosumer tools, which cost more than entry level and consumer tools, also water is wet and fire is hot, news at 11!
I don’t believe it’s sane to expect open-source alternatives on the same level when there’s no real user base to talk about.
The userbase is deceptively huge for people not involved in the industry. Obviously the higher tiers are smaller than the lower tiers (but also much, much more lucrative), I also find the double standard here somewhat amusing, it’s unrealistic to expect an open source project to take on professional tools (because nobody uses them LOL!), but it’s entirely within the realm of possibility to expect a hobby open source OS to compete in the highest tier of the enterprise computing market (note: it doesn’t fare all that well in the upper tiers dominated by Solaris and AIX).
The whole premise here is ridiculous, it’s like saying Apple charges a premium on hardware because the high end desktop market is minuscule and just not lucrative, except more ridiculous because you’re artificially shrinking the market (amusingly enough, to what is arguably the most lucrative sub-market of the greater multimedia/DTP market)
Sure if GIMP would compare to Adobe professional Photoshop all kids on the block would choose, despite not having a clue about how to use it. Everyone wants to be a pro.
You can bet your bottom dollar than even the professionals would jump ship if it was an equivalent product. But such a product does not exist, we can afford tools that expressly target us and what we do for a living, there’s no reason not to use them.
Still I’m quite amazed at what you can do accomplish with GIMP these days.
Conversely, I’m still amazed at how far behind not only Adobe Photoshop and Corel PhotoPaint Gimp is, but how far behind PhotoImpact (ULEAD) or Pixel Editor (formerly pixel32, with only 1 developer might I add) or even Krita (hey, it does 16-bit and CMYK) it is as well.
Further, as I said in a previous comment, it’s not even purely a case of missing functionality, but one of workflow enhancements. You don’t even have to look as far as advanced features, or workflow enhancements like non-destructive editing, layer groupings and layer blending, just compare basic features that both possess: the automation mechanism. Gimp uses Scheme scripting (and optional Python scripting) for automation – Photoshop lets you record macros (and also script in javascript if you’d like) which one is more workflow friendly is a no-brainer here. Scripting the action, or hitting record, and doing it once, then pressing play and going to get a cup of coffee?
@ Kharkhalash
This time I think you have an argument with someone else than me. I’m a quite devoted photographer myself, who haven’t given up on old fashion film, because of the same reasons you gave. Just in recent years I’ve accepted digital photo as part of my equipment.
When I wrote that the user base is too small, I did it in the sense of how open-source products usually come to exist: you need at least some, and for such a project we talk about now several, skilled developers with this particular interest or profession. Despite the money involved in the photo industry, I doubt that kind of necessary user base is too tiny to pull such a project forward. That’s at least my opinion.
There are possibly a couple of points I don’t agree with, but not anything important enough to write about.
I’m a quite devoted photographer myself, who haven’t given up on old fashion film, because of the same reasons you gave. Just in recent years I’ve accepted digital photo as part of my equipment.
I’ve taken to the hybrid approach myself, shoot on film, develop the negatives and run them through a negative scanner (saves me a lot of money on the chem bath, and the only equipment I need is a reel, patterson tank, broom closet and sink).
I’m hoping PENTAX comes out with a full-frame sensor, that would make my day (not only for the lens reusability, but I have a soft spot for night time and low-light photography).
I doubt that kind of necessary user base is too tiny to pull such a project forward. That’s at least my opinion.
I wouldn’t say it’s an issue of the userbase being small (it really isn’t, at least not the greater market for people who would use a pro-grade image manipulation program), it’s that it is a segment of the market that is, for the most part, squarely uninterested in taking part of the development process.
Professionals have shit to do, and for the most part don’t have the patience for the typical staples of open source development “patches or gtfo”, “it’s free, appreciate it”, “YouDontNeedThat(tm)”, etc.
It doesn’t matter that it’s free, it’s useless to me. I’m a fucking graphic designer/photographer/printer/whatever it’s not my job to code, and especially in the Gimp’s case, yes, I actually do need 16+ bpc colour depths, CMYK, Pantone/Hexachrome, large format and whatever else, and while I don’t stricktly need non-destructive editing or layer groupings, it’s something I very much appreciate, thanks.
