Very sad, but I am not really surprised.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Jan 11, 2011 6:29 PM EDT |
During an upgrade, I was recently forced to use GIMP as my image manipulation program instead of my old workhorse of Photoshop7. Since I was doing quite simple work, I managed to get it done with GIMP but I certainly didn't enjoy my visit and have returned to Photoshop7 with a sigh of relief. I was not aware of the either the defects in GIMP's software that this writer has pointed out or the tiny number of developers, but assuming the writer is correct, I am not surprised at the results. My brief "flirtation" with GIMP produced nothing but irritation to begin with: three floating windows and a menu that bears little or no resemblance to Photoshop in most areas. It wasn't a step from the known to a partially unknown, it was a leap from a stable situation to an almost unknown workplace with terminology, menu choices and methodology either dramatically different or subtly different. I found the floating windows immensely irritating. There is a GIMPshop plugin designed to make the menu system work more like a Photoshop interface: http://www.gimpshop.com/download.shtml This comes on a site that seems determined to get your email address no matter what you do to say "No!", and it supplies you with versions for Debian, Solaris, Mac and Windows, but no native rpm version (that I could see) for Fedora or openSUSE. I eventually gave it up in disgust and yes, I know there are translation software packages that can change .deb into .rpm, but after reading of the errors they can introduce, I gave that up as a poor alternative as well. I am of the belief that if the FOSS community really wants GIMP to survive, then considerably more resources than this writer suggests is the case need to be put into GIMP development. The journal "Linux Format" runs extensive tutorials for GIMP which to me seems to suggest either that there is an active and "largish" user base, or (cynically) that there are journal writers trying to promote GIMP usage, but given my experience, I have no desire to "go there" and trial the tutorials. I'd like to see three things: 1. A single window display. That's apparently coming this year, ......but with two developers ? Could be a struggle. 2. A native menu system for GIMP that makes it a little easier for a Photoshop user to find their way around. 3. Replace the horrible acronym of GIMP with a word that means something relevant to what the software does by itself, not an acronym that needs to be interpreted. I don't care what GIMP fanatics say, the present acronym is a "put-off", not a "come-hither" beckon. And then perhaps we can get on with: 4. Update the software to improve its image manipulation quality. But it all depends on resources, developers and community needs, doesn't it ? Perhaps GIMP is now at the stage of "withering on the vine" ? |
| tracyanne Jan 11, 2011 8:55 PM EDT |
I've just had a look at cinepaint, it seems to have the features that GIMP lacks, unfortunately the bit you most dislike most about GIMP also applies to cinepaint. |
| tmx Jan 11, 2011 10:13 PM EDT |
I don't think GiMP goal is to clone Photoshop, in your situation its either love it or leave it. GiMP 2.7 Handy Tweaks To Make GIMP Replace Photoshop http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=make+gimp+like+photoshop |
| Ridcully Jan 11, 2011 10:54 PM EDT |
@tmx......I am sure you have gathered I didn't like GIMP and thankfully left it behind when I had the option of returning to Photoshop. I really don't think GIMP should clone Photoshop, but it should have an interface which would keep a Photoshop user comfortable and readily able to find their way around. Currently, I do not believe it has. As I keep on saying (whenever I get the chance), a major problem with at least some FOSS software development is that the developers too often present the user base with an interface that bears little resemblance to what they have been used to. My concept of an excellent example is OpenOffice/LibreOffice: you can transfer from Word with little worry. Certainly the structures of the two are different, but the interface is such that you are quickly at home in half an hour and then it is always: read the (insert word of choice) manual. My concept of a very poor example is KDE4 and the transition from KDE3.5. It broke the rule of keeping a similar interface and administration section and has been paying for it ever since. Nevertheless, the statements you frequently read on websites or in journals indicate that for many purposes, GIMP can replace Photoshop. Now, who are these statements being aimed at ? It cannot be the GIMP user base because they are already happy with the software...If it is Photoshop users, then my experience suggests that in its current form, GIMP will not be a satisfactory alternative for them. |