The size of the market is less relevent than what the market itself consists of. You won’t find many programmers or people willing to get involved with the development process among media professionals – it’s also why the open source offerings in the market tend to be useless, the developers don’t exactly understand the needs of the userbase (and aren’t exctly willing to listen). I’d say most open source products are probably confined to the consumer space where expectations tend to be lower, and users tend to be less demanding (but only to a point).
Adobe and Corel meanwhile, make it a point to collect and build on user input and meet needs and expectations simply because as long as they continue keeping us happy, we’ll continue giving them money.
I only went on my rant about the high-revenue nature of the photography industry because you suggested it wasn’t lucrative. None of this, of course is of any relevence to an open source project, because money is generally not a motivating factor.
And none of the big open source players or open source friendly companies have any reason or interest in pumping Gimp (or any other OSS graphics package, for that matter) with the funds necessary to make it a competitive product, and beyond interest, there’s little or no potential for return on the investment.
Maybe if Sillicon Graphics were still around, things would be different – but of course, if they were still around, they’d have learned from their fatal mistakes (making Maya available to other platforms, and abandoning IRIX) and tied it exclusively to their own hardware and platform (it worked extremely well for them, and it works extremely well for Apple). The catch however, is that while it’d still be open, it would be unusable on other platforms.
Notice anything? It almost seems like (on OSX at least) Photoshop isn’t even single window.
Why, having everything all squashed up in one window is the way of the future!
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101111213709/tron/images/f/f9/Tron-Legacy_SolarOS-frame.png
Touch Screen Here I Come!
Everybody is forgetting one little thing; this brand new awesome feature is not for Windows users, since there isn’t an official updated build[1]; if you try an unofficial GIMP build then you can’t use the WIMP style or it will crash it; so you’re doomed to get the ugly default GTK look, or some shitty theme.
[1] there never were; now, even the ‘unofficial’ build linked on their site is even outdated
It’s not that everyone is forgetting that this brand new feature is not for Windows, it’s that nobody really cares.
“(blah-blah-blah).. it has no compelling features that make it worth using”
I guess you get your Photoshop via your torrent. Or the company sends it to you gratis.
Claptrapper.
Way to prove my point. When what you have sucks simply attack the opposition!
Way to prove my point. When what you have sucks simply attack the opposition!
But, but… GIMP is free! And other alternatives don’t exists!
ItsFreeYouCantComplain™ mixed with holier than thou™. F off already, GIMP is a steaming pile of shit, even its name sucks ass.
Uhh… it actually has no compelling features that make it worth using.
In home use scenarios GimP is too much of a clusterfuck to be worth considering and in professional arena its lack of capability would kill it, even if it would be othervise an ok tool, which it isn’t.
Speaking of home use cases, I haven’t tried it on Windows in a while, does it still go batshit with Wacom tablets, where it doesn’t do pressure sensing or tilt, and does weird things like bind tablet coordinates to the gimp window, rather than the screen, making it unusable unless you work in fullscreen which it doesn’t support either?
@ Kharkhalash
Wacom Tablets? That’s silly, you don’t need a tablet when you have one of these bbys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Macintosh_Plus_mouse.jpg
Wacom CintiQ 21UX Foreva!
@ ElectricPrism
Thanks for that, I LOL’ed.
Seriously, I’ve been using tablets for the past six, maybe seven years, and I can’t imagine ever going back to a mouse for graphics work.
I just wish there ere more feasible options other than Wacom. Trust tablets look good on paper, but their non-Windows support is shoddy and inconsistant at best, and I’m assured the larger models lag to hell and back, and I’ve read aweful things about VisTablet
But then again, I got Corel Painter (not essentials!) bundled with my old graphire, that alone was worth the premium.
@ Kharkhalash
It’s sad, but last I heard Wacom owned most of the patents on tablet technology. Corel Painter 12 is deffinately for the Pros, I know people that can’t stand Photoshop but once they touch Painter, they’re in love.
I’m planning on picking up a Cintiq, but at $2,000 a pop they’re sadly no alternative – especially for people with 15+ years experience in non-digital.
[...] Single Window Gimp! [...]
It’s pretty safe to say that a lot of our venom towards Gimp is the direct result of freetard reverence. If it weren’t pushed as a Photoshop-beater by the no-nothing FOSS crowd, we certainly wouldn’t be bothered with pointing out its many, many flaws. If a person wanted to do some graphic work that didn’t require Photoshop-level techniques, then yeh, it would be reasonable to recommend. Of course, other free alternatives such as paint.net would be on the list too. Personally, I find that I’m more productive with paint.net despite its smaller feature set compared to Gimp; this is because in paint.net I don’t waste so much time repositioning windows and waiting for the application to load.
On a side note, it’s amusing how the freetards always assume that nobody, ever, has paid for a copy of Photoshop.
“On a side note, it’s amusing how the freetards always assume that nobody, ever, has paid for a copy of Photoshop.”
I understand it as you refer to Photoshop professional offerings. Sure folks buy it, but as I wrote in some other comment outside of business use we’re talking about a quite tiny market.
Some supporters of GIMP exaggerate its capabilities. In some aspects this can be interpreted as a response to the other lie, that folks in general buy Photoshop professional offerings and know how to fully use it. Both opinions are just as bad. As you say, if GIMP would be judged without such unfair comparisons, it’s for many not professionals a quite good piece of software.
@D I think you are on the money.
I personally don’t have a problem with it for touching up some photos (mainly colour correction). The small amount of web graphics I use I normally just use imagemagick to crunch stuff from Paint.NET.
My needs are however totally different than a graphic designer … while GIMP “worksforme” … it won’t work for them …
@KimTjik
I’m divided as to how far I’d go with calling Gimp a “good” piece of software. In terms of features, it’s easily the most powerful free graphic application available. However, the poorly-designed interface makes usage awkward and time-consuming. I think it’s good for what you pay for it and it has the potential to be a lot better. But even beyond the incessant evangelism by ignorant fanboys, the program trips over itself a bit too much for me to recommend it without a bit of reservation.
On a side note, it’s amusing how the freetards always assume that nobody, ever, has paid for a copy of Photoshop.
Or wholesale ignore the existence of Elements, which is still exponentially better than GIMP and can be gotten on sale for around $40. Failing that, you can get old versions of the main product at heavy discounts.
Personally, I find that I’m more productive with paint.net despite its smaller feature set compared to Gimp
That’s because the interface is cleaner and the features which are present are complete for the most part. GIMP by comparison goes ankle deep in a thousand areas.
I’m divided as to how far I’d go with calling Gimp a “good” piece of software. In terms of features, it’s easily the most powerful free graphic application available
I’d disagree. Krita has supported 16-bit colour depth and CMYK for a long time. Corel PhotoPaint 9 for Linux is free (if you can find it) and quite some ways ahead of Gimp, despite being nearly 10 years old.
It doesn’t matter if Elements or older versions of PS sold for 99 cents. The freetard crowd flat-out refuse to pay anything for their software because that’s “unethical” or some such rubbish. They also hate closed-source, so that rules out Corel as well as as paint.net, even though paint.net is freeware.
Krita isn’t bad but it’s not quite a general-purpose graphic app like Gimp. Also unlike Gimp it doesn’t have a fairly large presence in Windows apart from the awfully-buggy KDE-for-Windows port. And yes; the vast majority of Gimp users are Windows users, don’t let the lusers tell you otherwise.
[Citation please]
I know that’s usually a snark come-back, but in this case it isn’t. Is that really true? Is the Gimp more Windows than Linux? That opens up a whole new world of weirdness.
As pointed out near the beginning of this post, the GiMP just doesn’t look right on Windows. (I assume it doesn’t look right on Mac OS, either, because I looked at the screenshot of Photoshop and thought … hmm … that’s pretty neat. I could use that.)
Leaving Linux to one side for a moment, is it really true that non-Professional people on Windows would pick the GiMP ahead of everything else?
(I mean, I use Irfan. So what would I know?)
actually its not far fetched at all. ive seen too many windows boxes with gimp installed. freetards use windows far more than what theyd care to admit and even non freetards have heard gimps praises and end up installing it. if u browse around for gimp tutorials youll quickly discover that most of them use the windows version as an example.
“(I mean, I use Irfan. So what would I know?)”