| dinotrac Jan 11, 2011 11:23 PM EDT |
@ta: Cinepaint is getting pretty musty these days. |
| tracyanne Jan 12, 2011 12:21 AM EDT |
I was only looking at to see. |
| helios Jan 12, 2011 8:08 AM EDT |
I found the comments to be the same flame-fest as found in kde vs gnome, etc. This one seemed to cross the bar of civil discourse though. You may have to paste the url in...LXer doesn't seem to want to display the entire address as such. http://troy-sobotka.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-gimp-is-inadequ... #c3309794454695566351 |
| jimbauwens Jan 12, 2011 8:14 AM EDT |
@helios: I reported this issue (and some other) to Bob, so it probably will be fixed soon |
| hkwint Jan 12, 2011 12:52 PM EDT |
What else did we expect of PP... Sad we can't block content of users "across internet". |
| bob Jan 12, 2011 3:35 PM EDT |
Helios, very long url's cause problems with formatting in many browsers and therefore we shorten the visible part. In the past we shortened urls with something like HYPERLINK@blogspot.com, now we just shorten the url itself. The complete url is still present, just not displayed. If you want to copy a shortened url to the clipboard (from Firefox for example) you would right click on the url and select "Copy Link Location". This will place the complete url in your paste buffer not only the visible part. Shortened url's are, of course, directly clickable, |
| skelband Jan 12, 2011 9:23 PM EDT |
I use GIMP quite a bit and I find the floating tool window incredibly annoying.
The simplest use case is that you maximise an edited image and the floating window obscures a large portion of it.
I do find the menu structure lacking in structure in the same way that the Blender authors found with 2.49 Blender which led them to develop 2.5 which although I find it difficult to get to grips with it is mainly out of unfamiliarity. GIMP is a powerful tool and it has a lot of promise but the UI needs a serious makeover. The comparison with Photoshop is not particularly helpful but graphic designers do have particular workflows and ways of working and GIMP does not really help with this. |
| tracyanne Jan 12, 2011 10:19 PM EDT |
Quoting:I use GIMP quite a bit and I find the floating tool window incredibly annoying. The simplest use case is that you maximise an edited image and the floating window obscures a large portion of it. I scroll the tool window up so that only its top decoration (the title bar) is visible, then park it over the top of the image window and only scroll it back down when I need it. In fact I do that with all the utility windows. |
| jdixon Jan 12, 2011 11:00 PM EDT |
>...right click on the url and select "Copy Link Location". That doesn't seem to work in this case, Bob. The #c3309794454695566351 is apparently part of the URL, and isn't included when you copy the link location. Appending it onto the end of the copied URL takes you to the right comment. |
| Ridcully Jan 12, 2011 11:10 PM EDT |
@ skelband: We tend to compare things with what we already know and each of us has personal likes and dislikes. Since my previous experience is with Photoshop starting with Pshop4 and then upgrading to Pshop7, then that has to be the software that I will use for comparison purposes. I accept it may not seem helpful to you skelband, but it very definitely is helpful to me. As I inferred above, I don't expect to be able to walk right in to a different piece of software and find it is identical to the one I have left behind.....BUT, it would definitely help enormously if its interface and menu system had some vague resemblance so that a Photoshop user had a "base on which to start". I like your very constructive comment on GIMP workflows, although it's an area about which I know little. Conversely, I'd debate your "comparison with Photoshop is not particularly helpful" comment by noting that the Photoshop software structure/package is widely accepted and used by professionals. To be perfectly honest, if I was a GIMP developer, I would find it impossible *not* to compare GIMP with Photoshop if I was trying to get the GIMP structures improved. Would not understanding how Photoshop finds such wide professional acceptance be helpful ? |
| lcafiero Jan 13, 2011 12:59 AM EDT |
I read this article and its following comments with some degree of interest. It should be noted that when the newspaper for which I work ran into a Photoshop license problem (i.e., not enough licenses for all the editors to use Photoshop to process photos to put on pages), I downloaded GIMP and used it to process photos for the newspaper, which I did without a hitch. But I think the premise of the article -- GIMP doesn't have the proverbial horsepower to be used by professional photographers and graphics people -- is fairly obvious and widely known. For GIMP to reach the level of Photoshop -- maintained by an army of programmers paid by Adobe -- would be a herculean task that would not be achieved without years of persistence and work. That shouldn't come a surprise to anyone and, to be honest, the by-line on this article should have read "By Captain Obvious." There's a simple analogy at work: If you're a professional driver qualifying for the Indianapolis 500, you're going to need more than a '69 Dodge Dart to accomplish your task. Hence, I certainly don't blame professional photographers for shelling out the money for Adobe Photoshop because it's the tool they need to do their job. However, we're not all professional photographers. Also, I don't need a single-seater racing car to do my errands and to get me to work and back. All of which is to say that any comparison between Photoshop and GIMP are patently unfair. [Also, this is not to say that GIMP fails in any way, as I've used it in the newspaper industry and it worked for me. It wasn't the same as Photoshop and, fortunately for me, I was familiar with it, though I think if someone unfamiliar with GIMP was doing the same thing, it might have been a different story. Nor am I disparaging GIMP in comparing it to a '69 Dart, which is the best car I've ever owned, as boring and utilitarian as the car might be.] |
| Ridcully Jan 13, 2011 1:49 AM EDT |
Thanks Icafiero. Your post is an eye-opener for me and I am delighted to see that the GIMP package can perform under the commercial conditions you mention. It's a pretty big "well done" for GIMP and definitely deserved. You were fortunate in that you were already familiar with GIMP, I wasn't. You are absolutely correct, in my opinion, when you say that a comparison of Photoshop and GIMP is patently unfair, if by that you mean a comparison of the image processing abilities of the two packages given the scope and development that each has been given by the huge Adobe organisation on the one hand and the much smaller GIMP community on the other. Can't argue with that. However, in case I haven't explained it properly, I maintain that a comparison of "how" the two packages work at the screen interface during user operation would be extremely useful and definitely not unfair in any way. The interface comparison was the theme of my first posting on this thread and expanded in the second. I still haven't changed that stance and I don't think it is unfair in any way. Had you not had previous GIMP experience and a "Photoshop-similar-interface" existed for GIMP when you needed it, your experience would have been relatively smooth and not the bumpy ride I experienced. PS........and in case I hadn't said so, I was more than satisfied with the work GIMP did when I had to use it. No problems at all and the results were excellent.....simply the problems of a highly different and unfamiliar interface. |
| lcafiero Jan 13, 2011 12:43 PM EDT |
Ridcully -- I got that, and I try to include in my prayers every night before bed for the Almighty to provide GIMP (and other FOSS programs) with an army of dedicated programmers and please, dear Lord, a single window for GIMP . . . and hurry. I think I'll blog about it, he says, as Larry the Free Software Guy sharpens his No. 2 pencil . . . . |
| dinotrac Jan 13, 2011 12:45 PM EDT |
WRT "unfair": By the same token, it is ,umm, not very wise of free software folks to hold up GIMP as an alternative to Photoshop, except for the case when somebody is swatting flies with artilery. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 18, 2011 4:55 PM EDT |
Larry, I'm an occasional user of the GIMP, but since I mostly work in online (and in the dreaded Unisys print system some of the time), preserving the IPTC metadata in JPGs is fairly important, and the GIMP fails in this regard (as do most FOSS image editors, including Krita). DigiKam is pretty good at manipulating this data, but for me gThumb does it better. I do 99.9 percent of what I need for web photos with gThumb, and it has excellent IPTC support at this point. The one little feature I miss is sharpening. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!