Come now Doctor, IrfanView, really?
See HoneyView (an excellent, simple and super fast viewer):
http://www.honeyview.org/
http://www.honeyview.org/download/HV3P-EN-20110207.zip
Or FastStone Image Viewer if you need the extra (management and editing) features:
http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm
http://www.faststonesoft.net/DN/FSViewer46.zip
What’s FastStone got over XnView?
A prettier (and better) UI.
I’m not downloading XnView just to check the features, but by reading through the list I saw nothing that Fast Stone doesn’t do.
(Xn possibly supports more formats, but I don’t care for things outside of .jpg and .png so…)
@KimTjik:
Sorry to bust the threading model, but: why on earth would anybody care about the “options” you have for a file system?
Do you want one that works with terabyte files? Do you want one that works bit by bit?
Or do you just join the human race in the third millennium, and accept the one that comes out of the box?
Unless, of course, that box would be a Linux distro. Haven’t checked recently, but ext4 was the default a few years back. Not a good choice.
When was the last time you heard anybody complaining that Windows, Mac OS, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or for that matter QNX and other specialised operating systems came fresh out of the box with a distinctly broken and dangerous file system?
Good grief.
Comparing GIMP to Photoshop is like comparing apples to oranges.
Actually, it’s more like comparing a tricycle to a Ferrari.
Good to see that the idiots are still around!
Hardly.
I like apples. Also, oranges.
Either one can be quite useful, in the right circumstances.
Man, glad to see a site where you can read ten comments at once without seeing “Nigger” everywhere. Or links to goatse.
Why if you guys, at LHB, yelled at the sockpuppets that keep soiling it, the problem wouldn’t exist.
It would also help if LH himself would moderate the extreme cretinisms, but we shouldn’t be too demanding, I guess.
Was goatse ever linked from LHB? Seems like the only thing that wasn’t
I’d like to see multi-threading or something similar in the commenting system on piestar so it’s easier to understand how comments relate since this page has a “Focus Subject” containing multiple Discussions.
Was goatse ever linked from LHB? Seems like the only thing that wasn’t
It was. Though, the trolls at LHB aren’t especially fond of it. There are more into meatspin.
My favourite LHB troll is the pornguy. This chap thinks some ordinary porn pics will shock internet-experienced people or something.
I think he is also the one who posts stories about porn stars, and how some of them “suck” now.
Well, at least porn-guy isn’t disgusting or offensive.
(Ok, ok, unless you find naked women to be disgustingly offensive, but people like that should be in an institution and not on the internet).
Right; so, Kerberos, where were you?
Has JoeMonco weighed in on this at all? I can’t form an opinion without help from JoeMonco.
looks like jerkface moved to http://www.techbroil.com
Two days passed and no one thanked JoeMonco for weighing in? The nerve.
I guess all I can say in my defence is that I simply haven’t gotten around to it yet.
I’m sure the same applies for all of the others…
Soon enough people will be coming here and thanking Joe for his help in droves.
Yeah fuck GIMP.
At least it can do GIF animations (not).
This blog is dead again
GIMP is SUCK, yes it is, but maybe it worth if you dont want to purchase 1000$ adobe photoshop than use it for only a week.
$1000? I’d like to see what store quoted you that price.
Let me break it down for you:
You can get the Photoshop CS5 Student Edition for $195:
http://www.google.com/#q=photoshop+student+edition&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=913&tbm=shop&fp=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&cad=b
Or you can get Photoshop Elements for $75:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbm=shop&source=hp&q=photoshop+elements&pbx=1&oq=photoshop+elements&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l0l3222l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=bef327d2ef576c94&biw=1280&bih=913
Most of us can grasp that some Open Source projects are awesome, others are complete failures and crap.
Even if your argument was valid, professional photographers spends $10,000 on their canvas printers, $10,000 on their camera and lenses, so they’d gladly pay the $600 for the FULL Version of Photoshop or just $200 for the upgrade from their previous version.
Maybe the owner has experienced a BSOD++…
Really Janne, you’re not the fastest tool in the shed (kitchen) eh?
We are all right here:
http://tmrepository.com
Or here if you prefer:
http://www.techbroil.com
Or, perhaps, here:
http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com